Just for indexing purposes.
Policies, models and mechanisms:
Role Based Access Control
The use of classical identity based access control models, on which authorization decisions are based on the requestor unique identifier, is not adequate for large scale decentralized systems, such as the World-Wide Web. Several aspects contribute to this inadequacy, namely:
A solution is to base the access control policy on “characteristics” of the requestor that make sense for the authorization decision. The Identity Metasystem extends the notion of identity to incorporate this, proposing the concept of a claims-based identity:
In the Metasystem, digital identities consist of sets of claims made about the subject of the identity, where “claims” are pieces of information about the subject that the issuer asserts are valid. This parallels identities used in the real world. For example, the claims on a driver’s license might include the issuing state, the driver’s license number, name, address, sex, birth date, organ donor status, signature, and photograph, the types of vehicles the subject is eligible to drive, and restrictions on driving rights
Unfortunately, there isn’t a formal definition of claim. Instead there are several more or less vague definitions:
One way to better understand the claims concept and its applications is to see how:
This will be the subject of future posts.
Just a couple of concluding remarks on this series of posts.
1. Claims checking
The scenario presented in the previous posts contains a subtle flaw: the claims are being requested but not being checked by the service. Even in the first version, where the claim requirements are configured in the service’s binding, the presence of this claims in the message received by the service is not checked.
For this purpose, we must use a custom ServiceAuthorizationManager that overrides the CheckAccessCore method to check if the required claims are contained in the ServiceSecurityContext.AuthorizationContext property.
The BizTalk services SDK already contains such a class in the FederatedAccessManager sample project, so the following assignment will solve this flaw.
2. The model below
The WCF platform defines a security framework based on the security model proposed by the WS-* family of specifications. It’s my opinion that platforms such as WCF simplify but do not isolate the architect/developer from this underlying model. This series of posts also aims to illustrate the importance of its knowledge.
In the last post, I described how to build a service that relies on the BizTalk Identity Services for the authorization decisions, and also how to build a client that uses this service. However, the execution of this client ended up on a “ID3037: The specified request failed.” fault returned by the BizTalk Identity Services STS.
Unfortunately this message error is not documented, so I went to analyze the message exchange between the client and the STS. For this, I used the message logging capability of WCF. I enabled the logging at service level and not at transport level, because at this level the messages are enciphered.
Here is the body of the Security Token Request message:
The problems is not evident, but it is visible in the above message: the <t:Claims> element does not have the Dialect attribute.
Why wasn’t it there?
Before answering this question, let’s recall why it should be there?
Remember that the required claims are one of the service requisites expressed in the service’s policy. Namely, in the <RequestSecurityTokenTemplate>. According to the WS-SecurityPolicy spec:
This required element contains elements which MUST be copied into the request sent to the specified issuer. Note: the initiator is not required to understand the contents of this element.
So, the next step was to verify if the Dialect attribute was in the service policy. Remember, from last post, that the claims requirements were defined in an XML element inserted in the TokenRequestParameters collection.
As seen in the above fragment, the Dialect attribute is present in the service’s policy
Well, apparently this is a “bug” in WCF’s WSDL import process, which handles the <Claims> element differently.
What are the workarounds?
In both workarounds, it is necessary to remove the original Claims element (the one imported without the Dialect attribute).
After this change everything runs well.
In the previous two posts, I presented some information regarding the BizTalk Identity Services STS.
In this post I will show how to build a minimalistic WCF service that relies on this STS for the authorization decisions. I will also show how to build a client that uses this service.
For the sake of clarity, I will use no configuration file, so everything will be done in code.
The service’s endpoint uses a WSFederationHttpBinding, configured as follows
Why is the IssuerAddress necessary? Namely, isn’t the IssuerMetadataAddress enough? Because, as seen in the previous part, this metadata contains several endpoints that implement the STS contract. By specifying the required endpoint’s address, this ambiguity is solved.
