Home / My Disclaimer / Who am I? / Search... / Sign in

// Impersonation

Windows Azure Pack Authentication Part 3 – Using a Third Party IdP

by Steve Syfuhs / February 07, 2014 06:22 PM

In the previous installments of this series we looked at how Windows Azure Pack authenticates users and how it’s configured out of the box for federation. This time around we’re going to look at how you can configure federation with a third party IdP.

Microsoft designed Windows Azure Pack the right way. It supports federation with industry protocols out of the box. You can’t say that for many services, and you certainly can’t say that those services support it natively for all versions – more often than not you have to pay extra for it.

Windows Azure Pack supports federation, and actually uses it to authenticate users by default. This little fact makes it easy to federate to a 3rd party IdP.

If we searched around we will find lots of resources on federating to ADFS, as that’s Microsoft’s federation product, and there are a number of good (German content) walkthroughs on how you can get it working. If you want to use ADFS go read one or all of those articles as everything we talk about today will be about using a non-Microsoft federation service.

Before we begin though I’d like to point out that Microsoft does have some resources on using 3rd party IdPs, but unfortunately the information is a bit thin in some places.

Prerequisites

Federation is a complex beast and we should be clear about what is required to get it working. In no particular order you need the following:

  • STS that supports the WS-Federation (passive) protocol
  • STS that supports WS-Federation wrapped JSON Web Tokens (JWT)
  • Optional: STS that supports WS-Trust + JWT

If you plan to use the public APIs with federated accounts then you will need a STS that supports WS-Trust + JWT.

If you don’t have a STS that can support these requirements then you should really consider taking a look at ADFS, or if you’re looking for customization, Thinktecture Identity Server. Both are top notch IdPs (edit: insert pitch about the IdP my company builds and sells as well [edit-edit: our next version natively supports JWT] Winking smile -- sorry, this concludes the not-so-regularly-scheduled product placement).

Another option is to roll your own IdP. Don’t do this. No seriously, don’t. It’s a complicated mess. You’re way better off using the Thinktecture server and extending it to fit your needs.

Supposing though that you already have an IdP and want to support JWT though, here’s how we can do it. In this context the IdP is the overarching identity providing system and the STS is simply the service issuing tokens.

Skip this next section if you just want to see how to configure Windows Azure Pack. That’s the main part that’s lacking in the MSDN documentation.

JWT via IdentityModel

First off, you need to be using .NET 4.5, and you need to be using the the 4.5 IdentityModel stack. You can’t use the original 3.5 bits.

At this point I’m going to assume you’ve got a working IdP already. There are lots of articles out there explaining how to build one. We’re just going to mod the STS.

Before making any code changes though you need to add the JWT token handler, which is easily installed via Nuget (I Red heart Nuget):

PM> Install-Package System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt

This will need to be added to the project that exposes your STS configuration class.

Next, we need to inject the token handler into the STS pipeline. This can easily be done by adding an entry to the web.config system.identityModel section:

Or if you want to hardcode it you can add it to your SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration class.

There are of course other (potentially better) ways you can add it in, but this serves our purpose for the sake of a sample.

By adding the JWT token handler into the STS pipeline we can begin issuing JWTs to any relying parties that request one. This poses a problem though because passive requests don’t have a requested token type tacked on. Active (WS-Trust) requests do, but not passive. So we need to specify that a JWT should be minted instead of a SAML token. This can be done in the GetScope method of the STS class.

All we really needed to do was specify the TokenType as WIF will use that to determine which token handler should be used to mint the token. We know this is the value to use because it’s exposed by the GetTokenTypeIdentifiers() method in the JWTSecurityTokenHandler class.

Did I mention the JWT library is open source?

So now at this point if we made a request for token to the STS we could receive a WS-Federation wrapped JWT.

If the idea of using a JWT instead of a SAML token appeals to you, you can configure your app to use the JWT token handler similar to Dominick’s sample.

If you were submitting a WS-Trust RST to the STS you could use client code along the lines of:

When the GetScope method is called the request.TokenType should be set to whatever you passed in at the client. For more information on service calls you can take a look at the whitepaper Claims-Based Identity in Windows Azure Pack (docx). A future installment of this series might have more information about using services.

