Spring Boot provides a spring-boot-starter-security starter that aggregates Spring Security-related dependencies together. The simplest and preferred way to use the starter is to use Spring Initializr by using an IDE integration (Eclipse, IntelliJ, NetBeans) or through https://start.spring.io.

Alternatively, you can manually add the starter, as the following example shows:

Since Spring Boot provides a Maven BOM to manage dependency versions, you do not need to specify a version. If you wish to override the Spring Security version, you may do so by providing a Maven property, as the following example shows:

Since Spring Security makes breaking changes only in major releases, it is safe to use a newer version of Spring Security with Spring Boot. However, at times, you may need to update the version of Spring Framework as well. You can do so by adding a Maven property, as the following example shows:

If you use additional features (such as LDAP, OpenID, and others), you need to also include the appropriate Project Modules.

When you use Spring Security without Spring Boot, the preferred way is to use Spring Security’s BOM to ensure a consistent version of Spring Security is used throughout the entire project. The following example shows how to do so:

A minimal Spring Security Maven set of dependencies typically looks like the following:

If you use additional features (such as LDAP, OpenID, and others), you need to also include the appropriate Project Modules.

Spring Security builds against Spring Framework 5.2.13.RELEASE but should generally work with any newer version of Spring Framework 5.x. Many users are likely to run afoul of the fact that Spring Security’s transitive dependencies resolve Spring Framework 5.2.13.RELEASE, which can cause strange classpath problems. The easiest way to resolve this is to use the spring-framework-bom within the <dependencyManagement> section of your pom.xml as the following example shows:

The preceding example ensures that all the transitive dependencies of Spring Security use the Spring 5.2.13.RELEASE modules.

All GA releases (that is, versions ending in .RELEASE) are deployed to Maven Central, so no additional Maven repositories need to be declared in your pom.

If you use a SNAPSHOT version, you need to ensure that you have the Spring Snapshot repository defined, as the following example shows:

If you use a milestone or release candidate version, you need to ensure that you have the Spring Milestone repository defined, as the following example shows:

Spring Boot provides a spring-boot-starter-security starter that aggregates Spring Security related dependencies together. The simplest and preferred method to use the starter is to use Spring Initializr by using an IDE integration (Eclipse, IntelliJ, NetBeans) or through https://start.spring.io.

Alternatively, you can manually add the starter, as the following example shows:

Since Spring Boot provides a Maven BOM to manage dependency versions, you need not specify a version. If you wish to override the Spring Security version, you may do so by providing a Gradle property, as the following example shows:

Since Spring Security makes breaking changes only in major releases, it is safe to use a newer version of Spring Security with Spring Boot. However, at times, you may need to update the version of Spring Framework as well. You can do so by adding a Gradle property, as the following example shows:

If you use additional features (such as LDAP, OpenID, and others), you need to also include the appropriate Project Modules.

When you use Spring Security without Spring Boot, the preferred way is to use Spring Security’s BOM to ensure a consistent version of Spring Security is used throughout the entire project. You can do so by using the Dependency Management Plugin, as the following example shows:

A minimal Spring Security Maven set of dependencies typically looks like the following:

If you use additional features (such as LDAP, OpenID, and others), you need to also include the appropriate Project Modules.

Spring Security builds against Spring Framework 5.2.13.RELEASE but should generally work with any newer version of Spring Framework 5.x. {JB} Many users are likely to run afoul of the fact that Spring Security’s transitive dependencies resolve Spring Framework 5.2.13.RELEASE, which can cause strange classpath problems. The easiest way to resolve this is to use the spring-framework-bom within your <dependencyManagement> section of your pom.xml. You can do so by using the Dependency Management Plugin, as the following example shows:

The preceding example ensures that all the transitive dependencies of Spring Security use the Spring 5.2.13.RELEASE modules.

All GA releases (that is, versions ending in .RELEASE) are deployed to Maven Central, so using the mavenCentral() repository is sufficient for GA releases. The following example shows how to do so:

If you use a SNAPSHOT version, you need to ensure you have the Spring Snapshot repository defined, as the following example shows:

If you use a milestone or release candidate version, you need to ensure that you have the Spring Milestone repository defined, as the following example shows:

Spring provides comprehensive support for protecting against Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. In the following sections we will explore:

There are many HTTP response headers that can be used to increase the security of web applications. This section is dedicated to the various HTTP response headers that Spring Security provides explicit support for. If necessary, Spring Security can also be configured to provide custom headers.

All HTTP based communication, including static resources, should be protected using TLS.

As a framework, Spring Security does not handle HTTP connections and thus does not provide support for HTTPS directly. However, it does provide a number of features that help with HTTPS usage.

Spring Security 5.2.10.RELEASE requires a Java 8 Runtime Environment or higher. As Spring Security aims to operate in a self-contained manner, there is no need to place any special configuration files into your Java Runtime Environment. In particular, there is no need to configure a special Java Authentication and Authorization Service (JAAS) policy file or place Spring Security into common classpath locations.

Similarly, if you are using an EJB Container or Servlet Container there is no need to put any special configuration files anywhere, nor include Spring Security in a server classloader. All the required files will be contained within your application.

This design offers maximum deployment time flexibility, as you can simply copy your target artifact (be it a JAR, WAR or EAR) from one system to another and it will immediately work.

As of Spring Security 3.0, the contents of the spring-security-core jar were stripped down to the bare minimum. It no longer contains any code related to web-application security, LDAP or namespace configuration. We’ll take a look here at some of the Java types that you’ll find in the core module. They represent the building blocks of the framework, so if you ever need to go beyond a simple namespace configuration then it’s important that you understand what they are, even if you don’t actually need to interact with them directly.

Spring Security can participate in many different authentication environments. While we recommend people use Spring Security for authentication and not integrate with existing Container Managed Authentication, it is nevertheless supported - as is integrating with your own proprietary authentication system.

Now let’s explore the situation where you are using Spring Security in a web application (without web.xml security enabled). How is a user authenticated and the security context established?

Consider a typical web application’s authentication process:

Spring Security has distinct classes responsible for most of the steps described above. The main participants (in the order that they are used) are the ExceptionTranslationFilter, an AuthenticationEntryPoint and an "authentication mechanism", which is responsible for calling the AuthenticationManager which we saw in the previous section.

The main interface responsible for making access-control decisions in Spring Security is the AccessDecisionManager. It has a decide method which takes an Authentication object representing the principal requesting access, a "secure object" (see below) and a list of security metadata attributes which apply for the object (such as a list of roles which are required for access to be granted).

The AuthenticationManager is just an interface, so the implementation can be anything we choose, but how does it work in practice? What if we need to check multiple authentication databases or a combination of different authentication services such as a database and an LDAP server?

The default implementation in Spring Security is called ProviderManager and rather than handling the authentication request itself, it delegates to a list of configured AuthenticationProvider s, each of which is queried in turn to see if it can perform the authentication. Each provider will either throw an exception or return a fully populated Authentication object. Remember our good friends, UserDetails and UserDetailsService? If not, head back to the previous chapter and refresh your memory. The most common approach to verifying an authentication request is to load the corresponding UserDetails and check the loaded password against the one that has been entered by the user. This is the approach used by the DaoAuthenticationProvider (see below). The loaded UserDetails object - and particularly the GrantedAuthority s it contains - will be used when building the fully populated Authentication object which is returned from a successful authentication and stored in the SecurityContext.

