cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Using WS-Security UsernameToken to authenticate users and populate SecurityContexts
Date Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:46:18 GMT
Hi

I've added an initial patch for addressing a policy-first case, see [1].
It's a patch because it depends on another one I submitted to WSS4J [2].
Both patches need more work (tests, etc) but I'd just like to initiate a
discussion/review.

The idea behind [1] is quite similar to the one used in supporting a
java-first case, where a custom interceptor extends an
AbstractWSS4JSecurityContextPr
oviding interceptor. But is is much simpler in [1] where
UsernameTokenProcessor may be optionally extended and its createSubject
method be overridden. Provided [2] gets applied then a subclass will just
have a property set disabling the (WSS4J) validation of passwords and will
do its own validation in createSubject method.

This is really all what will be needed in simple cases, where a
DefaultSecurityContext will do, but optionally, createSecurityContext  can
be overridden too.

A user would need to set a bus property
"org.apache.cxf.ws.security.usernametoken.interceptor" referincing a custom
interceptor which will indicate to the WSSecurityPolicyLoader that a custom
UsernameTokenProcessor subclass will need to be loaded.

Similar approach can be employed for handling other types of tokens.

cheers, Sergey

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2754
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WSS-229


On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>wrote:

> Just realized I did not CC tp dev when replying to Dan the other day :
>
> Hi Dan
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> My main "concern" with the implementation of this is that it's done as a
>> direct subclass of the WSS4JInInterceptor and thus not really usable by
>> the
>> policy based endpoints as those interceptors subclass WSS4JInInterceptor
>> as
>> well.
>>
>> I think the better approach may be to add a flag to wss4j (I can help
>> commit
>> changes there if needed) to have it not do any UserName token processing
>> at
>> all.   (aside:  this may be doable without changes to wss4j by registering
>> our
>> own "do nothing processor")    Then, have another interceptor that runs
>> after
>> the WSS4JInInterceptor that would actually handle the UsernameToken and
>> verify
>> anything it needs and such.
>>
>
> This sounds like a very good idea, I agree the proposed approach won't do
> for the cases where policies drive the
> creation of interceptors.
>
> Having said that, I think the abstract utility interceptor extending
> WSS4JInInterceptor
> may still be used in cases where users start from manually configuring
> jaxws endpoints. In these cases they'd need to
> list up to 3 interceptors (the one which extends
> AbstractWSS4JSecuriyContextInterceptor, the authorizing interceptor if the
> authorization is needed plus may be a SAAJ one) but otherwise, when say a
> clear text password has been encrypted, they'd still need to specify
> WSS4JInInterceptor (with a flag disabling UsernameToken checks) plus
> UsernameTokenInterceptor, etc.
>
> At the moment AbstractWSS4JSecuriyContextInterceptor is a bit complicated
> due to the fact it blocks the WSS4J digest checks and thus also creates a
> security engine per every request, but it all will be gone in due time...
>
>
>>
>> To be honest, I WANT to do this for the Policy based stuff anyway.   There
>> is
>> currently some duplicated code between the PolicyBasedWSS4JIinInterceptor
>> and
>> the new UsernameTokenInterceptor that could be eliminated by having the
>> PolicyBasedWSS4JIinInterceptor not do UsernameTokens at all and delegate
>> that
>> completely to the UsernameTokenInterceptor.
>>
>
> What I will do is I will experiment with the test you added (thanks :-))
> and see how UsernameTokenInterceptor can be refactored
> so that a subclass can get an easy access to password, nonce, etc. I think
> I will need to come up with a contextual property so that a custom
> UsernameTokenInterceptor can be installed if needed. Or may be
> UsernameTokenInterceptor can store the details in a message to be later
> retrieved and processed for creating SecurityContext - but I'm not sure
> about it just yet.
>
>
>>
>> Basically, it would be good if the WSS4JIn* stuff just handled the
>> encryption/signature stuff and then let the authorization validations
