PLEASE NOTE: Before release 2.0.0, Spring Security was known as Acegi Security. An ACL
module was provided with the old Acegi Security releases under the
org.[acegisecurity/springsecurity].acl
package. This old package
is now deprecated and will be removed in a future release of Spring Security. This
chapter covers the new ACL module, which is officially recommended from Spring Security
2.0.0 and above, and can be found under the
org.springframework.security.acls
package.
Complex applications often will find the need to define access permissions not simply
at a web request or method invocation level. Instead, security decisions need to
comprise both who (Authentication
), where
(MethodInvocation
) and what (SomeDomainObject
). In
other words, authorization decisions also need to consider the actual domain object
instance subject of a method invocation.
Imagine you're designing an application for a pet clinic. There will be two main groups of users of your Spring-based application: staff of the pet clinic, as well as the pet clinic's customers. The staff will have access to all of the data, whilst your customers will only be able to see their own customer records. To make it a little more interesting, your customers can allow other users to see their customer records, such as their "puppy preschool" mentor or president of their local "Pony Club". Using Spring Security as the foundation, you have several approaches that can be used:
Write your business methods to enforce the security. You could consult a
collection within the Customer
domain object instance to
determine which users have access. By using the
SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication()
,
you'll be able to access the Authentication
object.
Write an AccessDecisionVoter
to enforce the security
from the GrantedAuthority[]
s stored in the
Authentication
object. This would mean your
AuthenticationManager
would need to populate the
Authentication
with custom
GrantedAuthority
[]s representing each of the
Customer
domain object instances the principal has
access to.
Write an AccessDecisionVoter
to enforce the security
and open the target Customer
domain object directly. This
would mean your voter needs access to a DAO that allows it to retrieve the
Customer
object. It would then access the
Customer
object's collection of approved users and
make the appropriate decision.
Each one of these approaches is perfectly legitimate. However, the first couples your
authorization checking to your business code. The main problems with this include the
enhanced difficulty of unit testing and the fact it would be more difficult to reuse the
Customer
authorization logic elsewhere. Obtaining the
GrantedAuthority[]
s from the Authentication
object is also fine, but will not scale to large numbers of
Customer
s. If a user might be able to access 5,000
Customer
s (unlikely in this case, but imagine if it were a popular
vet for a large Pony Club!) the amount of memory consumed and time required to construct
the Authentication
object would be undesirable. The final method,
opening the Customer
directly from external code, is probably the
best of the three. It achieves separation of concerns, and doesn't misuse memory or CPU
cycles, but it is still inefficient in that both the
AccessDecisionVoter
and the eventual business method itself will
perform a call to the DAO responsible for retrieving the Customer
object. Two accesses per method invocation is clearly undesirable. In addition, with
every approach listed you'll need to write your own access control list (ACL)
persistence and business logic from scratch.
Fortunately, there is another alternative, which we'll talk about below.
Spring Security's ACL services are shipped in the
spring-security-acl-xxx.jar
. You will need to add this JAR to your
classpath to use Spring Security's domain object instance security capabilities.
Spring Security's domain object instance security capabilities centre on the concept of an access control list (ACL). Every domain object instance in your system has its own ACL, and the ACL records details of who can and can't work with that domain object. With this in mind, Spring Security delivers three main ACL-related capabilities to your application:
A way of efficiently retrieving ACL entries for all of your domain objects (and modifying those ACLs)
A way of ensuring a given principal is permitted to work with your objects, before methods are called
A way of ensuring a given principal is permitted to work with your objects (or something they return), after methods are called
As indicated by the first bullet point, one of the main capabilities of the Spring Security ACL module is providing a high-performance way of retrieving ACLs. This ACL repository capability is extremely important, because every domain object instance in your system might have several access control entries, and each ACL might inherit from other ACLs in a tree-like structure (this is supported out-of-the-box by Spring Security, and is very commonly used). Spring Security's ACL capability has been carefully designed to provide high performance retrieval of ACLs, together with pluggable caching, deadlock-minimizing database updates, independence from ORM frameworks (we use JDBC directly), proper encapsulation, and transparent database updating.