Lastly, we need to sign the JWT. The only caveat to using the JWT token handler is that the minimum RSA key size is 2048 bits. If you’re using a key smaller than that then please upgrade it. We’re going to overlook the fact that the MSDN article shows how to bypass minimum key sizes. Seriously. Don’t do it. I don’t want to have to explain why (putting paranoia aside for a moment, 1024 is being deprecated by Windows and related services in the near future anyway).

Issuing Tokens to Windows Azure Pack

So now we’re at a point where we can mint a JWT token. The question we need to ask now is what claims should this token contain? Looking at Part 1 we see that the Admin Portal requires UPN and Group claims. The tenant portal only requires the UPN claim.

Lucky for us the JWT token handler is smart. It knows to transform certain known XML-token-friendly-claim-types to JWT friendly claim types. In our case we can use http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/upn in our ClaimsIdentity to map to the UPN claim, and http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/claims/Group to map to our Group claim.

Then we need to determine where to send the token, and who to address it to. Both the tenant and admin sites have Federation Metadata documents that specify this information for us. If you’ve got an IdP that can parse the metadata then all you need to do is point it to https://yourtenantsite/FederationMetadata/2007-06/FederationMetadata.xml for the tenant configuration or https://youradminsite/FederationMetadata/2007-06/FederationMetadata.xml for the admin configuration.

Of course, this information will also map up to the configuration elements we looked at in Part 2. That’ll tell us the Audience URI and the Reply To for both sites.

Finally we have everything we need to mint the token, address it, and send it on its way.

Configuring Windows Azure Pack to Trust your Token

The tokens been sent and once it hits either the tenant or admin site it’ll promptly be ignored and you’ll get an ugly error message saying “nope, not gonna happen, bub.”

We therefore need to configure Windows Azure Pack to trust our token. Looking at MSDN we see some somewhat useful information telling us what we need to modify, but frankly, its missing a bunch of information so we’re going to ignore it.

First things first: if your IdP publishes a Federation Metadata document then you can just configure everything via PowerShell:

You can replace the target “Admin” with “Tenant” if you want to configure the Tenant Portal. The only caveat with doing it this way is that the metadata document needs to be accessible from the server. I’ve submitted a feature request that they also support local file paths too; hopefully they listen! Since the parameter takes the full URL you can put the metadata document somewhere public if its not normally accessible. You will only need the metadata accessible while applying this configuration.

If the cmdlet completed successfully then you should be able to log in from your own IdP. That’s all there is to it for you. I would recommend seriously considering going this route instead of configuring things manually.

Otherwise, lets carry on.

Since we can’t import our federation metadata (since we probably don’t have any), we need to configure things manually. To do that we need to modify settings in the database.

Looking back to Part 2 we see all the configuration elements that enable our federated trust to the default IdPs. We’ll need to update a few settings across the Microsoft.MgmtSvc.Store and Microsoft.MgmtSvc.PortalConfigStore databases.

As per the MSDN documentation it says to modify the settings in the PortalConfigStore database. It’s wrong. It’s incomplete as that’s only part of the process.

The PortalConfigStore database contains the settings used by the Tenant and Admin Portals to validate and request tokens. We need to modify these settings to use our custom IdP. To do so locate the Authentication.IdentityProvider setting in the [Config].[Settings] table.  The namespace we need to choose is dependent on which site we want to configure. In our case we select the Admin namespace. As we saw last time it looks something like:

We need to substitute our STS information here. The Realm is whatever your STS issuer is, and the Endpoint is where ever your WS-Federation endpoint is located. The Certificate should be a base 64 encoded representation of your signing certificate (remember, just the public key).

In my experience I’ve had to do an IISRESET on the portals to get the settings refreshed. I might just be impatient though.

Once those values are replaced you can try logging in. You should be redirected to your IdP and if you issue the token properly it’ll hit the portal and you should be logged in. Unfortunately this’ll actually fail with a non-useful error message.

deadsession

Who can guess why? So far I’ve stated that the MSDN documentation is missing information. What have we missed? Hopefully if you’ve read the first two parts of this series you’re yelling at the screen telling me to get on with it already because you’ve caught on to what I’m saying.