If you are using the namespace, an instance of ProviderManager is created and maintained internally, and you add providers to it by using the namespace authentication provider elements (see the namespace chapter). In this case, you should not declare a ProviderManager bean in your application context. However, if you are not using the namespace then you would declare it like so:

In the above example we have three providers. They are tried in the order shown (which is implied by the use of a List), with each provider able to attempt authentication, or skip authentication by simply returning null. If all implementations return null, the ProviderManager will throw a ProviderNotFoundException. If you’re interested in learning more about chaining providers, please refer to the ProviderManager Javadoc.

Authentication mechanisms such as a web form-login processing filter are injected with a reference to the ProviderManager and will call it to handle their authentication requests. The providers you require will sometimes be interchangeable with the authentication mechanisms, while at other times they will depend on a specific authentication mechanism. For example, DaoAuthenticationProvider and LdapAuthenticationProvider are compatible with any mechanism which submits a simple username/password authentication request and so will work with form-based logins or HTTP Basic authentication. On the other hand, some authentication mechanisms create an authentication request object which can only be interpreted by a single type of AuthenticationProvider. An example of this would be JA-SIG CAS, which uses the notion of a service ticket and so can therefore only be authenticated by a CasAuthenticationProvider. You needn’t be too concerned about this, because if you forget to register a suitable provider, you’ll simply receive a ProviderNotFoundException when an attempt to authenticate is made.

As mentioned in the earlier in this reference guide, most authentication providers take advantage of the UserDetails and UserDetailsService interfaces. Recall that the contract for UserDetailsService is a single method:

The returned UserDetails is an interface that provides getters that guarantee non-null provision of authentication information such as the username, password, granted authorities and whether the user account is enabled or disabled. Most authentication providers will use a UserDetailsService, even if the username and password are not actually used as part of the authentication decision. They may use the returned UserDetails object just for its GrantedAuthority information, because some other system (like LDAP or X.509 or CAS etc) has undertaken the responsibility of actually validating the credentials.

Given UserDetailsService is so simple to implement, it should be easy for users to retrieve authentication information using a persistence strategy of their choice. Having said that, Spring Security does include a couple of useful base implementations, which we’ll look at below.

LDAP is often used by organizations as a central repository for user information and as an authentication service. It can also be used to store the role information for application users.

There are many different scenarios for how an LDAP server may be configured so Spring Security’s LDAP provider is fully configurable. It uses separate strategy interfaces for authentication and role retrieval and provides default implementations which can be configured to handle a wide range of situations.

You should be familiar with LDAP before trying to use it with Spring Security. The following link provides a good introduction to the concepts involved and a guide to setting up a directory using the free LDAP server OpenLDAP: http://www.zytrax.com/books/ldap/. Some familiarity with the JNDI APIs used to access LDAP from Java may also be useful. We don’t use any third-party LDAP libraries (Mozilla, JLDAP etc.) in the LDAP provider, but extensive use is made of Spring LDAP, so some familiarity with that project may be useful if you plan on adding your own customizations.

When using LDAP authentication, it is important to ensure that you configure LDAP connection pooling properly. If you are unfamiliar with how to do this, you can refer to the Java LDAP documentation.

LDAP authentication in Spring Security can be roughly divided into the following stages.

The exception is when the LDAP directory is just being used to retrieve user information and authenticate against it locally. This may not be possible as directories are often set up with limited read access for attributes such as user passwords.

We will look at some configuration scenarios below. For full information on available configuration options, please consult the security namespace schema (information from which should be available in your XML editor).

The <ldap-server> element can also be used to create an embedded server, which can be very useful for testing and demonstrations. In this case you use it without the url attribute:

Here we’ve specified that the root DIT of the directory should be "dc=springframework,dc=org", which is the default. Used this way, the namespace parser will create an embedded Apache Directory server and scan the classpath for any LDIF files, which it will attempt to load into the server. You can customize this behaviour using the ldif attribute, which defines an LDIF resource to be loaded:

This makes it a lot easier to get up and running with LDAP, since it can be inconvenient to work all the time with an external server. It also insulates the user from the complex bean configuration needed to wire up an Apache Directory server. Using plain Spring Beans the configuration would be much more cluttered. You must have the necessary Apache Directory dependency jars available for your application to use. These can be obtained from the LDAP sample application.

This is the most common LDAP authentication scenario.

This simple example would obtain the DN for the user by substituting the user login name in the supplied pattern and attempting to bind as that user with the login password. This is OK if all your users are stored under a single node in the directory. If instead you wished to configure an LDAP search filter to locate the user, you could use the following:

If used with the server definition above, this would perform a search under the DN ou=people,dc=springframework,dc=org using the value of the user-search-filter attribute as a filter. Again the user login name is substituted for the parameter in the filter name, so it will search for an entry with the uid attribute equal to the user name. If user-search-base isn’t supplied, the search will be performed from the root.

How authorities are loaded from groups in the LDAP directory is controlled by the following attributes.

So if we used the following configuration

and authenticated successfully as user "ben", the subsequent loading of authorities would perform a search under the directory entry ou=groups,dc=springframework,dc=org, looking for entries which contain the attribute uniqueMember with value uid=ben,ou=people,dc=springframework,dc=org. By default the authority names will have the prefix ROLE_ prepended. You can change this using the role-prefix attribute. If you don’t want any prefix, use role-prefix="none". For more information on loading authorities, see the Javadoc for the DefaultLdapAuthoritiesPopulator class.

The authenticator is also responsible for retrieving any required user attributes. This is because the permissions on the attributes may depend on the type of authentication being used. For example, if binding as the user, it may be necessary to read them with the user’s own permissions.

There are currently two authentication strategies supplied with Spring Security:

The beans discussed above have to be able to connect to the server. They both have to be supplied with a SpringSecurityContextSource which is an extension of Spring LDAP’s ContextSource. Unless you have special requirements, you will usually configure a DefaultSpringSecurityContextSource bean, which can be configured with the URL of your LDAP server and optionally with the username and password of a "manager" user which will be used by default when binding to the server (instead of binding anonymously). For more information read the Javadoc for this class and for Spring LDAP’s AbstractContextSource.

Often a more complicated strategy than simple DN-matching is required to locate a user entry in the directory. This can be encapsulated in an LdapUserSearch instance which can be supplied to the authenticator implementations, for example, to allow them to locate a user. The supplied implementation is FilterBasedLdapUserSearch.

After authenticating the user successfully, the LdapAuthenticationProvider will attempt to load a set of authorities for the user by calling the configured LdapAuthoritiesPopulator bean. The DefaultLdapAuthoritiesPopulator is an implementation which will load the authorities by searching the directory for groups of which the user is a member (typically these will be groupOfNames or groupOfUniqueNames entries in the directory). Consult the Javadoc for this class for more details on how it works.

If you want to use LDAP only for authentication, but load the authorities from a difference source (such as a database) then you can provide your own implementation of this interface and inject that instead.

A typical configuration, using some of the beans we’ve discussed here, might look like this:

This would set up the provider to access an LDAP server with URL ldap://monkeymachine:389/dc=springframework,dc=org. Authentication will be performed by attempting to bind with the DN uid=<user-login-name>,ou=people,dc=springframework,dc=org. After successful authentication, roles will be assigned to the user by searching under the DN ou=groups,dc=springframework,dc=org with the default filter (member=<user’s-DN>). The role name will be taken from the "ou" attribute of each match.