>> stuff to
>> later interceptors.   That would include things like key validation
>> checking
>> and stuff as well.  Probably SAML token validation as well.
>>
>>
> sounds good
>
> cheers, Sergey
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> My main "concern" with the implementation of this is that it's done as a
>> direct subclass of the WSS4JInInterceptor and thus not really usable by
>> the
>> policy based endpoints as those interceptors subclass WSS4JInInterceptor
>> as
>> well.
>>
>> I think the better approach may be to add a flag to wss4j (I can help
>> commit
>> changes there if needed) to have it not do any UserName token processing
>> at
>> all.   (aside:  this may be doable without changes to wss4j by registering
>> our
>> own "do nothing processor")    Then, have another interceptor that runs
>> after
>> the WSS4JInInterceptor that would actually handle the UsernameToken and
>> verify
>> anything it needs and such.
>>
>> To be honest, I WANT to do this for the Policy based stuff anyway.   There
>> is
>> currently some duplicated code between the PolicyBasedWSS4JIinInterceptor
>> and
>> the new UsernameTokenInterceptor that could be eliminated by having the
>> PolicyBasedWSS4JIinInterceptor not do UsernameTokens at all and delegate
>> that
>> completely to the UsernameTokenInterceptor.
>>
>> Basically, it would be good if the WSS4JIn* stuff just handled the
>> encryption/signature stuff and then let the authorization validations
>> stuff to
>> later interceptors.   That would include things like key validation
>> checking
>> and stuff as well.  Probably SAML token validation as well.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 08 April 2010 12:09:24 pm Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>> > Hi David
>> >
>> > thanks for the comments...
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:41 PM, David Valeri <dvaleri@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > Sergey,
>> > >
>> > > I think this type of functionality would be very useful to a number of
>> > > folks.  I have built two similar capabilities for clients very
>> recently
>> > > using CXF and Spring Security.  Based on the code provided below, I
>> have
>> > > several points that I would like to see addressed in a solution.
>> > >
>> > > 1) Architecture to support more than just UsernameTokens.  I have
>> worked
>> > > with systems that need to authenticate a user using UsernameTokens,
>> > > BinarySecurityTokens, SAML Assertions, and a combination of more than
>> one
>> > > of
>> > > these at a time.
>> >
>> > Supporting UsernameTokens is the initial requirement. At the moment I do
>> > not even know how BinarySecurityTokens or SAML Assertions are
>> > processed/validated in CXF or WSS4J.
>> >
>> > > For the most part, WSS4J simply validates the structural
>> > > details of security.  That is, signature validity, trust chaining of
>> > > digital
>> > > certificates, etc.  As Glen pointed out with his reference to
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WSS-183, WSS4J sometimes
>> performs
>> > > its
>> > > own password checking (authentication).  Unfortunately, WSS4J doesn't
>> > > provide hooks for authenticating other forms of credentials that I
>> have
>> > > listed above (I don't consider trust to be equivalent to
>> authentication).
>> > > It would be best if the authentication interface supported multiple
>> > > credential types and allowed for authentication to be performed in a
>> > > single location in the same manner every time (not sometimes in the
>> > > WSS4J callback and sometimes in another interceptor for non-UT based
>> > > credentials).
>> >
>> > Makes sense. Assuming it is WSS4J which validates (the structure of)
>> > BinarySecurityTokens then
>>  AbstractWSS4JSecurityContextProvidingInterceptor
>> > can also implement a processor for BinarySecurityTokens and delegate to
>> > subclass to authenticate and setup a subject. Some extra methods will
>> need
>> > to be added, to be optionally overridden.
>> >
>> > If it is not only WSS4J which is involved then perhaps another option is
>> to
>> > store (from WSS4J callback handler, etc) relevant details such username
>> > token details, etc to be acted upon by other interceptors.
>> >
>> > > That
>> > > last bit there means disabling WSS4J's password authentication since
>> it
>> > > gets
>> > > in the way of doing it later in our own interceptor.
>> >