We haven’t configured the API services to trust our STS! Oops.

With that being said, we now have proof that Windows Azure Pack flows the token to the services from the Portal and, more importantly, the services validate the token. Cool!

Anyway, now to configure the APIs. Warning: complicated.

In the Microsoft.MgmtSvc.Store database locate the Settings table and then locate the Authentication.IdentityProvider.Secondary element in the AdminAPI namespace. We need to update it with the exact same values as we put in to the configuration element in the other database.

If you’re only wanting to configure the Tenant Portal you’d want to modify the Authentication.IdentityProvider.Primary configuration element. Be careful with the Primary/Secondary elements as they can get confusing.

If you’re configuring the Admin Portal you’ll need to update the Authentication.IdentityProvider.Secondary configuration element in the TenantAPI namespace to use the configuration you specified for the Admin Portal as well. As I said previously, I think this is because the Admin Portal calls into the Tenant API. The Admin Portal will use an admin-trusted token – therefore the TenantAPI needs to trust the admin’s STS.

Now that you’ve completed configuration you can do an IISRESET and try logging in. If you configured everything properly you should now be able to log in from your own IdP.

Troubleshooting

For those rock star Ops people who understand identity this guide was likely pretty easy to follow, understand, and implement. For everyone else though, this was probably a pain in the neck. Here are some troubleshooting tips.

Review the Event Logs
It’s surprising how many people forget that a lot of applications will write errors to the Windows Event Log. Windows Azure Pack has quite a number of logs that you can review for more information. If you’re trying to track down an issue in the portals look in the MgmtSvc-*Site where * is Tenant or Admin. Errors will get logged there. If you’re stuck mucking about the APIs look in the MgmtSvc-*API where * is Tenant, Admin, or TenantPublic.

Enable Development Mode
You can enable developer mode in sites by modifying a value in the web.config. Unprotect the web.config by calling:

And then locate the appSetting named Microsoft.Azure.Portal.Configuration.PortalConfiguration.DevelopmentMode and set the value to true. Be sure to undo and re-protect the configuration when you’re done. You should then get a neat error tracing window show up in the portals, and more diagnostic information will be logged to the event logs. Probably not wise to do this in a production environment.

Use the PowerShell CmdLets
There are a quite a number of PowerShell cmdlets available for you to learn about the configuration of Windows Azure Pack. If you open the Windows Azure Pack Administration PowerShell console you can see that there are two modules that get loaded that are full of cmdlets:

PS C:\Windows\system32> get-command -Module MgmtSvcConfig

CommandType     Name                                               ModuleName
-----------     ----                                               ----------
Cmdlet          Add-MgmtSvcAdminUser                               MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Add-MgmtSvcDatabaseUser                            MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Add-MgmtSvcResourceProviderConfiguration           MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcAdminUser                               MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcDatabaseSetting                         MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcDefaultDatabaseName                     MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcEndpoint                                MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcFeature                                 MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcFqdn                                    MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcNamespace                               MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcNotificationSubscriber                  MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcResourceProviderConfiguration           MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcSchema                                  MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Get-MgmtSvcSetting                                 MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Initialize-MgmtSvcFeature                          MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Initialize-MgmtSvcProduct                          MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Install-MgmtSvcDatabase                            MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          New-MgmtSvcMachineKey                              MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          New-MgmtSvcPassword                                MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          New-MgmtSvcResourceProviderConfiguration           MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          New-MgmtSvcSelfSignedCertificate                   MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Protect-MgmtSvcConfiguration                       MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Remove-MgmtSvcAdminUser                            MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Remove-MgmtSvcDatabaseUser                         MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Remove-MgmtSvcNotificationSubscriber               MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Remove-MgmtSvcResourceProviderConfiguration        MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Reset-MgmtSvcPassphrase                            MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcCeip                                    MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcDatabaseSetting                         MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcDatabaseUser                            MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcFqdn                                    MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcIdentityProviderSettings                MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcNotificationSubscriber                  MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcPassphrase                              MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcRelyingPartySettings                    MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Set-MgmtSvcSetting                                 MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Test-MgmtSvcDatabase                               MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Test-MgmtSvcPassphrase                             MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Test-MgmtSvcProtectedConfiguration                 MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Uninstall-MgmtSvcDatabase                          MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Unprotect-MgmtSvcConfiguration                     MgmtSvcConfig
Cmdlet          Update-MgmtSvcV1Data                               MgmtSvcConfig

As well as the MgmtSvcConfig module which is moreso for daily administration.