The previous settings define the required token type but not the required claims types. However, the desired claims dialect (“http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2006/12/authorization/authclaims“) is not directly supported by WCF, so the ClaimTypeRequirement property cannot be used. For this purpose, this requirement must be directly configured in the TokenRequestParameters collection.
Finally, I create a service host, add an endpoint with this binding, set the service’s certificate and enable metadata retrieval.
The <servicehost> string should be replace by the host name.
BizTalk Identity Services configuration
The following configurations are required at the BizTalk Identity Services, after login under the <username> account:
At the client side, I use the MetadataResolver class to dynamically build the binding and address to the service, instead of statically using the svcutil.exe tool. Just to simply the example. the interface with the service contract is shared between the service and the client.
Then I create a ChannelFactory<T>, using the resolved binding and address, set the client certificate authentication details (PeerTrust because the service’s certificate is “home made”), create a binding and call the service’s operation.
Running the scenario
When I first ran this scenario, the CardSpace UI popped up, because the STS requires a SAML token but does not point to the metadata of its issuer. Then I selected the card that I registered in BizTalk Services, waited a couple of seconds for the client to request the authorization token and got a “ID3037: The specified request failed.” fault exception.
Why? Well, that’s the subject of the next post of this series.
In the last post, I introduced the BizTalk Identity Services as an example of an publicly available STS. In this post I will describe some aspects of the metadata (WSDL based description) exposed by this STS.
Recall that this metadata can be retrieved at: http://identity.biztalk.net/sts/<username>/sts.wsdl
where <username> is the registered used name.
Beginning at the end (<wsdl:service> element), the service exposes 5 endpoints (<wsdl:port> elements) with the following names:
All of these endpoints expose the same Security Token Service contract, defined by the WS-Trust (Feb. 2005 version) spec.
The principal difference between these endpoints is their policy, referenced by the <wsdl:binding> elements associated to each endpoint. Namely, each policy requires a different token type and claims types in the token request message. This difference is visible in the <sp:SignedSupportingTokens> element.
For instance, the policy of the ‘UserNameForCertificate‘ endpoint requires an UsernameToken.
The ‘…ForCertificate’ suffix, present in all endpoint’s names, means that the messages are protected using a X.509 certificate based scheme. This requirement is expressed by the <sp:ProtectionToken> assertion, present in all policies.
So, the existence of multiple endpoints for the same contract, each with a different policy, allows for different token and claim types to be used with the same STS.
Notice that this metadata describes the STS requirements (required token and claims types) but not its capabilities (issued token and claims types). This type of capabilities are not addressed by the WS-SecurityPolicy language. Instead, they belong to the federation metadata model defined in the (still not very used) WS-Federation spec. However, to the best of my knowledge, the BizTalk Identity Services don’t expose this type of metadata, so these capabilities must be acquired out-of-band.
In the next post, I will show how to create a WCF service that relies on this STS for the authorization decisions. I will also show how to build a client that uses this service.
This is the second post of a series where I describe some issues regarding the definition and usage of claim requirements on the Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) platform. On the first post, I introduced the concept of claim requirements, and how to express them in WS-Policy and WCF. In this post I begin to introduce a usage scenario.
BizTalk Identity Services
(disclaimer: the information below refers to Community Technological Preview, so things will probably change in the future)
Among several other things, BizTalk Services provides a publicly-accessible STS for each registered user. This STS can play two different roles: Identity Provider or Resource side STS (R-STS). In the later role, this STS act as a Policy Decision Point (PDP), responsible for evaluating the service’s access control policy,
This R-STS can be used by:
The policy of a BizTalk Services STS is defined by a set of rules. Each rule defines a mapping between one or more input claims (claims of the token requestor) and an output claim (claim present in the issued token). When playing the role of an R-STS, these output claims belong to the authorization dialect defined by WS-Federation (see last post).
The metadata of the STS is available at the following addresses:
where <username> should be replaced by the user’s name (remember that there is an STS for each registered user).
Observing the contents of this metadata (just register with BizTalk Services and point a browser to the above address) is a rather educative experience, that will be the subject of the next post in this series.