Différence entre authentification basée sur la revendication et authentification Windows classique

Question

J'ai lu plusieurs articles sur la même chose, mais toujours non effacé de la différence entre l'authentification basée sur la réclamation et l'authentification de la fenêtre classique à SharePoint 2013.J'ai compris le concept basé sur la réclamation théoriquement, mais pratiquement impossible de ne voir aucune différence lors de la création d'une application Web.En 2013. Nous sélectionnons une authentification basée sur la réclamation, mais ce que nous faisons vraiment différents ici que SharePoint 2010. Lorsque nous nous connectons à notre application Web, nous utilisons toujours le nom d'utilisateur et le mot de passe, alors comment ça marche vraiment?

Answer 1

SharePoint Foundation supports the following types of authentication and the advantage with claim based authentication is that it supports systems that are non Windows based.

• Windows: IIS and Windows authentication integration options, including Basic, Digest,(NTLM), and Kerberos. Windows authentication allows IIS to perform the authentication for SharePoint Foundation. This is also referred to as “classic mode authentication”. This approach has a number of disadvantages such as. This approach is not future proof and unsuitable for environments such as extranet, inter-organization, or situations where the domain may not be accessible or there may be many domains in play.
• Claims based authentication: The claims-based identity is an identity model in Microsoft SharePoint that includes features such as authentication across users of Windows-based systems and systems that are not Windows-based, multiple authentication types, stronger real-time authentication, a wider set of principal types, and delegation of user identity between applications. When a user signs in to SharePoint, the user's token is validated and then used to sign in to SharePoint. The user's token is a security token issued by a claims provider.

You can find the entire article here.

Answer 2

The big difference with claims based authentication is that you can easily (well it is still SharePoint) add other providers.

For example you can add another provider and being able to sign in with your google account, live-id, linkedin account etc etc.

Claims-based identity allows you to factor out the authentication logic from individual applications. Instead of the application determining who the user is, it receives claims that identify the user.

In software, this bundle of claims is called a security token. Each security token is signed by the issuer who created it. A claims-based application considers users to be authenticated if they present a valid, signed security token from a trusted issuer.

Both from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff359101.aspx which is a great introduction

Answer 3

What I believe is the major difference is that with classic mode, you login directly, and if you need to be authenticated to a second server, it's not possible (you need to be logged in to this second server first -> new login screen). You will find that this is still often done but in that case the second connection is done under a different account (with privileges specifically for the resource, for instance).

With claims, you authenticate, you get a claims token and that is passed around to whoever needs it, and you are authenticated to this second server automatically without another login screen. Given that the server trusts your secure token service (whom initially authenticated you).

I may have the details wrong but in theory but this is generally how it works.

Claims and Kerberos are similar, but they differ in the technicalities.

Important part:

• Kerberos delegation — If the client authenticates with the front-end service by using Kerberos authentication, Kerberos delegation can be used to pass the client's identity to the back-end system.
• Claims — claims authentication allows the client's claims to be passed between services as long as there is trust between the two services and both are claims-aware.
• Claims authentication, like Kerberos authentication, can be used to delegate client credentials but requires the back-end application to be claims-aware.

Source:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/besidethepoint/archive/2010/05/09/double-hop-authentication-why-ntlm-fails-and-kerberos-works.aspx

Answer 4

Vous ne pouvez pas configurer l'authentification basée sur les formulaires si votre application Web utilise l'authentification en mode Classic

Answer 5

Après avoir convertit notre ferme en 2010 pour utiliser une authentification basée sur les réclamations, Out ArcGIS Web Services a cessé de fonctionner et nos services Web WCF personnalisés n'ont plus reçu les informations d'identification de l'utilisateur - je crois qu'ils fonctionnent avec un accès anonyme.Il s'avère que les services Web de la WCF doivent être informés, ce qu'ils ne le sont pas.Les services de WCF utilisés par Silverlight à l'intérieur de SharePoint sont sévèrement limités à l'utilisation de la liaison de base, et il est essentiel de les faire passer des informations d'identification telles qu'elles le faisaient auparavant.Je travaille toujours dans les implications moi-même, mais toute clarification de quelqu'un de plus compétente serait appréciée.Quant à Arcgis, je n'ai pas encore eu les réponses.

Answer 6

Un facteur important des revendications concerne également lesquels les serveurs parlent à quels serveurs.Sous Windows Auth à l'extérieur de Kerberos, le serveur WFE gère la communication au fournisseur d'authentification (généralement AD) et le client ne parle qu'au serveur WFE.Kerberos nécessite toutes les 3 connexions entre le client, le serveur SP et un DC.

Les revendications ne nécessitent pas SP pour se connecter à la source d'authentification.Le client gère le passage entre le serveur SP indiquant quel type de propriétés le serveur SP doit connaître sur l'utilisateur et le fournisseur d'identité.Cela permet au système SP de se concentrer uniquement sur l'autorisation, de ne pas l'identification et de brancher ainsi d'autres fournisseurs d'identité comme Google, Facebook, etc.