Wcf – What’s the purpose of claims-based authorization

authorizationwcf

I've been reading about Azure's Access Control Service and claims-based authorization in general for a while now, and for whatever reason, I still don't see the rationale behind moving from role/permission-based authorization to a claims-based model. The models seem similar to me (and they probably are), except that the list of what the client can and can't do comes from a third party and is wrapped up in some sort of token, instead of from some sort of database that the server has to query. What's the advantage of getting a third party (the token issuer) involved?

I fully understand the advantages of outsourcing authentication to a third party. It allows apps to not have to create new users all the time, worry about storing passwords, etc. when they can just push that off to some other service that already has the infrastructure set up. It's essentially the DRY principle for authentication.

However, in my mind, that same logic doesn't work for authorization. Each app has its own resources it has to protect, and therefore its own rules for authorizing users to perform certain actions. The infrastructure seems simple enough that each app could create it on its own (a table mapping users to roles, and possibly another mapping roles to permissions), and even if you wanted to outsource it, it seems that the claims-based model is doing something more complicated than that.

The only partial explanation I've seen comes from Building a Claims-Based Security Model in WCF, and it gives two main advantages to claims-based auth: more flexibility, and someone to "vouch" that the information in a claim is correct. When would you need either of those?

Claims-based authorization seems to be gaining popularity, so I assume there must be some good rationale for it; I just haven't figured out what that is yet. Can someone please provide a concrete example of a situation where claims-based auth works better than role-based, and why it works better in that case?

(EDIT: I missed a third benefit listed in the article: supporting single sign-on/federation. But doesn't authentication deal with that on its own without getting authorization involved?)

Best Answer

I guess the main promise of a benefit from federated security / claims-based system would be one fewer area you have to deal with different systems.

Imagine a site where you have local users authenticating with Windows credentials, a bunch of internet users using username/password, others using certificates, and maybe another group of users with biometric authentication.

In today's system, you have to set up and deal with all different kinds of authentication schemes and their different ways of doing things. That can get pretty messy.

The promise of a federated security solution would be to handle all those chores for you - the STS (security token server) would handle all different kinds of authentication systems for you, and present to you a uniform and trusted set of claims about a caller - no matter from where and on which path he's arriving at your site.

Of course, just examining and reacting to a single set of claims rather than having to understand four, five, ten different and disparate authentication systems looks like a really compelling promise to me!

Related Solutions

Asp.net-mvc – Why does AuthorizeAttribute redirect to the login page for authentication and authorization failures

When it was first developed, System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizeAttribute was doing the right thing - older revisions of the HTTP specification used status code 401 for both "unauthorized" and "unauthenticated".

From the original specification:

If the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401 response indicates that authorization has been refused for those credentials.

In fact, you can see the confusion right there - it uses the word "authorization" when it means "authentication". In everyday practice, however, it makes more sense to return a 403 Forbidden when the user is authenticated but not authorized. It's unlikely the user would have a second set of credentials that would give them access - bad user experience all around.

Consider most operating systems - when you attempt to read a file you don't have permission to access, you aren't shown a login screen!

Thankfully, the HTTP specifications were updated (June 2014) to remove the ambiguity.

From "Hyper Text Transport Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication" (RFC 7235):

The 401 (Unauthorized) status code indicates that the request has not been applied because it lacks valid authentication credentials for the target resource.

From "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content" (RFC 7231):

The 403 (Forbidden) status code indicates that the server understood the request but refuses to authorize it.

Interestingly enough, at the time ASP.NET MVC 1 was released the behavior of AuthorizeAttribute was correct. Now, the behavior is incorrect - the HTTP/1.1 specification was fixed.

Rather than attempt to change ASP.NET's login page redirects, it's easier just to fix the problem at the source. You can create a new attribute with the same name (AuthorizeAttribute) in your website's default namespace (this is very important) then the compiler will automatically pick it up instead of MVC's standard one. Of course, you could always give the attribute a new name if you'd rather take that approach.

[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, Inherited = true, AllowMultiple = true)]
public class AuthorizeAttribute : System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizeAttribute
{
    protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizationContext filterContext)
    {
        if (filterContext.HttpContext.Request.IsAuthenticated)
        {
            filterContext.Result = new System.Web.Mvc.HttpStatusCodeResult((int)System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Forbidden);
        }
        else
        {
            base.HandleUnauthorizedRequest(filterContext);
        }
    }
}

Authentication versus Authorization

Authentication is the process of ascertaining that somebody really is who they claim to be.

Authorization refers to rules that determine who is allowed to do what. E.g. Adam may be authorized to create and delete databases, while Usama is only authorised to read.

The two concepts are completely orthogonal and independent, but both are central to security design, and the failure to get either one correct opens up the avenue to compromise.

In terms of web apps, very crudely speaking, authentication is when you check login credentials to see if you recognize a user as logged in, and authorization is when you look up in your access control whether you allow the user to view, edit, delete or create content.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Asp.net-mvc – Why does AuthorizeAttribute redirect to the login page for authentication and authorization failures

Authentication versus Authorization

Related Topic