ESAPI Access Control

=Access Control 2.0= At the ESAPI summit, we discussed changing Access Control 2.0 to use the command pattern. The following are the current design goals for Access Control 2.0. Enough proof of concept development has been completed for me to believe that these goals are achievable. I’d appreciate your input as to whether they are both desirable and sufficient. Below the goals are the answers to outstanding questions, the sequence of execution and some code snippets to give a better feel for the current direction. Feedback is welcome. I’m happy to make changes.

Current Design Goals:

 * 1) Allow developers to implement access control rules (ACR) using arbitrary java code.
 * Benefit: Allowing arbitrary java code gives ACR developers as much flexibility to write ACRs as they do throughout the normal code base.
 * 1) Facilitate integration with frameworks to enforce ACRs automatically and default to deny access.
 * Benefit: Automatically making the call reduces developer error, because both the call will be made correctly and the developer is forced to provide the security check.
 * 1) Allow developers to call ACRs for evaluation or enforcement manually.
 * Benefit: Allowing manual calls for both uses increases flexibility and facilitates reuse for access control and flow control.
 * 1) Allow ACRs to make decisions based on arbitrary runtime parameters and deployment parameters.
 * Benefit: The policy file stores deployment parameters. Accepting an arbitrary runtime parameter allows stateless ACRs, which decreases object creation costs.

Proposed Additional Design Goals
The following were not in the original set of goals, but I would like us to consider whether they should be included:
 * 1) Keep the Access Control Matrix (ACM) synchronized throughout the SDLC by making the ACM specification drive the integration framework that calls the ACRs.
 * Benefit: Understanding of permissions is clearer and more accurate throughout requirements and test phases.
 * 1) Allow resource names to be grouped and ensure that ACR selection is deterministic.
 * Benefit: Grouping similar resources makes the ACM clearer and easier to manage.
 * 1) Integration with Struts 2, Struts 1, JSR 115, Spring ?.?, JBoss Seam, JBossAop, Aspect J. I’m currently using the Struts2Spring2JtaJpa quickstart for the integration tests.

Outstanding Questions from the ESAPI Summit and their Answers:
Question: Can the runtimeParameter AccessController.isAuthorized(“Resource”, runtimeParameter) be strongly typed in the ACR definition class? Answer: Yes. Java versions 1.5 and above can leverage Generics. AccessControlRules written for 1.4 and below will need to use Object as parameters and then cast appropriately. The current version of Access Control 2.0 is written without generics for backwards compatibility, but I plan to add generics compatible version.

Sequence:
IntegrationComponent -> AccessController -> ACR -> Access is granted or an AccessControlException is thrown.
 * 1) When the system starts, the ACM is read and resources are linked to an ACR.
 * 2) The IntegrationComponent (e.g. a Struts2 Interceptor) calls AccessController.enforceAuthorization(key, runtimeParameter).
 * 3) AccessController maps the key to an ACR and passes it the runtime parameters and static policy file parameters.
 * 4) The ACR executes Java code to evaluate an arbitrarily complex rule set. Note that an ACR could evaluate unusually complex role requirements by assigning it to all roles for a given resource. Also note that ACRs can delegate to other ACRs or even a rules engine.

Code Samples:
What follows is a partial strawman implementation from some proof of concept code that I’ve been working on. Code has been removed to help focus on the critical path. I’d appreciate any feedback and I’m looking especially interested in feedback on usability from a developer’s point of view. Would this help you to implement Access Control for large projects? What can I do to make it safer and easier for developers? To help illustrate the mappings, I’ve used bold red to represent the resource identifier and bold green to represent the ACR throughout the files. Only the first 3 files (ACM, Policy file and ACR) are implemented by the developer. The rest are provided by the AccessController infrastructure.

ACM: Access Control Matrix
This table is (roughly) what the Access Control Matrix looks like. It would probably be a .csv file or database file and would have options to group resources using regular expressions, String.startsWith, etc. The ACM and Policy File (below) combine to define which ACR is executed by AccessController.

Policy File
This xml file is (roughly) what the ACR definitions would look like. It handles what would normally be “footnotes” in an ACM requirements specification document. The name correlates to an ACM cell. The AccessControlRule.class specifies the Java code that will execute. The parameters are passed to the ACR at runtime. Note that this shows the default name-value pair parameter loader, but other parameter loaders (not shown) can be specified. An enhancement would be to allow ACRs to be tagged using annotations so that the Policy file isn't required.

             

ACR: Access Control Rule
The following class is (roughly) what a simple ACR could look like. Note that the runtimeParameter can leverage generics for type safety. Developers would implement this.

public class EchoDynaBeanPolicyParameterACR extends DynaBeanPolicyBaseACR { /**      * @return true iff policyParameter isTrue is a Boolean set to true. * throws ClassCastException if runtimeParameter is not a Boolean. */     public boolean isAuthorized(Object runtimeParameter) throws ClassCastException{ return getPolicyParameters.getBoolean("isTrue"); } }

IntegrationComponent
This class is (roughly) what a framework integration using a Struts2 interceptor would look like. This is part of the framework, developers don’t implement this. However, if a developer wants to execute an ACR, they can do so as demonstrated in the intercept method.

public class AccessControlEnforcementInterceptor extends AbstractInterceptor { public String intercept(ActionInvocation invocation) throws Exception { ESAPI.accessController.enforceAuthorization( invocation.getAction, //assume that getAction returns “Resource1”                 invocation.getInvocationContext); //Note that this line may change to facilitate //mappings between Framework Integrations and multi-purpose ACRs return invocation.invoke; } }

AccessController
This class is (roughly) what the enforceAuthorization method in AccessController could look like. The key is the resource. In our example “Resource1.” This method will need to be enhanced to handle resource groups. This is part of the framework, developers don’t implement this. This doesn’t currently take the user’s role into account, but could.

public void enforceAuthorization(Object key, Object runtimeParameter) throws org.owasp.esapi.errors.AccessControlException { boolean isAuthorized = false; try { AccessControlRule rule = (AccessControlRule)ruleMap.get( key ); if(rule == null) { throw new AccessControlException(                             "AccessControlRule was not found for key: " + key,                              ""); }           System.out.println("Enforcing Authorization Rule \"" + key + "\" Using class: " + rule.getClass.getCanonicalName); isAuthorized = rule .isAuthorized(runtimeParameter); } catch(Exception e) { throw new AccessControlException("An unhandled Exception was " +                       "caught, so we are recasting it as an " +                        "AccessControlException.",                         "",                        e); }     if(!isAuthorized) { throw new AccessControlException("Access Denied for key: " + key +                       " runtimeParameter: " + runtimeParameter, ""); } }