Read the Windows Azure Pack Claims Whitepaper
See here: Claims-Based Identity in Windows Azure Pack (docx).

Visit the Forums
When in doubt take a look at the forums and ask a question if you’re stuck.

Email Me
Lastly, you can contact me (steve@syfuhs.net) with any questions. I may not have answers but I might be able to find someone who can help.

Conclusion

In the first two parts of this series we looked at how authentication works, how it’s configured, and now in this installment we looked at how we can configure a third party IdP to log in to Windows Azure Pack. If you’re trying to configure Windows Azure Pack to use a custom IdP I imagine this part is the most complicated to figure out and hopefully it was documented well enough. I personally spent a fair amount of time fiddling with settings and most of the information I’ve gathered for this series has been the result of lots of trial and error. With any luck this series has proven useful to you and you have more luck with the configuration than I originally did.

Next time we’ll take a look at how we can consume the public APIs using a third party IdP for authentication.

In the future we might take a look at how we can authenticate requests to a service called from a Windows Azure Pack add-on, and how we can call into Windows Azure Pack APIs from an add-on.

The Importance of Elevating Privilege

by Steve Syfuhs / August 28, 2011 04:00 PM

The biggest detractor to Single Sign On is the same thing that makes it so appealing – you only need to prove your identity once. This scares the hell out of some people because if you can compromise a users session in one application it's possible to affect other applications. Congratulations: checking your Facebook profile just caused your online store to delete all it's orders. Let's break that attack down a little.

  • You just signed into Facebook and checked your [insert something to check here] from some friend. That contained a link to something malicious.
  • You click the link, and it opens a page that contains an iframe. The iframe points to a URL for your administration portal of the online store with a couple parameters in the query string telling the store to delete all the incoming orders.
  • At this point you don't have a session with the administration portal and in a pre-SSO world it would redirect you to a login page. This would stop most attacks because either a) the iframe is too small to show the page, or b) (hopefully) the user is smart enough to realize that a link from a friend on Facebook shouldn't redirect you to your online store's administration portal. In a post-SSO world, the portal would redirect you to the STS of choice and that STS already has you signed in (imagine what else could happen in this situation if you were using Facebook as your identity provider).
  • So you've signed into the STS already, and it doesn't prompt for credentials. It redirects you to the administration page you were originally redirected away from, but this time with a session. The page is pulled up, the query string parameters are parsed, and the orders are deleted.

There are certainly ways to stop this as part of this is a bit trivial. For instance you could pop up an Ok/Cancel dialog asking "are you sure you want to delete these?", but for the sake of discussion lets think of this at a high level.

The biggest problem with this scenario is that deleting orders doesn't require anything more than being signed in. By default you had the highest privileges available.

This problem is similar to the problem many users of Windows XP had. They were, by default, running with administrative privileges. This lead to a bunch of problems because any application running could do whatever it pleased on the system. Malware was rampant, and worse, users were just doing all around stupid things because they didn't know what they were doing but they had the permissions necessary to do it.

The solution to that problem is to give users non-administrative privileges by default, and when something required higher privileges you have to re-authenticate and temporarily run with the higher privileges. The key here is that you are running temporarily with higher privileges. However, security lost the argument and Microsoft caved while developing Windows Vista creating User Account Control (UAC). By default a user is an administrator, but they don't have administrative privileges. Their user token is a stripped down administrator token. You only have non-administrative privileges. In order to take full advantage of the administrator token, a user has to elevate and request the full token temporarily. This is a stop-gap solution though because it's theoretically possible to circumvent UAC because the administrative token exists. It also doesn't require you to re-authenticate – you just have to approve the elevation.

As more and more things are moving to the web it's important that we don't lose control over privileges. It's still very important that you don't have administrative privileges by default because, frankly, you probably don't need them all the time.