>> > AbstractWSS4JSecurityContextProvidingInterceptor does it now by
>> > implementing a simplified UsernameTokenProcessor
>> >
>> > > 2) Allow for end-user flexibility in choosing the credentials they
>> want
>> > > to authenticate.  For instance, each user is going to have their own
>> > > security profiles and authentication requirements.  For instance, a
>> > > message contains a UT for a portal user and a digital signature from
>> the
>> > > portal (I know using
>> > > a SAML Assertion would be better here, but people still do it this
>> way).
>> > > Each organization will have different requirements as to which
>> > > credentials get authenticated and what needs to end up in the security
>> > > context.
>> >
>> > I suppose AbstractWSS4JSecurityContextProvidingInterceptor subclasses
>> > should be able to do it, for username tokens and other tokens later on.
>> >
>> > > 3) Decouple the authentication interface from WSS4J.  What is passed
>> in
>> > > needs to be abstracted enough that it can work with other WS-Security
>> > > libraries as well.
>> >
>> > the only WSS4J class which is leaked at the moment is
>> WSSecurityException.
>> > Perhaps we can come up later on with a different more generic approach
>> > which does not depend on WSS4J at all. As Dan indicated, in some cases
>> > WSS4JInInterceptor is not even used, so that case will need to be
>> > addressed. Experimenting wuth binary tokens might help with identifying
>> > another solution.
>> >
>> > > 4) It would be nice to be able to perform authorization using
>> something
>> > > like
>> > > Spring Security at the service operation level.  With a POJO or JAX-WS
>> > > based
>> > > service, one can just use Spring Security's method interceptor to
>> provide
>> > > such security; however, in situations where one only has a WSDL based
>> > > service or a provider style service, a method interceptor can't be
>> used.
>> > >
>> > >  It
>> > >
>> > > would be nice to provide a hook into Spring Security to allow
>> end-users
>> > > to specify role based authorization policy based on a combination of
>> > > interface,
>> > > instance, and operation names.  It seems like your
>> > > AbstractAuthorizingInterceptor and SimpleAuthorizingInterceptor are
>> > > looking in this direction, but I think it would be best if we can
>> stand
>> > > on the shoulders of the Spring Security giant as much as possible so
>> > > that we can take advantage of their rich authorization manager, voter,
>> > > XML
>> > > configuration
>> > > capabilities.
>> >
>> > Not sure what to say here yet. But I think non-Spring users should be
>> taken
>> > care of too. Or when simpler cases are dealt with then perhaps there's
>> no
>> > need to bring in Spring security. Perhaps the utility authorization
>> > interceptors should just not be used when Spring Security is preferred ?
>> >
>> > > 5) Try not to leave the ServiceMix CXF-BC out in the cold.  The CXF-BC
>> > > currently has a limited capability to select the credentials to
>> > > authenticate
>> > > and would benefit from 1 and 2 above.  The CXF-BC ultimately delegates
>> > > authentication to the JBI container through a ServiceMix components
>> > > authentication service abstraction of JAAS.  Whatever solution we have
>> > > for 1
>> > > and 2 would help out the component if the ServiceMix authentication
>> > > service abstraction could be wired up in lieu of whatever we provide
>> out
>> > > of the box.
>> >
>> > I'm not planning to contribute to ServiceMix. I agree though that an
>> ideal
>> > solution will meet multiple requirements
>> >
>> > thanks, Sergey
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin@gmail.com]
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:11 AM
>> > > To: dev@cxf.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Using WS-Security UsernameToken to authenticate users and
>> > > populate SecurityContexts
>> > >
>> > > Hi
>> > >
>> > > I've been looking recently at extending the CXF WS-Security component
>> > > such that a current UsernameToken could be used by custom interceptors
>> > > to authenticate a user with the external security systems and, if
>> > > possible, provide enough information for CXF to populate a
>> > > SecurityContext [1] to be used later on for
>> > > authorization decisions.
>> > >
>> > > Here is the approach I've taken so far.
>> > > A custom interceptor extends
>> > > AbstractWSS4JSecurityContextProvidingInterceptor [2] and the only