To configure a user search object, which uses the filter (uid=<user-login-name>) for use instead of the DN-pattern (or in addition to it), you would configure the following bean

and use it by setting the BindAuthenticator bean’s userSearch property. The authenticator would then call the search object to obtain the correct user’s DN before attempting to bind as this user.

The net result of an authentication using LdapAuthenticationProvider is the same as a normal Spring Security authentication using the standard UserDetailsService interface. A UserDetails object is created and stored in the returned Authentication object. As with using a UserDetailsService, a common requirement is to be able to customize this implementation and add extra properties. When using LDAP, these will normally be attributes from the user entry. The creation of the UserDetails object is controlled by the provider’s UserDetailsContextMapper strategy, which is responsible for mapping user objects to and from LDAP context data:

Only the first method is relevant for authentication. If you provide an implementation of this interface and inject it into the LdapAuthenticationProvider, you have control over exactly how the UserDetails object is created. The first parameter is an instance of Spring LDAP’s DirContextOperations which gives you access to the LDAP attributes which were loaded during authentication. The username parameter is the name used to authenticate and the final parameter is the collection of authorities loaded for the user by the configured LdapAuthoritiesPopulator.

The way the context data is loaded varies slightly depending on the type of authentication you are using. With the BindAuthenticator, the context returned from the bind operation will be used to read the attributes, otherwise the data will be read using the standard context obtained from the configured ContextSource (when a search is configured to locate the user, this will be the data returned by the search object).

Configuring ActiveDirectoryLdapAuthenticationProvider is quite straightforward. You just need to supply the domain name and an LDAP URL supplying the address of the server ^[3]. An example configuration would then look like this:

Note that there is no need to specify a separate ContextSource in order to define the server location - the bean is completely self-contained. A user named "Sharon", for example, would then be able to authenticate by entering either the username sharon or the full Active Directory userPrincipalName, namely [email protected]. The user’s directory entry will then be located, and the attributes returned for possible use in customizing the created UserDetails object (a UserDetailsContextMapper can be injected for this purpose, as described above). All interaction with the directory takes place with the identity of the user themselves. There is no concept of a "manager" user.

By default, the user authorities are obtained from the memberOf attribute values of the user entry. The authorities allocated to the user can again be customized using a UserDetailsContextMapper. You can also inject a GrantedAuthoritiesMapper into the provider instance to control the authorities which end up in the Authentication object.

You can define custom authentication by exposing a custom AuthenticationProvider as a bean. For example, the following will customize authentication assuming that SpringAuthenticationProvider implements AuthenticationProvider:

In practice you will need a more scalable source of user information than a few names added to the application context file. Most likely you will want to store your user information in something like a database or an LDAP server. LDAP namespace configuration is dealt with in the LDAP chapter, so we won’t cover it here. If you have a custom implementation of Spring Security’s UserDetailsService, called "myUserDetailsService" in your application context, then you can authenticate against this using

If you want to use a database, then you can use

Where "securityDataSource" is the name of a DataSource bean in the application context, pointing at a database containing the standard Spring Security user data tables. Alternatively, you could configure a Spring Security JdbcDaoImpl bean and point at that using the user-service-ref attribute:

You can also use standard AuthenticationProvider beans as follows

where myAuthenticationProvider is the name of a bean in your application context which implements AuthenticationProvider. You can use multiple authentication-provider elements, in which case the providers will be queried in the order they are declared. See The Authentication Manager and the Namespace for more information on how the Spring Security AuthenticationManager is configured using the namespace.

Throughout the years the standard mechanism for storing passwords has evolved. In the beginning passwords were stored in plain text. The passwords were assumed to be safe because the data store the passwords were saved in required credentials to access it. However, malicious users were able to find ways to get large "data dumps" of usernames and passwords using attacks like SQL Injection. As more and more user credentials became public security experts realized we needed to do more to protect users passwords.

Developers were then encouraged to store passwords after running them through a one way hash such as SHA-256. When a user tried to authenticate, the hashed password would be compared to the hash of the password that they typed. This meant that the system only needed to store the one way hash of the password. If a breach occurred, then only the one way hashes of the passwords were exposed. Since the hashes were one way and it was computationally difficult to guess the passwords given the hash, it would not be worth the effort to figure out each password in the system. To defeat this new system malicious users decided to create lookup tables known as Rainbow Tables. Rather than doing the work of guessing each password every time, they computed the password once and stored it in a lookup table.

To mitigate the effectiveness of Rainbow Tables, developers were encouraged to use salted passwords. Instead of using just the password as input to the hash function, random bytes (known as salt) would be generated for every users' password. The salt and the user’s password would be ran through the hash function which produced a unique hash. The salt would be stored alongside the user’s password in clear text. Then when a user tried to authenticate, the hashed password would be compared to the hash of the stored salt and the password that they typed. The unique salt meant that Rainbow Tables were no longer effective because the hash was different for every salt and password combination.

In modern times we realize that cryptographic hashes (like SHA-256) are no longer secure. The reason is that with modern hardware we can perform billions of hash calculations a second. This means that we can crack each password individually with ease.

Developers are now encouraged to leverage adaptive one-way functions to store a password. Validation of passwords with adaptive one-way functions are intentionally resource (i.e. CPU, memory, etc) intensive. An adaptive one-way function allows configuring a "work factor" which can grow as hardware gets better. It is recommended that the "work factor" be tuned to take about 1 second to verify a password on your system. This trade off is to make it difficult for attackers to crack the password, but not so costly it puts excessive burden on your own system. Spring Security has attempted to provide a good starting point for the "work factor", but users are encouraged to customize the "work factor" for their own system since the performance will vary drastically from system to system. Examples of adaptive one-way functions that should be used include bcrypt, PBKDF2, scrypt, and Argon2.

Because adaptive one-way functions are intentionally resource intensive, validating a username and password for every request will degrade performance of an application significantly. There is nothing Spring Security (or any other library) can do to speed up the validation of the password since security is gained by making the validation resource intensive. Users are encouraged to exchange the long term credentials (i.e. username and password) for a short term credential (i.e. session, OAuth Token, etc). The short term credential can be validated quickly without any loss in security.

Prior to Spring Security 5.0 the default PasswordEncoder was NoOpPasswordEncoder which required plain text passwords. Based upon the Password History section you might expect that the default PasswordEncoder is now something like BCryptPasswordEncoder. However, this ignores three real world problems:

Instead Spring Security introduces DelegatingPasswordEncoder which solves all of the problems by:

You can easily construct an instance of DelegatingPasswordEncoder using PasswordEncoderFactories.

Alternatively, you may create your own custom instance. For example:

The BCryptPasswordEncoder implementation uses the widely supported bcrypt algorithm to hash the passwords. In order to make it more resistent to password cracking, bcrypt is deliberately slow. Like other adaptive one-way functions, it should be tuned to take about 1 second to verify a password on your system.

The Argon2PasswordEncoder implementation uses the Argon2 algorithm to hash the passwords. Argon2 is the winner of the Password Hashing Competition. In order to defeat password cracking on custom hardware, Argon2 is a deliberately slow algorithm that requires large amounts of memory. Like other adaptive one-way functions, it should be tuned to take about 1 second to verify a password on your system. The current implementation if the Argon2PasswordEncoder requires BouncyCastle.

