jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Login with userid that contains windows domain
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2014 20:15:12 GMT

Am 09.04.2014 um 19:31 schrieb Tobias Bocanegra <tripod@apache.org>:

> oh another use case: login with case-insensitive user id.
> 
> this is similar in that respect, that the 'id' in the credentials used
> to login, is not (or must not be) identical to the userid of the
> resolved authorizable.
> but the question is, where would this be configured? on all login modules?

This is also LoginModule specific IMHO

Regards
Felix


> 
> regards, toby
> 
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Am 09.04.2014 um 09:09 schrieb Tobias Bocanegra <tripod@apache.org>:
>> 
>>>>> we could solve this transparently for all login modules that extend
>>>>> from AbstractLoginModule with a general processCredentials() method
>>>>> that extracts the userid and/or domain specifier. but I would favor a
>>>>> more general credentials -> userid mapping. for example to support
the
>>>>> use case to login with an email address but having a different userid.
>>>> 
>>>> So you propose special casing for the windows domain mechanism. What if users
login with an absolute LDAP/X.500 DN ? Would you extend the special casing to support extracting
the CN ? What if the CN is not the actual user ID ?
>>> 
>>> well, I think then the authenticator should use different credentials.
>> 
>> If the user provides user name and password ? Absolutely not. If the user is presenting
user name, password and some 3rd party OTP or such, absolutely.
>> 
>> Interpreting the provided user name ? Probably not. That's not the business of the
authentication handler, since to the handler the user name is an opaque string of characters.
>> 
>>> however, mapping the DN to as userid would be job of the login module.
>>> i.e. provide the userid for session.getUserId() and populate the
>>> subject with the correct principals.
>> 
>> As is mapping the domain/user name to a userid. Same game.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> The whole point of having LoginModule is to have this transparent and extensible.
You don't want to code special cases in a common abstract base class again.
>>> 
>>> yes, but we (currently) have 3 login modules: default, token, external
>>> (and adobe granite has SSO).
>>> all of them would need to handle the windows domain (well, maybe not
>>> the token lm).
>> 
>> Probably not. I would think LoginModules can or cannot handle. If one module cannot
handle, it cannot authenticate. Depending on how the module is configured into the system
(required or sufficient), login may succeed or not.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Felix
>> 
>>> 
>>> regards, toby
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Felix
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> regards, toby
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just my $.02.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 08.04.2014 um 09:15 schrieb Angela Schreiber <anchela@adobe.com>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> hoi
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> variant 2 only works if you just have a single IdentityProvider
>>>>>>> configured with your external login module, right?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> based on how we deal with these situations otherwise in Oak and
in
>>>>>>> particular in the security area, i would feel more comfortable
if we
>>>>>>> at some point had the ability to support multiple IdentityProvider
>>>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>>> in particular since the external login module is no longer specific
>>>>>>> for a particular backend but very generic and just uses the configured
>>>>>>> IdentityProvider to perform the JAAS login.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> IMO are different ways on how to achieve this: if we thing of
having
>>>>>>> 2 identity provider implementations we could either have 2 entries
in
>>>>>>> the JAAS config listing the ExternalLoginModule with different
>>>>>>> configuration (i.e. IdentityProvider implementation) or we had
1 single
>>>>>>> entry but a composing IdentityProvider that manages both identity
>>>>>>> providers.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> for either possibility the domain information would be needed
in the
>>>>>>> login module and i see the following possibility to get this:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A. define an attribute on the SimpleCredentials that contains
the domain.
>>>>>>> B. define a dedicated Credentials interface extending from
>>>>>>> SimpleCredentials
>>>>>>> which specifically allows to obtain the domain information.
>>>>>>> C. the domain is part of the userId exposed by SimpleCredentials
and
>>>>>>> extracted during the login call only (this is your variant 1).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> from my point of view 1/C looks a quite troublesome as it requires
to
>>>>>>> add some magic to the userId, which is properly understood and
handled
>>>>>>> by a single login module only (assuming that we would not want
the
>>>>>>> domain to be stored as part of the userID of the synchronized
user).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A/B would be compatible with your proposal 2 below without loosing
the
>>>>>>> domain information... i have slight preference for B as it would
allow
>>>>>>> to separate the domain information from other credentials attributes.
>>>>>>> since the ExternalLoginModule could handle both SimpleCredentials
>>>>>>> without domain information attribute as you suggested) and the
>>>>>>> new domain-SimpleCredentials, we can easily enhance the
>>>>>>> SSOAuthenticationHandler
>>>>>>> and ExternalLoginModule after 1.0 to fully support different
>>>>>>> domains/IdentityProviders
>>>>>>> during repository login.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> would that make sense to you?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> kind regards
>>>>>>> angela
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 07/04/14 20:26, "Tobias Bocanegra" <tripod@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have an issue where the user tries to login using credentials
that
>>>>>>>> include a windows domain in the userid attribute. for example:
>>>>>>>> "MYDOMAIN\toby".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which layer should handle the domain part correctly,
and
>>>>>>>> I think it really depends on the setup. also, I'm not an
AD expert and
>>>>>>>> I don't know how the domain part would be used (selecting
a "forest"
>>>>>>>> in the AD server? or selecting a different AD server?).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> the problem especially comes up in SSO situations, where
the
>>>>>>>> LOGON_USER is passed over to a web application (e.g. sling)
that then
>>>>>>>> uses the repository.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I can imagine the following scenarios:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> a) domain is constant/does not apply/or is a leftover from
the SSO. so
>>>>>>>> the repository does not (and never will) know about domains.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> b) domain is part of the userid, i.e. effectively selects
a different
>>>>>>>> user, but the same AD is used for all external accounts
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> c) domain is part of the userid, but the domain also selects
different
>>>>>>>> ADs.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Right now, the external login module does not handle the
domain
>>>>>>>> specifier specifically, so would behave like (b) - although
I think
>>>>>>>> that the user would not be found on the AD via LDAP the way
it is
>>>>>>>> currently built.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Also, for a simple SSO setup, where the authentication module
of the
>>>>>>>> web app retrieves the LOGON_USER, I think the domain should
be
>>>>>>>> stripped there and not being included in the jcr credentials.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> so this basically boils down to the question:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 1) should we implement special handling for windows domain
specifiers
>>>>>>>> in the login modules?
>>>>>>>> 2) should we ignore windows domain and delegate this work
to the JCR
>>>>>>>> client? (e.g. the sling authentication handler should strip
off the
>>>>>>>> domain when building the jcr credentials)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think as long as the domain is not part of the user
>>>>>>>> selection/authentication, we should do 2).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>> Regards, Toby
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message