Some web applications are requiring elevation. For instance consider online banking sites. When I sign in I have a default set of privileges. I can view my accounts and transfer money between my accounts. Anything else requires that I re-authenticate myself by entering a private pin. So for instance I cannot transfer money to an account that doesn't belong to me without proving that it really is me making the transfer.

There are a couple ways you can design a web application that requires privilege elevation. Lets take a look at how to do it with Claims Based Authentication and WIF.

First off, lets look at the protocol. Out of the box WIF supports the WS-Federation protocol. The passive version of the protocol supports a query parameter of wauth. This parameter defines how authentication should happen. The values for it are mostly specific to each STS however there are a few well-defined values that the SAML protocol specifies. These values are passed to the STS to tell it to authenticate using a particular method. Here are some most often used:

Authentication Type/Credential Wauth Value
Password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password
Kerberos urn:ietf:rfc:1510
TLS urn:ietf:rfc:2246
PKI/X509 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:X509-PKI
Default urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:unspecified

When you pass one of these values to the STS during the signin request, the STS should then request that particular type of credential. the wauth parameter supports arbitrary values so you can use whatever you like. So therefore we can create a value that tells the STS that we want to re-authenticate because of an elevation request.

All you have to do is redirect to the STS with the wauth parameter:

https://yoursts/authenticate?wa=wsignin1.0&wtrealm=uri:myrp&wauth=urn:super:secure:elevation:method

Once the user has re-authenticated you need to tell the relying party some how. This is where the Authentication Method claim comes in handy:

http://schemas.microsoft.com/ws/2008/06/identity/claims/authenticationmethod

Just add the claim to the output identity:

protected override IClaimsIdentity GetOutputClaimsIdentity(IClaimsPrincipal principal, RequestSecurityToken request, Scope scope)
{
    IClaimsIdentity ident = principal.Identity as IClaimsIdentity;
    ident.Claims.Add(new Claim(ClaimTypes.AuthenticationMethod, "urn:super:secure:elevation:method"));
    // finish filling claims...
    return ident;
}

At that point the relying party can then check to see whether the method satisfies the request. You could write an extension method like:

public static bool IsElevated(this IClaimsPrincipal principal)
{
    return principal.Identity.AuthenticationType == "urn:super:secure:elevation:method";
}

And then have a bit of code to check:

var p = Thread.CurrentPrincipal as IClaimsPrincipal;
if (p != null && p.IsElevated())
{
    DoSomethingRequiringElevation();
}

This satisfies half the requirements for elevating privilege. We need to make it so the user is only elevated for a short period of time. We can do this in an event handler after the token is received by the RP.  In Global.asax we could do something like:

void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
    FederatedAuthentication.SessionAuthenticationModule.SessionSecurityTokenReceived 
        += new EventHandler<SessionSecurityTokenReceivedEventArgs> (SessionAuthenticationModule_SessionSecurityTokenReceived);
}
void SessionAuthenticationModule_SessionSecurityTokenReceived(object sender, SessionSecurityTokenReceivedEventArgs e)
{
    if (e.SessionToken.ClaimsPrincipal.IsElevated())
    {
        SessionSecurityToken token = new SessionSecurityToken(e.SessionToken.ClaimsPrincipal, e.SessionToken.Context, e.SessionToken.ValidFrom, e.SessionToken.ValidFrom.AddMinutes(15));
        e.SessionToken = token;
    }
}

This will check to see if the incoming token has been elevated, and if it has, set the lifetime of the token to 15 minutes.

There are other places where this could occur like within the STS itself, however this value may need to be independent of the STS.

As I said earlier, as more and more things are moving to the web it's important that we don't lose control of privileges. By requiring certain types of authentication in our relying parties, we can easily support elevation by requiring the STS to re-authenticate.

What makes Claims Based Authentication Secure?

by Steve Syfuhs / October 17, 2010 04:00 PM

Update: I should have mentioned this when I first posted, but some of these thoughts are the result of me reading Programming Windows Identity Foundation.  While I hope I haven’t copied the ideas outright, I believe the interpretation is unique-ish. Smile

One of the main reasons we as developers shy away from new technologies is because we are afraid of it.  As we learned in elementary school, the reason we are afraid usually boils down to not having enough information about the topic.  I’ve found this especially true with anything security related.  So, lets think about something for a minute.