Given databases are central to the operation of the ACL module, let's explore the four main tables used by default in the implementation. The tables are presented below in order of size in a typical Spring Security ACL deployment, with the table with the most rows listed last:
ACL_SID allows us to uniquely identify any principal or authority in the
system ("SID" stands for "security identity"). The only columns are the ID,
a textual representation of the SID, and a flag to indicate whether the
textual representation refers to a prncipal name or a
GrantedAuthority
. Thus, there is a single row for
each unique principal or GrantedAuthority
. When used in
the context of receiving a permission, a SID is generally called a
"recipient".
ACL_CLASS allows us to uniquely identify any domain object class in the system. The only columns are the ID and the Java class name. Thus, there is a single row for each unique Class we wish to store ACL permissions for.
ACL_OBJECT_IDENTITY stores information for each unique domain object instance in the system. Columns include the ID, a foreign key to the ACL_CLASS table, a unique identifier so we know which ACL_CLASS instance we're providing information for, the parent, a foreign key to the ACL_SID table to represent the owner of the domain object instance, and whether we allow ACL entries to inherit from any parent ACL. We have a single row for every domain object instance we're storing ACL permissions for.
Finally, ACL_ENTRY stores the individual permissions assigned to each recipient. Columns include a foreign key to the ACL_OBJECT_IDENTITY, the recipient (ie a foreign key to ACL_SID), whether we'll be auditing or not, and the integer bit mask that represents the actual permission being granted or denied. We have a single row for every recipient that receives a permission to work with a domain object.
As mentioned in the last paragraph, the ACL system uses integer bit masking. Don't
worry, you need not be aware of the finer points of bit shifting to use the ACL system,
but suffice to say that we have 32 bits we can switch on or off. Each of these bits
represents a permission, and by default the permissions are read (bit 0), write (bit 1),
create (bit 2), delete (bit 3) and administer (bit 4). It's easy to implement your own
Permission
instance if you wish to use other permissions, and the
remainder of the ACL framework will operate without knowledge of your extensions.
It is important to understand that the number of domain objects in your system has absolutely no bearing on the fact we've chosen to use integer bit masking. Whilst you have 32 bits available for permissions, you could have billions of domain object instances (which will mean billions of rows in ACL_OBJECT_IDENTITY and quite probably ACL_ENTRY). We make this point because we've found sometimes people mistakenly believe they need a bit for each potential domain object, which is not the case.
Now that we've provided a basic overview of what the ACL system does, and what it looks like at a table structure, let's explore the key interfaces. The key interfaces are:
Acl
: Every domain object has one and only one
Acl
object, which internally holds the
AccessControlEntry
s as well as knows the owner of the
Acl
. An Acl does not refer directly to the domain object,
but instead to an ObjectIdentity
. The Acl
is stored in the ACL_OBJECT_IDENTITY table.
AccessControlEntry
: An Acl
holds
multiple AccessControlEntry
s, which are often abbreviated as
ACEs in the framework. Each ACE refers to a specific tuple of
Permission
, Sid
and
Acl
. An ACE can also be granting or non-granting and contain
audit settings. The ACE is stored in the ACL_ENTRY table.
Permission
: A permission represents a particular immutable
bit mask, and offers convenience functions for bit masking and outputting
information. The basic permissions presented above (bits 0 through 4) are
contained in the BasePermission
class.
Sid
: The ACL module needs to refer to principals and
GrantedAuthority[]
s. A level of indirection is provided
by the Sid
interface, which is an abbreviation of "security
identity". Common classes include PrincipalSid
(to represent
the principal inside an Authentication
object) and
GrantedAuthoritySid
. The security identity information is
stored in the ACL_SID table.
ObjectIdentity
: Each domain object is represented
internally within the ACL module by an ObjectIdentity
. The
default implementation is called ObjectIdentityImpl
.
AclService
: Retrieves the Acl
applicable
for a given ObjectIdentity
. In the included implementation
(JdbcAclService
), retrieval operations are delegated to a
LookupStrategy
. The LookupStrategy
provides a highly optimized strategy for retrieving ACL information, using
batched retrievals (BasicLookupStrategy
) and supporting
custom implementations that leverage materialized views, hierarchical queries
and similar performance-centric, non-ANSI SQL capabilities.
