As we saw in the technical overview, all
Authentication implementations store a list of
GrantedAuthority objects. These represent the authorities that have been granted to the principal. the
GrantedAuthority objects are inserted into the
Authentication object by the
AuthenticationManager and are later read by
AccessDecisionManager s when making authorization decisions.
GrantedAuthority is an interface with only one method:
This method allows
AccessDecisionManager s to obtain a precise
String representation of the
GrantedAuthority. By returning a representation as a
GrantedAuthority can be easily "read" by most
AccessDecisionManager s. If a
GrantedAuthority cannot be precisely represented as a
GrantedAuthority is considered "complex" and
getAuthority() must return
An example of a "complex"
GrantedAuthority would be an implementation that stores a list of operations and authority thresholds that apply to different customer account numbers. Representing this complex
GrantedAuthority as a
String would be quite difficult, and as a result the
getAuthority() method should return
null. This will indicate to any
AccessDecisionManager that it will need to specifically support the
GrantedAuthority implementation in order to understand its contents.
Spring Security includes one concrete
GrantedAuthorityImpl. This allows any user-specified
String to be converted into a
AuthenticationProvider s included with the security architecture use
GrantedAuthorityImpl to populate the
As we’ve also seen in the Technical Overview chapter, Spring Security provides interceptors which control access to secure objects such as method invocations or web requests. A pre-invocation decision on whether the invocation is allowed to proceed is made by the
AccessDecisionManager is called by the
AbstractSecurityInterceptor and is responsible for making final access control decisions. the
AccessDecisionManager interface contains three methods:
void decide(Authentication authentication, Object secureObject, Collection<ConfigAttribute> attrs) throws AccessDeniedException; boolean supports(ConfigAttribute attribute); boolean supports(Class clazz);
AccessDecisionManager’s `decide method is passed all the relevant information it needs in order to make an authorization decision. In particular, passing the secure
Object enables those arguments contained in the actual secure object invocation to be inspected. For example, let’s assume the secure object was a`MethodInvocation`. It would be easy to query the
MethodInvocation for any
Customer argument, and then implement some sort of security logic in the
AccessDecisionManager to ensure the principal is permitted to operate on that customer. Implementations are expected to throw an
AccessDeniedException if access is denied.
supports(ConfigAttribute) method is called by the
AbstractSecurityInterceptor at startup time to determine if the
AccessDecisionManager can process the passed
supports(Class) method is called by a security interceptor implementation to ensure the configured
AccessDecisionManager supports the type of secure object that the security interceptor will present.
Whilst users can implement their own
AccessDecisionManager to control all aspects of authorization, Spring Security includes several
AccessDecisionManager implementations that are based on voting. Figure 21.1, “Voting Decision Manager” illustrates the relevant classes.
Using this approach, a series of
AccessDecisionVoter implementations are polled on an authorization decision. The
AccessDecisionManager then decides whether or not to throw an
AccessDeniedException based on its assessment of the votes.
AccessDecisionVoter interface has three methods:
int vote(Authentication authentication, Object object, Collection<ConfigAttribute> attrs); boolean supports(ConfigAttribute attribute); boolean supports(Class clazz);
Concrete implementations return an
int, with possible values being reflected in the
AccessDecisionVoter static fields
ACCESS_GRANTED. A voting implementation will return
ACCESS_ABSTAIN if it has no opinion on an authorization decision. If it does have an opinion, it must return either
There are three concrete
AccessDecisionManager s provided with Spring Security that tally the votes. the
ConsensusBased implementation will grant or deny access based on the consensus of non-abstain votes. Properties are provided to control behavior in the event of an equality of votes or if all votes are abstain. The
AffirmativeBased implementation will grant access if one or more
ACCESS_GRANTED votes were received (i.e. a deny vote will be ignored, provided there was at least one grant vote). Like the
ConsensusBased implementation, there is a parameter that controls the behavior if all voters abstain. The
UnanimousBased provider expects unanimous
ACCESS_GRANTED votes in order to grant access, ignoring abstains. It will deny access if there is any
ACCESS_DENIED vote. Like the other implementations, there is a parameter that controls the behaviour if all voters abstain.
It is possible to implement a custom
AccessDecisionManager that tallies votes differently. For example, votes from a particular
AccessDecisionVoter might receive additional weighting, whilst a deny vote from a particular voter may have a veto effect.
The most commonly used
AccessDecisionVoter provided with Spring Security is the simple
RoleVoter, which treats configuration attributes as simple role names and votes to grant access if the user has been assigned that role.
