AD FS 2012 R2 ships with the InsideCorporateNetwork Claim. It evaluates to “True” when a request is received directly at AD FS, or “False”, if a request is received at the WAP. This Claim doesn’t exist in AD FS 2.0/2.1, and it’s fair to say this is one of the more poorly understood differences in behaviour across the versions.
I’ve recently been asked to find out if it’s possible to create an InsideCorporateNetwork Claim in AD FS 2.0/2.1. The benefit of creating it for the older versions is that InsideCorporateNetwork would be usable in exactly the same way that we use it in AD FS 2012 R2 and later, which opens up the following options: Continue reading “Creating an InsideCorporateNetwork Claim for AD FS 2.x”
After recently hitting the default two year expiration point with our SharePoint development environment’s AD CS-issued SSL certificates, I set about updating that environment with a new five year template. I took this opportunity to see if I could make it as good as possible without breaking compatibility with anything. I will discuss some of these compatibility issues along the way. I will also make the certificate exportable, make sure it’s using the SHA256 hash (SHA1 will be deprecated in the near future), change the Certificate Authority (CA) configuration so that HTTP Distribution Points will be contactable from “outside the network”, and set permissions on the template in a way that it will be generally usable.
Steve Peschka tackled some of these basics about 18 months ago, but as he notes, his posts covers the simplest updates you can make. I think a few other options are worth considering. I don’t pretend to know all that there is to know about Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS), or PKI in general, but I do think we can advance considerably beyond the default with a few changes. This is not a well-documented subject, so I hope to pull a few disparate resources together and propose an improved template. If you think anything here can be improved further, please post in the comments and I’ll try to incorporate that feedback.
Continue reading “Creating a broadly compatible, modern SSL certificate with Active Directory Certificate Services”
Many people think of AD FS as merely a federated authentication service. And with a name like Active Directory Federation Services, it’s easy to see why. However, it also has the capacity to make authorisation decisions within its Claims Engine. This may be most familiar as the Office 365 Client Access Policies, but those policies are basically just a flavour of AD FS Issuance Authorisation Rules. An AD FS Issuance Authorisation rule provides a gate at AD FS, where permissions can be granted or denied to authentic users, per-Relying Party, before giving the user Claims for the requested Relying Party. In most cases we will think about these rules as coarse controls, to block a wide category of requests, such as those originating from outside the network, for members of a group, or for any combination of request-based, device-based and user attribute-based Claims. We can even create authorisation rules based on the user’s Identity Provider, or from additional factors of authentication. We will typically still implement most of our authorisation logic within the Relying Parties we are authenticating to, but in some cases it’s very useful to control access at this intermediary tier – especially if a large class of users, devices or networks should be treated as higher risk.
These concepts are not new, and the TechNet documentation I reference here dates back to the earliest wave of AD FS 2.0 RTW content:
Ultimately, I think these articles do answer the question of how to create an AD FS Issuance Authorisation rule, but I can’t point very clearly to the place on these pages that spells it out, and I do think there is a lot of confusing information about this in other places which may lead people astray. Namely, there is a lot of information that only concerns itself with the default Active Directory Claims Provider Rules and the Claims that come from request headers. Also, some of the most referenced AD FS + SharePoint content seems to have been written without authorisation rules in-mind. I want to try to clear some of that up in this post.
I’ve added a fairly significant update regarding the new MFA stage in the pipeline half-way down this post.
Continue reading “The Rules of AD FS Claims Rules”
After a brief diversion, I’m returning to my series on SharePoint with RMS. This post finishes off the baseline considerations, although there’s a lot more to say. But at last, in this post, we’ve reached the point where we know that RMS thinks I’m cool – so now what? Or if you prefer, I’m taking a look at the RMS Use License that is typically embedded in Microsoft Office documents, or in other cases might be associated with a client’s machine.
The Use License that RMS issues acts like an offline enforcer of allowed rights. The rights granted by RMS and the duration they persist define what a user can do with their offline copy of RMS-protected content and how long they can continue to take those actions before they need to re-visit SharePoint and the RMS infrastructure in order to claim fresh rights. Since rights persistence is defined by the owner(s) of a SharePoint list, the impact of those settings should be well understood by any users that have this control.This post focuses on what a user can do offline once RMS has done its job, and the user’s experience once those rights expire, bringing the tension between valid offline access versus timely rights revocation to the fore.
You will notice I’m talking about offline access a lot here. When I say “offline” in reference to RMS-protected content, I mean the documents that have already been encrypted by RMS and decrypted/opened by a user. I say the files are offline because the original unencrypted content still resides in the SharePoint content database. Any edits that RMS allows a user to make to the offline content need to be saved back to SharePoint if they will persist over time. Continue reading “RMS Use Licenses, Offline Access and Rights Revocation with SharePoint 2010”
As this series of posts about SharePoint 2010 with Rights Management moves on, it moves further from SharePoint. In this post I’m describing the final steps in the RMS protection process, where RMS authenticates the requesting user and authorises actions with RMS-protected content.
In most configurations, RMS will rely on its internal AD Cache to reduce the number of LDAP queries for user attributes or Active Directory group membership. RMS typically queries this cache when users request a license. If RMS finds a matching e-mail address for a user, the allowed rights will be granted in a Use License, which will persist inside a document or on a user’s machine until the rights expire. LDAP queries are only issued if cached values don’t exist or if they have expired. After an LDAP query is issued, the response is used to process the immediate request and the values are stored in the AD Cache for later use.