MutableAclService
: Allows a modified Acl
to be presented for persistence. It is not essential to use this interface if
you do not wish.
Please note that our out-of-the-box AclService and related database classes all use ANSI SQL. This should therefore work with all major databases. At the time of writing, the system had been successfully tested using Hypersonic SQL, PostgreSQL, Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle.
Two samples ship with Spring Security that demonstrate the ACL module. The first is the Contacts Sample, and the other is the Document Management System (DMS) Sample. We suggest taking a look over these for examples.
To get starting using Spring Security's ACL capability, you will need to store your
ACL information somewhere. This necessitates the instantiation of a
DataSource
using Spring. The DataSource
is then
injected into a JdbcMutableAclService
and
BasicLookupStrategy
instance. The latter provides
high-performance ACL retrieval capabilities, and the former provides mutator
capabilities. Refer to one of the samples that ship with Spring Security for an example
configuration. You'll also need to populate the database with the four ACL-specific
tables listed in the last section (refer to the ACL samples for the appropriate SQL
statements).
Once you've created the required schema and instantiated
JdbcMutableAclService
, you'll next need to ensure your domain
model supports interoperability with the Spring Security ACL package. Hopefully
ObjectIdentityImpl
will prove sufficient, as it provides a large
number of ways in which it can be used. Most people will have domain objects that
contain a public Serializable getId()
method. If the return type is
long, or compatible with long (eg an int), you will find you need not give further
consideration to ObjectIdentity
issues. Many parts of the ACL module
rely on long identifiers. If you're not using long (or an int, byte etc), there is a
very good chance you'll need to reimplement a number of classes. We do not intend to
support non-long identifiers in Spring Security's ACL module, as longs are already
compatible with all database sequences, the most common identifier data type, and are of
sufficient length to accommodate all common usage scenarios.
The following fragment of code shows how to create an Acl
, or
modify an existing
Acl
:
// Prepare the information we'd like in our access control entry (ACE) ObjectIdentity oi = new ObjectIdentityImpl(Foo.class, new Long(44)); Sid sid = new PrincipalSid("Samantha"); Permission p = BasePermission.ADMINISTRATION; // Create or update the relevant ACL MutableAcl acl = null; try { acl = (MutableAcl) aclService.readAclById(oi); } catch (NotFoundException nfe) { acl = aclService.createAcl(oi); } // Now grant some permissions via an access control entry (ACE) acl.insertAce(acl.getEntries().length, p, sid, true); aclService.updateAcl(acl);
In the example above, we're retrieving the ACL associated with the "Foo" domain object with identifier number 44. We're then adding an ACE so that a principal named "Samantha" can "administer" the object. The code fragment is relatively self-explanatory, except the insertAce method. The first argument to the insertAce method is determining at what position in the Acl the new entry will be inserted. In the example above, we're just putting the new ACE at the end of the existing ACEs. The final argument is a boolean indicating whether the ACE is granting or denying. Most of the time it will be granting (true), but if it is denying (false), the permissions are effectively being blocked.
Spring Security does not provide any special integration to automatically create, update or delete ACLs as part of your DAO or repository operations. Instead, you will need to write code like shown above for your individual domain objects. It's worth considering using AOP on your services layer to automatically integrate the ACL information with your services layer operations. We've found this quite an effective approach in the past.
Once you've used the above techniques to store some ACL information in the database,
the next step is to actually use the ACL information as part of authorization decision
logic. You have a number of choices here. You could write your own
AccessDecisionVoter
or AfterInvocationProvider
that respectively fires before or after a method invocation. Such classes would use
AclService
to retrieve the relevant ACL and then call
Acl.isGranted(Permission[] permission, Sid[] sids, boolean
administrativeMode)
to decide whether permission is granted or denied.
Alternately, you could use our AclEntryVoter
,
AclEntryAfterInvocationProvider
or
AclEntryAfterInvocationCollectionFilteringProvider
classes. All
of these classes provide a declarative-based approach to evaluating ACL information at
runtime, freeing you from needing to write any code. Please refer to the sample
applications to learn how to use these classes.