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”
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”
Last week, Microsoft released Windows Server 2012 R2 Preview. Some information about new features like the Web Application Proxy role began to emerge from recent industry events, but there isn’t an awful lot to absorb at the moment. Having played around with the preview for a few days, I’m pleased to report that the new features look good. While there are always niggles and unsupported scenarios, the features themselves are bringing Microsoft’s Identity and Access Management (IAM) offerings nearer to parity with the industry leaders. These changes should be of particular interest for SharePoint on-premises and Office 365 customers, as a number of scenarios that were on the bleeding edge of ADFS/UAG capabilities have been brought into the fold with some important enhancements to ADFS, which isn’t just for federation anymore.
In short, we get a new Claims-Aware Reverse Proxy, Device Claims in and outside of the network, Multiple-Factor Authentication and other enhancements for making access control decisions on more than just a username and password. I’ve discussed all of these topics routinely over the last couple of years in SharePoint on-premises and Office 365 contexts, but the current provisions in ADFS and UAG are not as elegant as what we find in the preview, so I’m keenly exploring the new functionality and will try to keep the content flowing. In this post I will focus on the features themselves, as there’s a lot of new stuff and the implementation of this functionality will only be clear with a bit more information than what you’ll find online today. I’m kind of rushing this out after limited use because I know there’s a big appetite for knowledge about the Microsoft Reverse Proxy roadmap, so apologies for the incompleteness in advance.
Continue reading “Significant Identity and Access Management Improvements in Windows Server 2012 R2”
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”
Over the last year I’ve spent a decent chunk of my time shaping and delivering Identity and Access Management workshops for Office 365 projects at Content and Code. This is generally underpinned by Active Directory Federation Services v2.0 (ADFS). In fact I don’t think we’ve done a single Office 365 project without it. Along the way I’ve become acquainted with many of the nuances of the sign on and sign out experiences as they differ across Office 365 services, client applications and different (valid) network perimeter technologies. In this post I will mainly focus on the security implications of publishing ADFS through ISA or TMG Reverse Proxies in the place of ADFS Proxy servers. In the majority of our engagements we’ve considered this option (potentially allowing our clients to consolidate infrastructure) since ISA, TMG or similar Reverse Proxies are commonly deployed. Yet we need to evaluate with full awareness of how ADFS operates without a Claims-aware Reverse Proxy such as the ADFS Proxy. This gets pretty technical, so I’m assuming some high-level familiarity with ADFS, Reverse Proxies and Office 365.
Continue reading “Office 365 Single Sign Out with ISA or TMG as the ADFS Proxy”