I’m not entirely sure how valid a method this is for measure, but I like to think that as developers we measure our understanding of something by how much we abstract away the problems it creates.  Now let me ask you this question:

How much of an abstraction layer do we create for identity?

Arguably very little because in most cases we half-ass it.

I say this knowing full well I’m extremely guilty of it.  Sure, I’d create a User class and populate with application specific data, but to populate the object I would call Active Directory or SQL directly.  That created a tightly coupled dependency between the application and the user store.  That works perfectly up until you need to migrate those users in a SQL database to Active Directory.  Oops.

So why do we do this?

My reason for doing this is pretty simple.  I didn’t know any better.  The reason I didn’t know better was also pretty simple.  Of the available options to abstract away the identity I didn’t understand how the technology worked, or more likely, I didn’t trust it.  Claims based authentication is a perfect example of this.  I thought to myself when I first came across this: “are you nuts?  You want me to hand over authentication to someone else and then I have to trust them that what they give me is valid?  I don’t think so.”

Well, yes actually.

Authentication, identification, and authorization are simply processes in the grand scheme of an application lifecycle.  They are privileged, but that just means we need to be careful about it.  Fear, as it turns out, is the number one reason why we don’t abstract this part out.*

With that, I thought it would be a perfect opportunity to take a look at a few of the reasons why Claims based authentication is reasonably secure.  I would also like to take this time to compare some of these reasons to why our current methods of user authentication are usually done wrong.

Source

First and foremost we trust the source.  Obviously a bank isn’t going to accept a handwritten piece of paper with my name on it as proof that I am me.  It stands to reason that you aren’t going to accept an identity from some random 3rd party provider for important proof of identity.

Encryption + SSL

The connection between RP and STS is over SSL.  Therefore no man in the middle attacks.  Then you encrypt the token.  Much like the SSL connection, the STS encrypts the payload with the RP’s public key, which only the RP can decrypt with its private key.  If you don’t use SSL anyone eavesdropping on the connection still can’t read the payload.  Also, the STS usually keeps a local copy of the certificate for token encryption.

How many of us encrypt our SQL connections when verifying  the user’s password?  How many of us use secured LDAP queries to Active Directory?  How many of us encrypt our web services?  I usually forget to.

Audience whitelist

Most commercial STS applications require that each request come from an approved Relying Party.  Moreover, most of those applications require that the endpoint that it responds to also be on an approved list.  You could probably fake it through DNS poisoning, but the certificates used for encryption and SSL would prevent you from doing anything meaningful since you couldn’t decrypt the token.

Do we verify the identity of the application requesting information from the SQL database?  Not usually the application.  However, we could do it via Kerberos impersonation.  E.g. lock down the specific data to the currently logged in/impersonated user.

Expiration and Duplication Prevention

All tokens have authentication timestamps.  They also normally have expiration timestamps.  Therefore they have a window of time that defines how long they are valid.  It is up to the application accepting the token to make sure the window is still acceptable, but it is still an opportunity for verification.  This also gives us the opportunity to prevent replay attacks.  All we have to do is keep track of all incoming tokens within the valid time window and see if the tokens repeat.  If so, we reject them.

There isn’t much we can do in a traditional setting to prevent this from happening.  If someone eavesdrops on the connection and grabs the username/password between the browser and your application, game over.  They don’t need to spoof anything.  They have the credentials.  SSL can fix this problem pretty easily though.

Integrity

Once the token has been created by the STS, it will be signed by the STS’s private key.  If the token is modified in any way the signature wont match.  Since it is being signed by the private key of the STS, only the STS can resign it, however anyone can verify the signature through the STS’s public key.  And since it’s a certificate for the STS, we can use it as strong proof that the STS is who they say they are.  For a good primer on public key/private key stuff check out Wikipedia.

It's pretty tricky to modify payloads between SQL and an application, but it is certainly possible.  Since we don’t usually encrypt the connections (I am guilty of this daily – It’s something I need to work on Winking smile), intercepting packets and modifying them on the fly is possible.  There isn’t really a way to verify if the payload has been tampered with.