The Pbkdf2PasswordEncoder implementation uses the PBKDF2 algorithm to hash the passwords. In order to defeat password cracking PBKDF2 is a deliberately slow algorithm. Like other adaptive one-way functions, it should be tuned to take about 1 second to verify a password on your system. This algorithm is a good choice when FIPS certification is required.

The SCryptPasswordEncoder implementation uses scrypt algorithm to hash the passwords. In order to defeat password cracking on custom hardware scrypt is a deliberately slow algorithm that requires large amounts of memory. Like other adaptive one-way functions, it should be tuned to take about 1 second to verify a password on your system.

There are a significant number of other PasswordEncoder implementations that exist entirely for backward compatibility. They are all deprecated to indicate that they are no longer considered secure. However, there are no plans to remove them since it is difficult to migrate existing legacy systems.

Passwords should always be encoded using a secure hashing algorithm designed for the purpose (not a standard algorithm like SHA or MD5). This is supported by the <password-encoder> element. With bcrypt encoded passwords, the original authentication provider configuration would look like this:

bcrypt is a good choice for most cases, unless you have a legacy system which forces you to use a different algorithm. If you are using a simple hashing algorithm or, even worse, storing plain text passwords, then you should consider migrating to a more secure option like bcrypt.

You can configure Spring Security to detect the submission of an invalid session ID and redirect the user to an appropriate URL. This is achieved through the session-management element:

Note that if you use this mechanism to detect session timeouts, it may falsely report an error if the user logs out and then logs back in without closing the browser. This is because the session cookie is not cleared when you invalidate the session and will be resubmitted even if the user has logged out. You may be able to explicitly delete the JSESSIONID cookie on logging out, for example by using the following syntax in the logout handler:

Unfortunately this can’t be guaranteed to work with every servlet container, so you will need to test it in your environment

===

If you wish to place constraints on a single user’s ability to log in to your application, Spring Security supports this out of the box with the following simple additions. First you need to add the following listener to your web.xml file to keep Spring Security updated about session lifecycle events:

Then add the following lines to your application context:

This will prevent a user from logging in multiple times - a second login will cause the first to be invalidated. Often you would prefer to prevent a second login, in which case you can use

The second login will then be rejected. By "rejected", we mean that the user will be sent to the authentication-failure-url if form-based login is being used. If the second authentication takes place through another non-interactive mechanism, such as "remember-me", an "unauthorized" (401) error will be sent to the client. If instead you want to use an error page, you can add the attribute session-authentication-error-url to the session-management element.

If you are using a customized authentication filter for form-based login, then you have to configure concurrent session control support explicitly. More details can be found in the Session Management chapter.

Session fixation attacks are a potential risk where it is possible for a malicious attacker to create a session by accessing a site, then persuade another user to log in with the same session (by sending them a link containing the session identifier as a parameter, for example). Spring Security protects against this automatically by creating a new session or otherwise changing the session ID when a user logs in. If you don’t require this protection, or it conflicts with some other requirement, you can control the behavior using the session-fixation-protection attribute on <session-management>, which has four options

When session fixation protection occurs, it results in a SessionFixationProtectionEvent being published in the application context. If you use changeSessionId, this protection will also result in any javax.servlet.http.HttpSessionIdListener s being notified, so use caution if your code listens for both events. See the Session Management chapter for additional information.

The SessionManagementFilter checks the contents of the SecurityContextRepository against the current contents of the SecurityContextHolder to determine whether a user has been authenticated during the current request, typically by a non-interactive authentication mechanism, such as pre-authentication or remember-me ^[4]. If the repository contains a security context, the filter does nothing. If it doesn’t, and the thread-local SecurityContext contains a (non-anonymous) Authentication object, the filter assumes they have been authenticated by a previous filter in the stack. It will then invoke the configured SessionAuthenticationStrategy.

If the user is not currently authenticated, the filter will check whether an invalid session ID has been requested (because of a timeout, for example) and will invoke the configured InvalidSessionStrategy, if one is set. The most common behaviour is just to redirect to a fixed URL and this is encapsulated in the standard implementation SimpleRedirectInvalidSessionStrategy. The latter is also used when configuring an invalid session URL through the namespace,as described earlier.

SessionAuthenticationStrategy is used by both SessionManagementFilter and AbstractAuthenticationProcessingFilter, so if you are using a customized form-login class, for example, you will need to inject it into both of these. In this case, a typical configuration, combining the namespace and custom beans might look like this:

Note that the use of the default, SessionFixationProtectionStrategy may cause issues if you are storing beans in the session which implement HttpSessionBindingListener, including Spring session-scoped beans. See the Javadoc for this class for more information.

Spring Security is able to prevent a principal from concurrently authenticating to the same application more than a specified number of times. Many ISVs take advantage of this to enforce licensing, whilst network administrators like this feature because it helps prevent people from sharing login names. You can, for example, stop user "Batman" from logging onto the web application from two different sessions. You can either expire their previous login or you can report an error when they try to log in again, preventing the second login. Note that if you are using the second approach, a user who has not explicitly logged out (but who has just closed their browser, for example) will not be able to log in again until their original session expires.

Concurrency control is supported by the namespace, so please check the earlier namespace chapter for the simplest configuration. Sometimes you need to customize things though.

The implementation uses a specialized version of SessionAuthenticationStrategy, called ConcurrentSessionControlAuthenticationStrategy.

To use concurrent session support, you’ll need to add the following to web.xml:

In addition, you will need to add the ConcurrentSessionFilter to your FilterChainProxy. The ConcurrentSessionFilter requires two constructor arguments, sessionRegistry, which generally points to an instance of SessionRegistryImpl, and sessionInformationExpiredStrategy, which defines the strategy to apply when a session has expired. A configuration using the namespace to create the FilterChainProxy and other default beans might look like this:

Adding the listener to web.xml causes an ApplicationEvent to be published to the Spring ApplicationContext every time a HttpSession commences or terminates. This is critical, as it allows the SessionRegistryImpl to be notified when a session ends. Without it, a user will never be able to log back in again once they have exceeded their session allowance, even if they log out of another session or it times out.

Remember-me or persistent-login authentication refers to web sites being able to remember the identity of a principal between sessions. This is typically accomplished by sending a cookie to the browser, with the cookie being detected during future sessions and causing automated login to take place. Spring Security provides the necessary hooks for these operations to take place, and has two concrete remember-me implementations. One uses hashing to preserve the security of cookie-based tokens and the other uses a database or other persistent storage mechanism to store the generated tokens.

Note that both implementations require a UserDetailsService. If you are using an authentication provider which doesn’t use a UserDetailsService (for example, the LDAP provider) then it won’t work unless you also have a UserDetailsService bean in your application context.

This approach uses hashing to achieve a useful remember-me strategy. In essence a cookie is sent to the browser upon successful interactive authentication, with the cookie being composed as follows:

As such the remember-me token is valid only for the period specified, and provided that the username, password and key does not change. Notably, this has a potential security issue in that a captured remember-me token will be usable from any user agent until such time as the token expires. This is the same issue as with digest authentication. If a principal is aware a token has been captured, they can easily change their password and immediately invalidate all remember-me tokens on issue. If more significant security is needed you should use the approach described in the next section. Alternatively remember-me services should simply not be used at all.

If you are familiar with the topics discussed in the chapter on namespace configuration, you can enable remember-me authentication just by adding the <remember-me> element:

The UserDetailsService will normally be selected automatically. If you have more than one in your application context, you need to specify which one should be used with the user-service-ref attribute, where the value is the name of your UserDetailsService bean.

