R – Authentication system for ASP.NET web applications

asp.netauthenticationauthorization

I have some question:

How to make a role based web application? Such as in forum sites, there is many user types, admin, moderator etc… is the roles of these user types stored in database or web.config? And when a user login to our site, how to control this users roles? In short I want to learn about authorization and authentication.

Thanks..

Best Answer

@Mavera:

Basicly, its the concept of having your own users table in your own database, where you can manage permissions and store login information (Properly hashed of course). In the case of a multi-level permission scheme, I usually use two or more tables, for example:

TblUsers:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| UserID (PK) | UserName | HashedPassword | PermissionLevel (FK)|
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|     1       | BobTables| adfafs2312     |         2           |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

TblPermissions
-------------------------------------
|  PermissionID (PK) | Description   |
--------------------------------------
|         1          |     User      |
|         2          |   SuperUser   |
|         3          |     Admin     |
--------------------------------------

You can add 3rd table that contains a One-To-Many relationship between TblPermissions that exposes the actual abilities the user may be allowed to do.

Querying a user would be as simple as:

SELECT TblUser.Username, TblPermissions.Description 
    FROM TblUsers, TblPermissions 
    WHERE TblUser.UserID = @UserID 
    AND TblUser.PermissionLevel = TblPermission.PermissionID;

Create a custom class to encapsulate that information, and store it in ASP.NET session when they are logged in.

Related Solutions

RESTful Authentication

How to handle authentication in a RESTful Client-Server architecture is a matter of debate.

Commonly, it can be achieved, in the SOA over HTTP world via:

HTTP basic auth over HTTPS;
Cookies and session management;
Token in HTTP headers (e.g. OAuth 2.0 + JWT);
Query Authentication with additional signature parameters.

You'll have to adapt, or even better mix those techniques, to match your software architecture at best.

Each authentication scheme has its own PROs and CONs, depending on the purpose of your security policy and software architecture.

HTTP basic auth over HTTPS

This first solution, based on the standard HTTPS protocol, is used by most web services.

GET /spec.html HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org
Authorization: Basic QWxhZGRpbjpvcGVuIHNlc2FtZQ==

It's easy to implement, available by default on all browsers, but has some known drawbacks, like the awful authentication window displayed on the Browser, which will persist (there is no LogOut-like feature here), some server-side additional CPU consumption, and the fact that the user-name and password are transmitted (over HTTPS) into the Server (it should be more secure to let the password stay only on the client side, during keyboard entry, and be stored as secure hash on the Server).

We may use Digest Authentication, but it requires also HTTPS, since it is vulnerable to MiM or Replay attacks, and is specific to HTTP.

Session via Cookies

To be honest, a session managed on the Server is not truly Stateless.

One possibility could be to maintain all data within the cookie content. And, by design, the cookie is handled on the Server side (Client, in fact, does even not try to interpret this cookie data: it just hands it back to the server on each successive request). But this cookie data is application state data, so the client should manage it, not the server, in a pure Stateless world.

GET /spec.html HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.org
Cookie: theme=light; sessionToken=abc123

The cookie technique itself is HTTP-linked, so it's not truly RESTful, which should be protocol-independent, IMHO. It is vulnerable to MiM or Replay attacks.

Granted via Token (OAuth2)

An alternative is to put a token within the HTTP headers so that the request is authenticated. This is what OAuth 2.0 does, for instance. See the RFC 6749:

 GET /resource/1 HTTP/1.1
 Host: example.com
 Authorization: Bearer mF_9.B5f-4.1JqM

In short, this is very similar to a cookie and suffers to the same issues: not stateless, relying on HTTP transmission details, and subject to a lot of security weaknesses - including MiM and Replay - so is to be used only over HTTPS. Typically, a JWT is used as a token.

Query Authentication

Query Authentication consists in signing each RESTful request via some additional parameters on the URI. See this reference article.