It will vote if any
ConfigAttribute begins with the prefix
ROLE_. It will vote to grant access if there is a
GrantedAuthority which returns a
String representation (via the
getAuthority() method) exactly equal to one or more
ConfigAttributes starting with the prefix
ROLE_. If there is no exact match of any
ConfigAttribute starting with
RoleVoter will vote to deny access. If no
ConfigAttribute begins with
ROLE_, the voter will abstain.
Another voter which we’ve implicitly seen is the
AuthenticatedVoter, which can be used to differentiate between anonymous, fully-authenticated and remember-me authenticated users. Many sites allow certain limited access under remember-me authentication, but require a user to confirm their identity by logging in for full access.
When we’ve used the attribute
IS_AUTHENTICATED_ANONYMOUSLY to grant anonymous access, this attribute was being processed by the
AuthenticatedVoter. See the Javadoc for this class for more information.
Obviously, you can also implement a custom
AccessDecisionVoter and you can put just about any access-control logic you want in it. It might be specific to your application (business-logic related) or it might implement some security administration logic. For example, you’ll find a blog article on the SpringSource web site which describes how to use a voter to deny access in real-time to users whose accounts have been suspended.
AccessDecisionManager is called by the
AbstractSecurityInterceptor before proceeding with the secure object invocation, some applications need a way of modifying the object actually returned by the secure object invocation. Whilst you could easily implement your own AOP concern to achieve this, Spring Security provides a convenient hook that has several concrete implementations that integrate with its ACL capabilities.
Figure 21.2, “After Invocation Implementation” illustrates Spring Security’s
AfterInvocationManager and its concrete implementations.
Like many other parts of Spring Security,
AfterInvocationManager has a single concrete implementation,
AfterInvocationProviderManager, which polls a list of
AfterInvocationProvider s. Each
AfterInvocationProvider is allowed to modify the return object or throw an
AccessDeniedException. Indeed multiple providers can modify the object, as the result of the previous provider is passed to the next in the list.
Please be aware that if you’re using
AfterInvocationManager, you will still need configuration attributes that allow the
MethodSecurityInterceptor’s `AccessDecisionManager to allow an operation. If you’re using the typical Spring Security included
AccessDecisionManager implementations, having no configuration attributes defined for a particular secure method invocation will cause each
AccessDecisionVoter to abstain from voting. In turn, if the
AccessDecisionManager property “allowIfAllAbstainDecisions” is
AccessDeniedException will be thrown. You may avoid this potential issue by either (i) setting “allowIfAllAbstainDecisions” to
true (although this is generally not recommended) or (ii) simply ensure that there is at least one configuration attribute that an
AccessDecisionVoter will vote to grant access for. This latter (recommended) approach is usually achieved through a
ROLE_AUTHENTICATED configuration attribute.
It is a common requirement that a particular role in an application should automatically "include" other roles. For example, in an application which has the concept of an "admin" and a "user" role, you may want an admin to be able to do everything a normal user can. To achieve this, you can either make sure that all admin users are also assigned the "user" role. Alternatively, you can modify every access constraint which requires the "user" role to also include the "admin" role. This can get quite complicated if you have a lot of different roles in your application.
The use of a role-hierarchy allows you to configure which roles (or authorities) should include others. An extended version of Spring Security’s RoleVoter,
RoleHierarchyVoter, is configured with a
RoleHierarchy, from which it obtains all the "reachable authorities" which the user is assigned. A typical configuration might look like this:
<bean id="roleVoter" class="org.springframework.security.access.vote.RoleHierarchyVoter"> <constructor-arg ref="roleHierarchy" /> </bean> <bean id="roleHierarchy" class="org.springframework.security.access.hierarchicalroles.RoleHierarchyImpl"> <property name="hierarchy"> <value> ROLE_ADMIN > ROLE_STAFF ROLE_STAFF > ROLE_USER ROLE_USER > ROLE_GUEST </value> </property> </bean>
Here we have four roles in a hierarchy
ROLE_ADMIN ⇒ ROLE_STAFF ⇒ ROLE_USER ⇒ ROLE_GUEST. A user who is authenticated with
ROLE_ADMIN, will behave as if they have all four roles when security contraints are evaluated against an
AccessDecisionManager cconfigured with the above
> symbol can be thought of as meaning "includes".
Role hierarchies offer a convenient means of simplifying the access-control configuration data for your application and/or reducing the number of authorities which you need to assign to a user. For more complex requirements you may wish to define a logical mapping between the specific access-rights your application requires and the roles that are assigned to users, translating between the two when loading the user information.