David, I think it is unusual to design the security system such that you must switch identities to meet your requirements. It may be worth rethinking your security system design so that a user will remain who they are, but be allowed to access resources that fall under their responsibility.
As a generic example, it is customary for a user who is a system administrator to be able to change the password for any user in the system. The administrator does not actually switch their identity in the process, but rather they are granted access to do the password change by virtue of having some kind of "sysadmin" role. I realize that your business domain is more complex than that, but I think it would be useful to think about it in terms of a user having access to things without having to switch their identity. Since you can't use simple system-wide roles like "admin" due to the structure of responsibilities dictated by your business domain (client can add and edit their employees, but not the employees of another client), you have to do something special. One option is to map (flatten) the complex domain to a flat set of roles. For example, client "Bob" has role "client1234.client", where "client1234" is the client that Bob is a "client" for. You might also have roles like "admin", "reseller33", "customer128", "client1234.employee", etc. The numbers in in the role names are the "id" of the entity they represent. This requires programmatic security in a sense, since you will need to determine what role to check for at runtime. But you will still be able to use the J2EE standard request.isUserInRole() call to determine membership for the currently authenticated user. Another option is to do thoroughly programmatic security, where you still use container-managed security for authentication (is this Bob?) and write code to do the authorization (Bob wants to edit a user account in the context of the client with id = 1234, is Bob allowed to do that?) without mapping it to a role name. Perhaps your realm could create Principal objects such that the application code can "ask" the Principal if they can do something. Bob will very likely have other responsibilties (the same stuff the employees do) that you might wish to control with a single role "client1234.employee". In that case, Bob would have both the "client1234.client" and "client1234.employee" roles. Alternately, you could identify a set of roles that would allow a user to do that stuff: "client1234.employee", "client1234.client", "customer128", "reseller33", etc. where client1234 is under the customer128 account, which in turn is under the reseller33 account. If Bob had any of those roles, he would be allowed to do "employee" stuff in the context of client1234. A single user can have an unlimited number of roles, and you can write your own security realm to read that information from a variety of tables in the database. Or write a view in the database for your User_Role join table and use a standard realm. Be aware that you might end up wasting a lot of memory if each user ends up with a ton of roles and your realm loads them all into memory during authentication. I have not done anything with JAAS, so perhaps there is a better solution available using JAAS technology. It would be great to hear from someone that knows of a good JAAS-based solution. David's problem of entity-based (rather than system-wide) responsibilities is a very common one. -Max ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 5:48 PM Subject: RE: security framework!!! > Adam, > > With my structure, I might have to become a particular reseller, then flip > into a customer of his/hers, then become one of their client accounts to > look into a reported problem. I worry about login identities for the > following reasons: > > Using a JAAS login, my principal would be fixed (set in stone) for my > session. Then, I couldn't be able to use the 'roles' settings inside > Struts, Tiles, and JSPs to control content. > > Without using a JAAS login, I also become unable to use 'roles' in Tiles and > JSPs to control content. > > Without having any theories on how to successfully (and without much > alteration to the package[s]) use roles for Struts, Tiles, and JSPs, I'm at > a loss how to change my identity/roles > > If I made a filter to wrapper the Request with a HTTPServletRequestWrapper > object then added my own push/pop/depth methods, I see how I could use roles > in all of those places. > > Knowing all of the above gory details, do you (or anyone) have any > suggestions on how to make things cleaner while using roles in all of those > places with the various levels of control I need to exert (albeit probably > rarely switching roles) ? > > Thanks (to all) for any constructive suggestions, > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:51 PM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: Re: security framework!!! > > > I don't see your requirement for replacing the principal when the admin > wants to 'become' someone else. What are you envisaging that such a > technique would bring? How are you planning for the administrator to get > his/her original user back? > > I'm pretty confident you can accomplish this through the judicious use > of roles. OK, you'll need quite a few admittedly. > > Unless I've missed a point somewhere. > > On 03/17/2004 11:54 PM David Friedman wrote: > > Andy, > > > > My personal project will have 5 distinct levels (a business of my > > own, someday). The lowest level has individual powers, nothing > > shared. It makes that particular level analogous to a shopping cart > > user: his/her 'stuff' only. The groups/levels are in order from > > highest ability to lowest (the individual user). They can only > > become or manipulate the level below them directly, unless they > > assume the identity of an account they manage to review/fix/look into > > something. The descriptions of the levels follow: > > > > Senior Group level "administrators". For all intent and purposes, > > that is me and my team. We can add/edit/remove/become/lock-down any > > reseller account (only upon request, of course). > > > > Junior Group level - "reseller company". A reseller company has a > > group of accounts (one or more) who can > > add/edit/remove/become/lock-down any of their own customer accounts > > (hopefully only upon request). > > > > Sophomore Group level - "customer company". A customer company is a > > business sold to by a "reseller". This group can add > > add/edit/remove/become/lock-down any of their own "clients" (again, > > hopefully only upon request). > > > > Freshman Group level - "client". A "client" is a corporate entity > > receiving services from their particular vendor, an above-mentioned > > "customer company". This group of accounts can add/edit/remove their > > own list of employees (i.e. "end users"). They have some features > > specific to them as well as being able to enter information similar > > to their individual employees. > > > > (Lowest) User level - "employee". An "employee" is an individual > > account under a corporate entity (in a "client"). They have > > individual duties and can enter data. Some of their activities may > > end up going to a manager (at the "client" level) for approval, > > depending on the activity. Essentially, all of the work they do can > > be seen by no one else (though a manager might need to approve > > certain types of request). > > > > Regards, David > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Adam Hardy > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, > > 2004 10:28 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: security > > framework!!! > > > > > > On 03/15/2004 03:00 PM David Friedman wrote: > > > >> I should have explained this a bit better. Each level is like a > >> company or organization. It has it's own group of parties to > >> maintain but can be managed by one or more managers. The managers > >> share group responsibility. Only the user at the very bottom rung > >> has an interface which only that user can use. > > > > > > What do you mean by that last sentence? Why can't a manager use that > > interface too? Surely it depends on roles? > > > >> Everyone above it is some sort of manager for maintaining there > >> shared group (separate from other resellers, or separate from > >> other). > >> > >> admin--- reseller1 (admin1, admin2, admin3) -- customer1 customer2 > >> customer3 reseller2 (admin4) - customer4 customer5 reseller3 > >> (admin5, admin6) - customer6 reseller7 (admin7, admin8, admin9) - > >> customer7 customer8 > >> > >> In the above tree, the customer(s) have a group of their own admins > >> plus individual employees (who have no shared responsibilities). > >> > >> I know this sounds like I should use pow2acl but it doesn't seem to > >> have anything for replacing the Principal so I could become a > >> user, nor does it appear to have anything to let me hook SSLext > >> into it to ensure good http/https lock-downs. > >> > >> Do you have any hints/suggestions for a better methodology/way? > >> > >> Regards, David > >> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Hardy > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 15, > >> 2004 4:25 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: security > >> framework!!! > >> > >> > >> Right, I get it. So you not only want the higher level user to take > >> on the lower level user's role, you want them to have their > >> complete ID or username etc. > >> > >> Tricky! > >> > >> I think alot depends on what kind of use you have for the user > >> info. Is it purely roles that are important here? Or is there > >> ownership too? I mean, one user can see his / her stuff, which is > >> not accessible to another user of equal level? > >> > >> On 03/15/2004 03:39 AM David Friedman wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Jason, > >>> > >>> They might need to go into the account underneath them to fix > >>> something (if they are asked) and won't know the password > >>> (encrypted). The admin might need to fix something for a > >>> reseller's client made us look into (admin -> reseller -> client > >>> -> manager -> employee). I've had a few projects where someone 2 > >>> levels under asks for help from the level immediately above them. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> Then it goes up one and up again back to me. Rather than make > >>> interfaces for everyone for everything, I prefer the idea of > >>> "su'ing" into the account to fix something. So, I might have to > >>> 'become' the reseller (I'm the admin), then become a client, then > >>> become a manager then become an employee to look at or fix > >>> something for them. > >>> > >>> Regards, David > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- From: Jason Lea > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:49 > >>> PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: security > >>> framework!!! > >>> > >>> > >>> David Friedman wrote: > >>>> I've also been looking into security frameworks and the only > >>>> solutions I've really found are: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Standard (container) JAAS 2. SecurityFilter > >>>> http://securityfilter.sourceforge.net 3. Pow2ACL > >>>> http://pow2acl.sourceforge.net/ > >>>> > >>>> I was hoping, at some point, to use an SSL switching feature > >>>> such as SSLext. > >>>> > >>>>> From my research, Pow2ACL and SecurityFilter won't work that > >>>>> way. > >>>> SecurityFilter has a note that certain 'elements' could be used > >>>> for it but the current code makes no use of them in that > >>>> manner. As for Pow2ACL, I didn't find anything suggesting how > >>>> to use it in that way either. > >>>> > >>>> My bigger problem is my scenario, which no one supports. I'd > >>>> like to allow manager accounts to become one of if it's > >>>> sub-accounts. My system would support at least 5 levels where > >>>> 4 could 'drill down' and back up again: admin, reseller, > >>>> client, manager, employee (bottom feeder, no managerial tools > >>>> and no popping into their accounts). Since there is no easily > >>>> way to > >>> Trying to figure out what you are asking here can you give an > >>> example? > >>> > >>> If you have the following: 1. User Manfred is a manager 2. User > >>> Emily is an Employee 3. Emily is an employee under Manfred > >>> > >>> Are you saying that Manfred can become Emily and perform certain > >>> tasks/actions? Then Manfred would return to be Manfred the > >>> manager? > >>> > >>>> push/pop or even set (then I could use my own internal stack) a > >>>> UserPrincipal object, I'm thinking of using something a bit > >>>> like SecurityFilter: wrap the request object with a subclass of > >>>> HttpServeletRequestWrapper and add my own > >>>> push/pop/set/get/count UserPrincipal object(s). Then, I could > >>>> hook the login procedure with container methods (JAAS, i.e. a > >>>> web browser login/password pop-up) and still be able to (when > >>>> I'm ready) use SSLext or something like it for the HTTP/HTTPS > >>>> switching. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, David > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Mailing List > >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 > >>>> 6:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: security > >>>> framework!!! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I'm developing a web application with struts.I had a problem > >>>> for support security at jsp pages level for different roles.I > >>>> send an email and recived 2 response to solve my problem: 1. > >>>> with HTML tags. 2. 2.with define role in tiles definition but > >>>> I'm searching for a good framework that be compatibled with > >>>> struts framework and support the security for different roles > >>>> at page levels. I mean for example if I have a jsp page with > >>>> tow textfields and a submit deponds on user's role at the > >>>> system,one user just can see one of the textfield and submit > >>>> buttom and another user can see both of the > > > > textfield > > > >>>> and submit buttom. Can you suggest a good framework for me. > >>>> regards > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