Sure, there is a level of trust between the data source and the application if they are both within the same datacenter, but what if it’s being hosted offsite by a 3rd party?  There is always going to be a situation where integrity can become an issue.  The question at that point then is: how much do you trust the source, as well as the connection to the source?

Authentication Level

Finally, if we are willing to accept that each item above increases the security and validity of the identity, there is really only one thing left to make sure is acceptable.  How was the user authenticated?  Username/password, Kerberos, smart card/certificates, etc.  If we aren’t happy with how they were authenticated, we don’t accept the token.

So now that we have a pretty strong basis for what makes the tokens containing claims as well as the relationship between the RP’s and STS’s secure, we don’t really need to fear the Claims model.

Now we just need to figure out how to replace our old code with the identity abstraction. Smile

* Strictly anecdotal evidence, mind you.

Converting Claims to Windows Tokens and User Impersonation

by Steve Syfuhs / September 09, 2010 04:00 PM

In a domain environment it is really useful to switch user contexts in a web application.  This could be if you are needing to log in with credentials that have elevated permissions (or vice-versa) or just needing to log in as another user.

It’s pretty easy to do this with Windows Identity Foundation and Claims Authentication.  When the WIF framework is installed, a service is installed (that is off by default) that can translate Claims to Windows Tokens.  This is called (not surprisingly) the Claims to Windows Token Service or (c2WTS).

Following the deploy-with-least-amount-of-attack-surface methodology, this service does not work out of the box.  You need to turn it on and enable which user’s are allowed to impersonate via token translation.  Now, this doesn’t mean which users can switch, it means which users running the process are allowed to switch.  E.g. the process running the IIS application pools local service/network service/local system/etc (preferably a named service user other than system users).

To allow users to do this go to C:\Program Files\Windows Identity Foundation\v3.5\c2wtshost.exe.config and add in the service users to <allowedCallers>:

<windowsTokenService> 
  <!-- 
      By default no callers are allowed to use the Windows Identity Foundation Claims To NT Token Service. 
      Add the identities you wish to allow below. 
    --> 
  <allowedCallers> 
    <clear/> 
    <!-- <add value="NT AUTHORITY\Network Service" /> --> 
    <!-- <add value="NT AUTHORITY\Local Service" /> –> 
    <!-- <add value="nt authority\system" /> –> 
    <!-- <add value="NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated Users" /> --> 
  </allowedCallers> 
</windowsTokenService> 

You should notice that by default, all users are not allowed.  Once you’ve done that you can start up the service.  It is called Claims to Windows Token Service in the Services MMC snap-in.

That takes care of the administrative side of things.  Lets write some code.  But first, some usings:

using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Security.Principal;
using System.Threading;
using Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims;
using Microsoft.IdentityModel.WindowsTokenService;

The next step is to actually generate the token.  From an architectural perspective, we want to use the UPN claims type as that’s what the service wants to see.  To get the claim, we do some simple LINQ:

IClaimsIdentity identity = (ClaimsIdentity)Thread.CurrentPrincipal.Identity;
string upn = identity.Claims.Where(c => c.ClaimType == ClaimTypes.Upn).First().Value;

if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(upn))
{
    throw new Exception("No UPN claim found");
}

Following that we do the impersonation:

WindowsIdentity windowsIdentity = S4UClient.UpnLogon(upn);

using (WindowsImpersonationContext ctxt = windowsIdentity.Impersonate())
{
    DoSomethingAsNewUser();

    ctxt.Undo(); // redundant with using { } statement
}

To release the token we call the Undo() method, but if you are within a using { } statement the Undo() method is called when the object is disposed.

One thing to keep in mind though.  If you do not have permission to impersonate a user a System.ServiceModel.Security.SecurityAccessDeniedException will be thrown.

That’s all there is to it.

Implementation Details

In my opinion, these types of calls really shouldn’t be made all that often.  Realistically you need to take a look at how impersonation fits into the application and then go from there.

// About

Steve is a renaissance kid when it comes to technology. He spends his time in the security stack.