Although this caching process should “just work” initially, there are a number of tiers where user information can fall out of sync. First and foremost, does the signed-on user have an e-mail address in Active Directory that matches the SharePoint User Information List? What happens if this e-mail address changes, or if it didn’t match initially? How can we invalidate stale AD Cache values? How long does the AD Cache persist? What’s in it? What needs to be considered when turning it off? In many cases the default AD Cache values will be suitable, but operational processes should be orchestrated with AD Cache settings in mind, whatever they may be. Cache invalidation processes should also be understood before they need to be invoked. I will explore these considerations in more detail here.
Continue reading “RMS AD Caching for SharePoint 2010 Users”
In the previous posts in this series about SharePoint 2010 with Rights Management, I’ve been looking at the user information requirements to successfully bridge gaps between SharePoint and RMS. In this post I will focus on a poorly documented RMS configuration requirement that is often overlooked and seems to cause many deployment headaches. This is the point of contact where SharePoint first requests RMS.
Continue reading “RMS Publishing Permissions for SharePoint 2010 Application Pool Identities”
In this series of posts on SharePoint with RMS, I’ve mostly focused on the ways things might go wrong if Active Directory data, User Profiles and User Information Lists are misaligned. Now, assuming SharePoint has a reliable Work E-mail value for a user, there are still a number of things that happen between the initiation of a request for RMS-protected content and interaction with it. In this post I will inspect a successful request for RMS-protected content from SharePoint 2010.
Continue reading “Inspecting an AD RMS Request from SharePoint 2010”
Continuing this series about the SharePoint 2010 IRM implementation, in this post I’ll keep looking at the Work E-mail Address attribute in the User Information List, but focus specifically on how the initial value in that field gets populated from different sources for different Authentication Provider Types. As with the fuller picture considered in the last post, this is a lot more complicated than anyone would expect at a glance, but it’s really the lynchpin of this functionality – thus the depth here.
Continue reading “How SharePoint 2010 Authentication Provider Types Alter the Initial Population of Work E-mail Address Values”
In the first part of this series about the SharePoint 2010 IRM implementation, I provided an overview of the technology and why we might use it to enhance SharePoint’s access controls. In this second article, I’ll look closely at the key piece of information that bridges the gap between SharePoint and a Rights Management Server – namely, a user’s e-mail address. RMS relies on a user’s e-mail address in this way outside of the SharePoint world as well; this is an RMS requirement. SharePoint’s implementation attempts to work with this, even though SharePoint doesn’t require a user to have an e-mail address for most things to work.
IRM support has been built in to SharePoint as a WSS (now Foundation) technology. WSS/Foundation don’t have a User Profile Service, so the e-mail address information that RMS requires needs to come from somewhere else. As we’ll see below, it wouldn’t be optimal to query Active Directory for that value whenever RMS-protected content is requested, so SharePoint uses the value it (hopefully) already has in the lowest common denominator (WSS/Foundation) user information container. As we’ll see, reliably populating and updating that information is less straight-forward than it would appear at a glance.
Continue reading “How SharePoint 2010 Finds and Updates a User’s Work E-mail Address”
In recent weeks Information Rights Management (IRM) protections for SharePoint 2013 have received a fair amount of attention, as IRM is now configurable per-tenant, which brings the capabilities to SharePoint Online, supported by Windows Azure Active Directory Rights Management (AADRM). This is great, and I’ll have more to say about these new technologies, but I feel there’s a fair amount of missing public information about the way it’s been working on-premises for many years, which will prove to be foundational for the new stuff. I won’t go back in time to MOSS 2007 to describe that support, but I believe the Classic Windows Authentication scenarios that I will describe for SharePoint 2010 are largely the same as in the earlier implementation.
This first post focuses on the relationships of a few apparently-distinct topics and the effects that these considerations have for a user accessing Rights Managed content in SharePoint 2010. Namely:
- How SharePoint publishes content with Rights Management protections using the User Information List’s Work E-mail value.
How that field gets initially loaded…
- If an entry is added to the User Information List when a user is granted access to a SharePoint Site Collection by name.
- If an entry is added to the User Information List when a user accesses a Site Collection for the first time, having been granted access by group or attribute previously.
- How each of these events vary if the user is authenticated with a SAML Claim, and how Claim Mappings for a SAML Claim Provider’s Trust Relationship can alter this experience.
How the User Information List’s Work E-mail value can change after the User Profile to SharePoint Quick or Full Synchronisation Timer Jobs have run.
- How the scope of users targeted by this timer job works by default.
- How the scope of users targeted by this timer job can be modified and the possible effects of choosing to make this change.
- How Active Directory Rights Management Server (AD RMS, or just RMS below) discovers and caches e-mail address values for a user.
- How changes to an Active Directory user’s mail attribute can have an impact on access to RMS-protected content in SharePoint.
As is no doubt evident already, this is complicated stuff, but in my view, quite necessary to understand if using RMS with SharePoint. These considerations become more important if e-mail addresses are fluid, or at scale, and especially critical if authenticating SharePoint with SAML Claims while using RMS. I’ve produced a process diagram to explain these variations in a single view, but first I will provide background details.
Continue reading “Protecting SharePoint 2010 with Information Rights Management”