This approach is based on the article http://jaspan.com/improved_persistent_login_cookie_best_practice with some minor modifications ^[5]. To use the this approach with namespace configuration, you would supply a datasource reference:

The database should contain a persistent_logins table, created using the following SQL (or equivalent):

Remember-me is used with UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter, and is implemented via hooks in the AbstractAuthenticationProcessingFilter superclass. It is also used within BasicAuthenticationFilter. The hooks will invoke a concrete RememberMeServices at the appropriate times. The interface looks like this:

Please refer to the Javadoc for a fuller discussion on what the methods do, although note at this stage that AbstractAuthenticationProcessingFilter only calls the loginFail() and loginSuccess() methods. The autoLogin() method is called by RememberMeAuthenticationFilter whenever the SecurityContextHolder does not contain an Authentication. This interface therefore provides the underlying remember-me implementation with sufficient notification of authentication-related events, and delegates to the implementation whenever a candidate web request might contain a cookie and wish to be remembered. This design allows any number of remember-me implementation strategies. We’ve seen above that Spring Security provides two implementations. We’ll look at these in turn.

Support for OpenID attribute exchange. As an example, the following configuration would attempt to retrieve the email and full name from the OpenID provider, for use by the application:

The "type" of each OpenID attribute is a URI, determined by a particular schema, in this case https://axschema.org/. If an attribute must be retrieved for successful authentication, the required attribute can be set. The exact schema and attributes supported will depend on your OpenID provider. The attribute values are returned as part of the authentication process and can be accessed afterwards using the following code:

The OpenIDAttribute contains the attribute type and the retrieved value (or values in the case of multi-valued attributes). We’ll see more about how the SecurityContextHolder class is used when we look at core Spring Security components in the technical overview chapter. Multiple attribute exchange configurations are also be supported, if you wish to use multiple identity providers. You can supply multiple attribute-exchange elements, using an identifier-matcher attribute on each. This contains a regular expression which will be matched against the OpenID identifier supplied by the user. See the OpenID sample application in the codebase for an example configuration, providing different attribute lists for the Google, Yahoo and MyOpenID providers.

It’s generally considered good security practice to adopt a "deny-by-default" where you explicitly specify what is allowed and disallow everything else. Defining what is accessible to unauthenticated users is a similar situation, particularly for web applications. Many sites require that users must be authenticated for anything other than a few URLs (for example the home and login pages). In this case it is easiest to define access configuration attributes for these specific URLs rather than have for every secured resource. Put differently, sometimes it is nice to say ROLE_SOMETHING is required by default and only allow certain exceptions to this rule, such as for login, logout and home pages of an application. You could also omit these pages from the filter chain entirely, thus bypassing the access control checks, but this may be undesirable for other reasons, particularly if the pages behave differently for authenticated users.

This is what we mean by anonymous authentication. Note that there is no real conceptual difference between a user who is "anonymously authenticated" and an unauthenticated user. Spring Security’s anonymous authentication just gives you a more convenient way to configure your access-control attributes. Calls to servlet API calls such as getCallerPrincipal, for example, will still return null even though there is actually an anonymous authentication object in the SecurityContextHolder.

There are other situations where anonymous authentication is useful, such as when an auditing interceptor queries the SecurityContextHolder to identify which principal was responsible for a given operation. Classes can be authored more robustly if they know the SecurityContextHolder always contains an Authentication object, and never null.

Anonymous authentication support is provided automatically when using the HTTP configuration Spring Security 3.0 and can be customized (or disabled) using the <anonymous> element. You don’t need to configure the beans described here unless you are using traditional bean configuration.

Three classes that together provide the anonymous authentication feature. AnonymousAuthenticationToken is an implementation of Authentication, and stores the GrantedAuthority s which apply to the anonymous principal. There is a corresponding AnonymousAuthenticationProvider, which is chained into the ProviderManager so that AnonymousAuthenticationToken s are accepted. Finally, there is an AnonymousAuthenticationFilter, which is chained after the normal authentication mechanisms and automatically adds an AnonymousAuthenticationToken to the SecurityContextHolder if there is no existing Authentication held there. The definition of the filter and authentication provider appears as follows:

The key is shared between the filter and authentication provider, so that tokens created by the former are accepted by the latter ^[6]. The userAttribute is expressed in the form of usernameInTheAuthenticationToken,grantedAuthority[,grantedAuthority]. This is the same syntax as used after the equals sign for the userMap property of InMemoryDaoImpl.

As explained earlier, the benefit of anonymous authentication is that all URI patterns can have security applied to them. For example:

Rounding out the anonymous authentication discussion is the AuthenticationTrustResolver interface, with its corresponding AuthenticationTrustResolverImpl implementation. This interface provides an isAnonymous(Authentication) method, which allows interested classes to take into account this special type of authentication status. The ExceptionTranslationFilter uses this interface in processing AccessDeniedException s. If an AccessDeniedException is thrown, and the authentication is of an anonymous type, instead of throwing a 403 (forbidden) response, the filter will instead commence the AuthenticationEntryPoint so the principal can authenticate properly. This is a necessary distinction, otherwise principals would always be deemed "authenticated" and never be given an opportunity to login via form, basic, digest or some other normal authentication mechanism.

You will often see the ROLE_ANONYMOUS attribute in the above interceptor configuration replaced with IS_AUTHENTICATED_ANONYMOUSLY, which is effectively the same thing when defining access controls. This is an example of the use of the AuthenticatedVoter which we will see in the authorization chapter. It uses an AuthenticationTrustResolver to process this particular configuration attribute and grant access to anonymous users. The AuthenticatedVoter approach is more powerful, since it allows you to differentiate between anonymous, remember-me and fully-authenticated users. If you don’t need this functionality though, then you can stick with ROLE_ANONYMOUS, which will be processed by Spring Security’s standard RoleVoter.

Because most pre-authentication mechanisms follow the same pattern, Spring Security has a set of classes which provide an internal framework for implementing pre-authenticated authentication providers. This removes duplication and allows new implementations to be added in a structured fashion, without having to write everything from scratch. You don’t need to know about these classes if you want to use something like X.509 authentication, as it already has a namespace configuration option which is simpler to use and get started with. If you need to use explicit bean configuration or are planning on writing your own implementation then an understanding of how the provided implementations work will be useful. You will find classes under the org.springframework.security.web.authentication.preauth. We just provide an outline here so you should consult the Javadoc and source where appropriate.

X.509 authentication is covered in its own chapter. Here we’ll look at some classes which provide support for other pre-authenticated scenarios.

Spring Security provides a package able to delegate authentication requests to the Java Authentication and Authorization Service (JAAS). This package is discussed in detail below.

The AbstractJaasAuthenticationProvider is the basis for the provided JAAS AuthenticationProvider implementations. Subclasses must implement a method that creates the LoginContext. The AbstractJaasAuthenticationProvider has a number of dependencies that can be injected into it that are discussed below.

The DefaultJaasAuthenticationProvider allows a JAAS Configuration object to be injected into it as a dependency. It then creates a LoginContext using the injected JAAS Configuration. This means that DefaultJaasAuthenticationProvider is not bound any particular implementation of Configuration as JaasAuthenticationProvider is.

The JaasAuthenticationProvider assumes the default Configuration is an instance of ConfigFile. This assumption is made in order to attempt to update the Configuration. The JaasAuthenticationProvider then uses the default Configuration to create the LoginContext.