>> method
>> > > it overrides is
>> > >
>> > > abstract Subject createSubject(String name, String password, boolean
>> > > isDigest,
>> > >
>> > >                                    String nonce,
>> > >                                    String created) throws
>> > >
>> > > WSSecurityException;
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > For example, see [3].
>> > >
>> > > The idea here is that a custom interceptor interfaces whichever way it
>> > > needs
>> > > to with the external system and populates a Subject following this
>> simple
>> > > rule : first Subject principal is the current user (identified by a
>> > > 'name' argument), followed by one or more Groups this user is a member
>> > > of. AbstractWSS4JSecurityContextProvidingInterceptor will use this
>> > > Subject to provide a functional SecurityContext instance.
>> > >
>> > > This is the first part, next is how to utilize a SecurityContext and
>> get
>> > > the
>> > > expected roles associated one way or the other with a current method
>> to
>> > > be invoked. There's a number of usual options available here, perhaps
>> > > even SpringSecurity can be used now that SecurityContext is available,
>> > > or application code or other custom CXF interceptor can check the
>> known
>> > > roles against SecurityContext.
>> > >
>> > > I've also added AbstractAuthorizingInInterceptor interceptor which
>> custom
>> > > interceptors can override and return a list of expected roles given a
>> > > (service) Method to be invoked upon, AbstractAuthorizingInInterceptor
>> > > will then ask available SecurityContext to match the roles; one
>> concrete
>> > > implementation is SimpleAuthorizingInterceptor[5], it can be injected
>> > > with a
>> > > method specific or class (applying to all methods) roles. Another
>> > > implementation which I will likely add later on will be injected with
>> a
>> > > name
>> > > of annotation such as RolesAlloved and it will introspect a method and
>> > > its class.
>> > >
>> > > Note that I haven't looked into the case when a policy runtimes adds
>> the
>> > > interceptors yet (as opposed to interceptors being configured form
>> > > Spring/programmatically). I think an optional contextual property will
>> > > need to be setup in such cases for users be able to indicate that say
>> an
>> > > interceptor such as [3] has to be used as opposed to
>> WSS4JInInterceptor,
>> > > etc.
>> > >
>> > > I'm going to validate this approach with JBoss CXF. If you have any
>> > > comments
>> > > then please let me know.
>> > >
>> > > I think we may have a simpler alternative eventually to the way
>> > > authorization decisions are made. [1]-[3] is specific to ws-security,
>> but
>> > > [4]-[5] is not
>> > >
>> > > cheers, Sergey
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2754
>> > > [2]
>> > >
>> > >
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/ws/security/src/main/java/or
>> > > g/a
>> > >
>> > >
>> pache/cxf/ws/security/wss4j/AbstractWSS4JSecurityContextProvidingIntercep
>> > > tor<
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/ws/security/src/main/jav
>> > >
>> a/org/a%0Apache/cxf/ws/security/wss4j/AbstractWSS4JSecurityContextProvidi
>> > > ngInterceptor> .java
>> > > [3]
>> > >
>> > >
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/ws/security/src/test/java/or
>> > > g/a
>> > >
>> pache/cxf/ws/security/wss4j/SimpleSubjectCreatingInterceptor.java<http:/
>> > > /
>> svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/ws/security/src/test/java/org/a%0A
>> > > pache/cxf/ws/security/wss4j/SimpleSubjectCreatingInterceptor.java> [4]
>> > >
>> > >
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/core/src/main/java/org/apach
>> > > e/c
>> > > xf/interceptor/security/AbstractAuthorizingInInterceptor.java<
>> http://svn
>> > > .
>> apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/core/src/main/java/org/apache/c%0Axf/i
>> > > nterceptor/security/AbstractAuthorizingInInterceptor.java> [5]
>> > >
>> > >
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/core/src/main/java/org/apach
>> > > e/c
>> > > xf/interceptor/security/SimpleAuthorizingInterceptor.java<
>> http://svn.apa
>> > >
>> che.org/repos/asf/cxf/trunk/rt/core/src/main/java/org/apache/c%0Axf/inter
>> > > ceptor/security/SimpleAuthorizingInterceptor.java>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org
>> http://dankulp.com/blog
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message