It was defined as such in this article:

All REST queries must be authenticated by signing the query parameters sorted in lower-case, alphabetical order using the private credential as the signing token. Signing should occur before URL encoding the query string.

This technique is perhaps the more compatible with a Stateless architecture, and can also be implemented with a light session management (using in-memory sessions instead of DB persistence).

For instance, here is a generic URI sample from the link above:

GET /object?apiKey=Qwerty2010

should be transmitted as such:

GET /object?timestamp=1261496500&apiKey=Qwerty2010&signature=abcdef0123456789

The string being signed is /object?apikey=Qwerty2010&timestamp=1261496500 and the signature is the SHA256 hash of that string using the private component of the API key.

Server-side data caching can be always available. For instance, in our framework, we cache the responses at the SQL level, not at the URI level. So adding this extra parameter doesn't break the cache mechanism.

See this article for some details about RESTful authentication in our client-server ORM/SOA/MVC framework, based on JSON and REST. Since we allow communication not only over HTTP/1.1, but also named pipes or GDI messages (locally), we tried to implement a truly RESTful authentication pattern, and not rely on HTTP specificity (like header or cookies).

Later Note: adding a signature in the URI can be seen as bad practice (since for instance it will appear in the http server logs) so it has to be mitigated, e.g. by a proper TTL to avoid replays. But if your http logs are compromised, you will certainly have bigger security problems.

In practice, the upcoming MAC Tokens Authentication for OAuth 2.0 may be a huge improvement in respect to the "Granted by Token" current scheme. But this is still a work in progress and is tied to HTTP transmission.

Conclusion

It's worth concluding that REST is not only HTTP-based, even if, in practice, it's also mostly implemented over HTTP. REST can use other communication layers. So a RESTful authentication is not just a synonym of HTTP authentication, whatever Google answers. It should even not use the HTTP mechanism at all but shall be abstracted from the communication layer. And if you use HTTP communication, thanks to the Let's Encrypt initiative there is no reason not to use proper HTTPS, which is required in addition to any authentication scheme.

.net – ASP.NET Web Site or ASP.NET Web Application

Website:

The Web Site project is compiled on the fly. You end up with a lot more DLL files, which can be a pain. It also gives problems when you have pages or controls in one directory that need to reference pages and controls in another directory since the other directory may not be compiled into the code yet. Another problem can be in publishing.

If Visual Studio isn't told to re-use the same names constantly, it will come up with new names for the DLL files generated by pages all the time. That can lead to having several close copies of DLL files containing the same class name, which will generate plenty of errors. The Web Site project was introduced with Visual Studio 2005, but it has turned out not to be popular.

Web Application:

The Web Application Project was created as an add-in and now exists as part of SP 1 for Visual Studio 2005. The main differences are the Web Application Project was designed to work similarly to the Web projects that shipped with Visual Studio 2003. It will compile the application into a single DLL file at build time. To update the project, it must be recompiled and the DLL file published for changes to occur.

Another nice feature of the Web Application project is it's much easier to exclude files from the project view. In the Web Site project, each file that you exclude is renamed with an excluded keyword in the filename. In the Web Application Project, the project just keeps track of which files to include/exclude from the project view without renaming them, making things much tidier.

Reference

The article ASP.NET 2.0 - Web Site vs Web Application project also gives reasons on why to use one and not the other. Here is an excerpt of it:

You need to migrate large Visual Studio .NET 2003 applications to VS 2005? use the Web Application project.

You want to open and edit any directory as a Web project without creating a project file? use Web Site project.

You need to add pre-build and post-build steps during compilation? use Web Application project.

You need to build a Web application using multiple Web projects? use the Web Application project.

You want to generate one assembly for each page? use the Web Site project.

You prefer dynamic compilation and working on pages without building entire site on each page view? use Web Site project.

You prefer single-page code model to code-behind model? use Web Site project.

Web Application Projects versus Web Site Projects (MSDN) explains the differences between the web site and web application projects. Also, it discusses the configuration to be made in Visual Studio.