Let’s assume we have a JAAS login configuration file, /WEB-INF/login.conf, with the following contents:

Like all Spring Security beans, the JaasAuthenticationProvider is configured via the application context. The following definitions would correspond to the above JAAS login configuration file:

If configured, the JaasApiIntegrationFilter will attempt to run as the Subject on the JaasAuthenticationToken. This means that the Subject can be accessed using:

This integration can easily be configured using the jaas-api-provision attribute. This feature is useful when integrating with legacy or external API’s that rely on the JAAS Subject being populated.

JA-SIG produces an enterprise-wide single sign on system known as CAS. Unlike other initiatives, JA-SIG’s Central Authentication Service is open source, widely used, simple to understand, platform independent, and supports proxy capabilities. Spring Security fully supports CAS, and provides an easy migration path from single-application deployments of Spring Security through to multiple-application deployments secured by an enterprise-wide CAS server.

You can learn more about CAS at https://www.apereo.org. You will also need to visit this site to download the CAS Server files.

Whilst the CAS web site contains documents that detail the architecture of CAS, we present the general overview again here within the context of Spring Security. Spring Security 3.x supports CAS 3. At the time of writing, the CAS server was at version 3.4.

Somewhere in your enterprise you will need to setup a CAS server. The CAS server is simply a standard WAR file, so there isn’t anything difficult about setting up your server. Inside the WAR file you will customise the login and other single sign on pages displayed to users.

When deploying a CAS 3.4 server, you will also need to specify an AuthenticationHandler in the deployerConfigContext.xml included with CAS. The AuthenticationHandler has a simple method that returns a boolean as to whether a given set of Credentials is valid. Your AuthenticationHandler implementation will need to link into some type of backend authentication repository, such as an LDAP server or database. CAS itself includes numerous AuthenticationHandler s out of the box to assist with this. When you download and deploy the server war file, it is set up to successfully authenticate users who enter a password matching their username, which is useful for testing.

Apart from the CAS server itself, the other key players are of course the secure web applications deployed throughout your enterprise. These web applications are known as "services". There are three types of services. Those that authenticate service tickets, those that can obtain proxy tickets, and those that authenticate proxy tickets. Authenticating a proxy ticket differs because the list of proxies must be validated and often times a proxy ticket can be reused.

The web application side of CAS is made easy due to Spring Security. It is assumed you already know the basics of using Spring Security, so these are not covered again below. We’ll assume a namespace based configuration is being used and add in the CAS beans as required. Each section builds upon the previous section. A fullCAS sample application can be found in the Spring Security Samples.

The most common use of X.509 certificate authentication is in verifying the identity of a server when using SSL, most commonly when using HTTPS from a browser. The browser will automatically check that the certificate presented by a server has been issued (ie digitally signed) by one of a list of trusted certificate authorities which it maintains.

You can also use SSL with "mutual authentication"; the server will then request a valid certificate from the client as part of the SSL handshake. The server will authenticate the client by checking that its certificate is signed by an acceptable authority. If a valid certificate has been provided, it can be obtained through the servlet API in an application. Spring Security X.509 module extracts the certificate using a filter. It maps the certificate to an application user and loads that user’s set of granted authorities for use with the standard Spring Security infrastructure.

You should be familiar with using certificates and setting up client authentication for your servlet container before attempting to use it with Spring Security. Most of the work is in creating and installing suitable certificates and keys. For example, if you’re using Tomcat then read the instructions here https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-9.0-doc/ssl-howto.html. It’s important that you get this working before trying it out with Spring Security

Enabling X.509 client authentication is very straightforward. Just add the <x509/> element to your http security namespace configuration.

The element has two optional attributes:

The subject-principal-regex should contain a single group. For example the default expression "CN=(.*?)," matches the common name field. So if the subject name in the certificate is "CN=Jimi Hendrix, OU=…​", this will give a user name of "Jimi Hendrix". The matches are case insensitive. So "emailAddress=(.*?)," will match "EMAILADDRESS=[email protected],CN=…​" giving a user name "[email protected]". If the client presents a certificate and a valid username is successfully extracted, then there should be a valid Authentication object in the security context. If no certificate is found, or no corresponding user could be found then the security context will remain empty. This means that you can easily use X.509 authentication with other options such as a form-based login.

There are some pre-generated certificates in the samples/certificate directory in the Spring Security project. You can use these to enable SSL for testing if you don’t want to generate your own. The file server.jks contains the server certificate, private key and the issuing certificate authority certificate. There are also some client certificate files for the users from the sample applications. You can install these in your browser to enable SSL client authentication.

To run tomcat with SSL support, drop the server.jks file into the tomcat conf directory and add the following connector to the server.xml file

clientAuth can also be set to want if you still want SSL connections to succeed even if the client doesn’t provide a certificate. Clients which don’t present a certificate won’t be able to access any objects secured by Spring Security unless you use a non-X.509 authentication mechanism, such as form authentication.

The AbstractSecurityInterceptor is able to temporarily replace the Authentication object in the SecurityContext and SecurityContextHolder during the secure object callback phase. This only occurs if the original Authentication object was successfully processed by the AuthenticationManager and AccessDecisionManager. The RunAsManager will indicate the replacement Authentication object, if any, that should be used during the SecurityInterceptorCallback.

By temporarily replacing the Authentication object during the secure object callback phase, the secured invocation will be able to call other objects which require different authentication and authorization credentials. It will also be able to perform any internal security checks for specific GrantedAuthority objects. Because Spring Security provides a number of helper classes that automatically configure remoting protocols based on the contents of the SecurityContextHolder, these run-as replacements are particularly useful when calling remote web services

A RunAsManager interface is provided by Spring Security:

The first method returns the Authentication object that should replace the existing Authentication object for the duration of the method invocation. If the method returns null, it indicates no replacement should be made. The second method is used by the AbstractSecurityInterceptor as part of its startup validation of configuration attributes. The supports(Class) method is called by a security interceptor implementation to ensure the configured RunAsManager supports the type of secure object that the security interceptor will present.

One concrete implementation of a RunAsManager is provided with Spring Security. The RunAsManagerImpl class returns a replacement RunAsUserToken if any ConfigAttribute starts with RUN_AS_. If any such ConfigAttribute is found, the replacement RunAsUserToken will contain the same principal, credentials and granted authorities as the original Authentication object, along with a new SimpleGrantedAuthority for each RUN_AS_ ConfigAttribute. Each new SimpleGrantedAuthority will be prefixed with ROLE_, followed by the RUN_AS ConfigAttribute. For example, a RUN_AS_SERVER will result in the replacement RunAsUserToken containing a ROLE_RUN_AS_SERVER granted authority.

The replacement RunAsUserToken is just like any other Authentication object. It needs to be authenticated by the AuthenticationManager, probably via delegation to a suitable AuthenticationProvider. The RunAsImplAuthenticationProvider performs such authentication. It simply accepts as valid any RunAsUserToken presented.

To ensure malicious code does not create a RunAsUserToken and present it for guaranteed acceptance by the RunAsImplAuthenticationProvider, the hash of a key is stored in all generated tokens. The RunAsManagerImpl and RunAsImplAuthenticationProvider is created in the bean context with the same key:

By using the same key, each RunAsUserToken can be validated it was created by an approved RunAsManagerImpl. The RunAsUserToken is immutable after creation for security reasons

You might be wondering where the login form came from when you were prompted to log in, since we made no mention of any HTML files or JSPs. Since Spring Security’s default configuration does not explicitly set a URL for the login page, Spring Security generates one automatically, based on the features that are enabled and using standard values for the URL which processes the submitted login, the default target URL the user will be sent to after logging in and so on.

While the automatically generated log in page is convenient to get up and running quickly, most applications will want to provide their own login page. When we want to change the default configuration, we can customize the WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter that we mentioned earlier by extending it like so:

And then override the configure method as seen below:

An example log in page implemented with JSPs for our current configuration can be seen below:

BasicAuthenticationFilter is responsible for processing basic authentication credentials presented in HTTP headers. This can be used for authenticating calls made by Spring remoting protocols (such as Hessian and Burlap), as well as normal browser user agents (such as Firefox and Internet Explorer). The standard governing HTTP Basic Authentication is defined by RFC 1945, Section 11, and BasicAuthenticationFilter conforms with this RFC. Basic Authentication is an attractive approach to authentication, because it is very widely deployed in user agents and implementation is extremely simple (it’s just a Base64 encoding of the username:password, specified in an HTTP header).

To implement HTTP Basic Authentication, you need to add a BasicAuthenticationFilter to your filter chain. The application context should contain BasicAuthenticationFilter and its required collaborator:

The configured AuthenticationManager processes each authentication request. If authentication fails, the configured AuthenticationEntryPoint will be used to retry the authentication process. Usually you will use the filter in combination with a BasicAuthenticationEntryPoint, which returns a 401 response with a suitable header to retry HTTP Basic authentication. If authentication is successful, the resulting Authentication object will be placed into the SecurityContextHolder as usual.

If the authentication event was successful, or authentication was not attempted because the HTTP header did not contain a supported authentication request, the filter chain will continue as normal. The only time the filter chain will be interrupted is if authentication fails and the AuthenticationEntryPoint is called.

Now that we’ve reviewed the theory, let’s see how to use it. To implement HTTP Digest Authentication, it is necessary to define DigestAuthenticationFilter in the filter chain. The application context will need to define the DigestAuthenticationFilter and its required collaborators:

The configured UserDetailsService is needed because DigestAuthenticationFilter must have direct access to the clear text password of a user. Digest Authentication will NOT work if you are using encoded passwords in your DAO ^[9]. The DAO collaborator, along with the UserCache, are typically shared directly with a DaoAuthenticationProvider. The authenticationEntryPoint property must be DigestAuthenticationEntryPoint, so that DigestAuthenticationFilter can obtain the correct realmName and key for digest calculations.

Like BasicAuthenticationFilter, if authentication is successful an Authentication request token will be placed into the SecurityContextHolder. If the authentication event was successful, or authentication was not attempted because the HTTP header did not contain a Digest Authentication request, the filter chain will continue as normal. The only time the filter chain will be interrupted is if authentication fails and the AuthenticationEntryPoint is called, as discussed in the previous paragraph.

Digest Authentication’s RFC offers a range of additional features to further increase security. For example, the nonce can be changed on every request. Despite this, Spring Security implementation was designed to minimise the complexity of the implementation (and the doubtless user agent incompatibilities that would emerge), and avoid needing to store server-side state. You are invited to review RFC 2617 if you wish to explore these features in more detail. As far as we are aware, Spring Security’s implementation does comply with the minimum standards of this RFC.

When using the WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter, logout capabilities are automatically applied. The default is that accessing the URL /logout will log the user out by:

Similar to configuring login capabilities, however, you also have various options to further customize your logout requirements:

Generally, in order to customize logout functionality, you can add LogoutHandler and/or LogoutSuccessHandler implementations. For many common scenarios, these handlers are applied under the covers when using the fluent API.

The logout element adds support for logging out by navigating to a particular URL. The default logout URL is /logout, but you can set it to something else using the logout-url attribute. More information on other available attributes may be found in the namespace appendix.

Generally, LogoutHandler implementations indicate classes that are able to participate in logout handling. They are expected to be invoked to perform necessary clean-up. As such they should not throw exceptions. Various implementations are provided:

Please see Remember-Me Interfaces and Implementations for details.

Instead of providing LogoutHandler implementations directly, the fluent API also provides shortcuts that provide the respective LogoutHandler implementations under the covers. E.g. deleteCookies() allows specifying the names of one or more cookies to be removed on logout success. This is a shortcut compared to adding a CookieClearingLogoutHandler.

The LogoutSuccessHandler is called after a successful logout by the LogoutFilter, to handle e.g. redirection or forwarding to the appropriate destination. Note that the interface is almost the same as the LogoutHandler but may raise an exception.

The following implementations are provided:

As mentioned above, you don’t need to specify the SimpleUrlLogoutSuccessHandler directly. Instead, the fluent API provides a shortcut by setting the logoutSuccessUrl(). This will setup the SimpleUrlLogoutSuccessHandler under the covers. The provided URL will be redirected to after a logout has occurred. The default is /login?logout.

The HttpStatusReturningLogoutSuccessHandler can be interesting in REST API type scenarios. Instead of redirecting to a URL upon the successful logout, this LogoutSuccessHandler allows you to provide a plain HTTP status code to be returned. If not configured a status code 200 will be returned by default.

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 String, a GrantedAuthority can be easily "read" by most AccessDecisionManager s. If a GrantedAuthority cannot be precisely represented as a String, the GrantedAuthority is considered "complex" and getAuthority() must return null.

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 GrantedAuthority implementation, SimpleGrantedAuthority. This allows any user-specified String to be converted into a GrantedAuthority. All AuthenticationProvider s included with the security architecture use SimpleGrantedAuthority to populate the Authentication object.

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.

Whilst the 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.

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 false, an 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_USER or 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:

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 constraints are evaluated against an AccessDecisionManager configured with the above RoleHierarchyVoter. The > 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.

Prior to Spring Security 2.0, securing MethodInvocation s needed quite a lot of boiler plate configuration. Now the recommended approach for method security is to use namespace configuration. This way the method security infrastructure beans are configured automatically for you so you don’t really need to know about the implementation classes. We’ll just provide a quick overview of the classes that are involved here.

Method security is enforced using a MethodSecurityInterceptor, which secures MethodInvocation s. Depending on the configuration approach, an interceptor may be specific to a single bean or shared between multiple beans. The interceptor uses a MethodSecurityMetadataSource instance to obtain the configuration attributes that apply to a particular method invocation. MapBasedMethodSecurityMetadataSource is used to store configuration attributes keyed by method names (which can be wildcarded) and will be used internally when the attributes are defined in the application context using the <intercept-methods> or <protect-point> elements. Other implementations will be used to handle annotation-based configuration.

The AspectJ security interceptor is very similar to the AOP Alliance security interceptor discussed in the previous section. Indeed we will only discuss the differences in this section.

The AspectJ interceptor is named AspectJSecurityInterceptor. Unlike the AOP Alliance security interceptor, which relies on the Spring application context to weave in the security interceptor via proxying, the AspectJSecurityInterceptor is weaved in via the AspectJ compiler. It would not be uncommon to use both types of security interceptors in the same application, with AspectJSecurityInterceptor being used for domain object instance security and the AOP Alliance MethodSecurityInterceptor being used for services layer security.

Let’s first consider how the AspectJSecurityInterceptor is configured in the Spring application context:

As you can see, aside from the class name, the AspectJSecurityInterceptor is exactly the same as the AOP Alliance security interceptor. Indeed the two interceptors can share the same securityMetadataSource, as the SecurityMetadataSource works with java.lang.reflect.Method s rather than an AOP library-specific class. Of course, your access decisions have access to the relevant AOP library-specific invocation (ie MethodInvocation or JoinPoint) and as such can consider a range of addition criteria when making access decisions (such as method arguments).

Next you’ll need to define an AspectJ aspect. For example:

In the above example, the security interceptor will be applied to every instance of PersistableEntity, which is an abstract class not shown (you can use any other class or pointcut expression you like). For those curious, AspectJCallback is needed because the proceed(); statement has special meaning only within an around() body. The AspectJSecurityInterceptor calls this anonymous AspectJCallback class when it wants the target object to continue.

You will need to configure Spring to load the aspect and wire it with the AspectJSecurityInterceptor. A bean declaration which achieves this is shown below:

That’s it! Now you can create your beans from anywhere within your application, using whatever means you think fit (eg new Person();) and they will have the security interceptor applied.

Spring Security uses Spring EL for expression support and you should look at how that works if you are interested in understanding the topic in more depth. Expressions are evaluated with a "root object" as part of the evaluation context. Spring Security uses specific classes for web and method security as the root object, in order to provide built-in expressions and access to values such as the current principal.

To use expressions to secure individual URLs, you would first need to set the use-expressions attribute in the <http> element to true. Spring Security will then expect the access attributes of the <intercept-url> elements to contain Spring EL expressions. The expressions should evaluate to a Boolean, defining whether access should be allowed or not. For example:

Here we have defined that the "admin" area of an application (defined by the URL pattern) should only be available to users who have the granted authority "admin" and whose IP address matches a local subnet. We’ve already seen the built-in hasRole expression in the previous section. The expression hasIpAddress is an additional built-in expression which is specific to web security. It is defined by the WebSecurityExpressionRoot class, an instance of which is used as the expression root object when evaluation web-access expressions. This object also directly exposed the HttpServletRequest object under the name request so you can invoke the request directly in an expression. If expressions are being used, a WebExpressionVoter will be added to the AccessDecisionManager which is used by the namespace. So if you aren’t using the namespace and want to use expressions, you will have to add one of these to your configuration.

Method security is a bit more complicated than a simple allow or deny rule. Spring Security 3.0 introduced some new annotations in order to allow comprehensive support for the use of expressions.

We can enable annotation-based security using the @EnableGlobalMethodSecurity annotation on any @Configuration instance. For example, the following would enable Spring Security’s @Secured annotation.

Adding an annotation to a method (on a class or interface) would then limit the access to that method accordingly. Spring Security’s native annotation support defines a set of attributes for the method. These will be passed to the AccessDecisionManager for it to make the actual decision:

Support for JSR-250 annotations can be enabled using

These are standards-based and allow simple role-based constraints to be applied but do not have the power Spring Security’s native annotations. To use the new expression-based syntax, you would use

and the equivalent Java code would be

Sometimes you may need to perform operations that are more complicated than are possible with the @EnableGlobalMethodSecurity annotation allow. For these instances, you can extend the GlobalMethodSecurityConfiguration ensuring that the @EnableGlobalMethodSecurity annotation is present on your subclass. For example, if you wanted to provide a custom MethodSecurityExpressionHandler, you could use the following configuration:

For additional information about methods that can be overridden, refer to the GlobalMethodSecurityConfiguration Javadoc.

This element is used to enable annotation-based security in your application (by setting the appropriate attributes on the element), and also to group together security pointcut declarations which will be applied across your entire application context. You should only declare one <global-method-security> element. The following declaration would enable support for Spring Security’s @Secured:

Adding an annotation to a method (on an class or interface) would then limit the access to that method accordingly. Spring Security’s native annotation support defines a set of attributes for the method. These will be passed to the AccessDecisionManager for it to make the actual decision:

Support for JSR-250 annotations can be enabled using

These are standards-based and allow simple role-based constraints to be applied but do not have the power Spring Security’s native annotations. To use the new expression-based syntax, you would use

and the equivalent Java code would be

Expression-based annotations are a good choice if you need to define simple rules that go beyond checking the role names against the user’s list of authorities.

The use of protect-pointcut is particularly powerful, as it allows you to apply security to many beans with only a simple declaration. Consider the following example:

This will protect all methods on beans declared in the application context whose classes are in the com.mycompany package and whose class names end in "Service". Only users with the ROLE_USER role will be able to invoke these methods. As with URL matching, the most specific matches must come first in the list of pointcuts, as the first matching expression will be used. Security annotations take precedence over pointcuts.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

Spring Boot 2.x brings full auto-configuration capabilities for OAuth 2.0 Login.

This section shows how to configure the OAuth 2.0 Login sample using Google as the Authentication Provider and covers the following topics:

The following table outlines the mapping of the Spring Boot 2.x OAuth Client properties to the ClientRegistration properties.

CommonOAuth2Provider pre-defines a set of default client properties for a number of well known providers: Google, GitHub, Facebook, and Okta.

For example, the authorization-uri, token-uri, and user-info-uri do not change often for a Provider. Therefore, it makes sense to provide default values in order to reduce the required configuration.

As demonstrated previously, when we configured a Google client, only the client-id and client-secret properties are required.

The following listing shows an example:

For cases where you may want to specify a different registrationId, such as google-login, you can still leverage auto-defaulting of client properties by configuring the provider property.

The following listing shows an example:

There are some OAuth 2.0 Providers that support multi-tenancy, which results in different protocol endpoints for each tenant (or sub-domain).

For example, an OAuth Client registered with Okta is assigned to a specific sub-domain and have their own protocol endpoints.

For these cases, Spring Boot 2.x provides the following base property for configuring custom provider properties: spring.security.oauth2.client.provider.[providerId].

The following listing shows an example:

The Spring Boot 2.x auto-configuration class for OAuth Client support is OAuth2ClientAutoConfiguration.

It performs the following tasks:

If you need to override the auto-configuration based on your specific requirements, you may do so in the following ways:

If you are not able to use Spring Boot 2.x and would like to configure one of the pre-defined providers in CommonOAuth2Provider (for example, Google), apply the following configuration:

HttpSecurity.oauth2Login() provides a number of configuration options for customizing OAuth 2.0 Login. The main configuration options are grouped into their protocol endpoint counterparts.

For example, oauth2Login().authorizationEndpoint() allows configuring the Authorization Endpoint, whereas oauth2Login().tokenEndpoint() allows configuring the Token Endpoint.

The following code shows an example:

The main goal of the oauth2Login() DSL was to closely align with the naming, as defined in the specifications.

The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework defines the Protocol Endpoints as follows:

The authorization process utilizes two authorization server endpoints (HTTP resources):

As well as one client endpoint:

The OpenID Connect Core 1.0 specification defines the UserInfo Endpoint as follows:

The UserInfo Endpoint is an OAuth 2.0 Protected Resource that returns claims about the authenticated end-user. To obtain the requested claims about the end-user, the client makes a request to the UserInfo Endpoint by using an access token obtained through OpenID Connect Authentication. These claims are normally represented by a JSON object that contains a collection of name-value pairs for the claims.

The following code shows the complete configuration options available for the oauth2Login() DSL:

The following sections go into more detail on each of the configuration options available: