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:

<dependencies>
    <!-- ... other dependency elements ... -->
    <dependency>
        <groupId>org.springframework.boot</groupId>
        <artifactId>spring-boot-starter-security</artifactId>
    </dependency>
</dependencies>

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:

<properties>
    <!-- ... -->
    <spring-security.version>5.2.15.RELEASE</spring-security.version>
</dependencies>

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:

<properties>
    <!-- ... -->
    <spring.version>5.2.19.RELEASE</spring.version>
</dependencies>

If you use additional features (such as LDAP, OpenID, and others), you need to also include the appropriate Chapter 6, 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:

<dependencyManagement>
    <dependencies>
        <!-- ... other dependency elements ... -->
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.springframework.security</groupId>
            <artifactId>spring-security-bom</artifactId>
            <version>5.2.15.RELEASE</version>
            <type>pom</type>
            <scope>import</scope>
        </dependency>
    </dependencies>
</dependencyManagement>

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

<dependencies>
    <!-- ... other dependency elements ... -->
    <dependency>
        <groupId>org.springframework.security</groupId>
        <artifactId>spring-security-web</artifactId>
    </dependency>
    <dependency>
        <groupId>org.springframework.security</groupId>
        <artifactId>spring-security-config</artifactId>
    </dependency>
</dependencies>

If you use additional features (such as LDAP, OpenID, and others), you need to also include the appropriate Chapter 6, Project Modules.

Spring Security builds against Spring Framework 5.2.19.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 5.2.19.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:

<dependencyManagement>
    <dependencies>
        <!-- ... other dependency elements ... -->
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.springframework</groupId>
            <artifactId>spring-framework-bom</artifactId>
            <version>5.2.19.RELEASE</version>
            <type>pom</type>
            <scope>import</scope>
        </dependency>
    </dependencies>
</dependencyManagement>

The preceding example ensures that all the transitive dependencies of Spring Security use the Spring 5.2.19.RELEASE modules.

	Note
	This approach uses Maven’s “bill of materials” (BOM) concept and is only available in Maven 2.0.9+. For additional details about how dependencies are resolved, see Maven’s Introduction to the Dependency Mechanism documentation.

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:

<repositories>
    <!-- ... possibly other repository elements ... -->
    <repository>
        <id>spring-snapshot</id>
        <name>Spring Snapshot Repository</name>
        <url>https://repo.spring.io/snapshot</url>
    </repository>
</repositories>

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:

<repositories>
    <!-- ... possibly other repository elements ... -->
    <repository>
        <id>spring-milestone</id>
        <name>Spring Milestone Repository</name>
        <url>https://repo.spring.io/milestone</url>
    </repository>
</repositories>

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:

dependencies {
    compile "org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-security"
}

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:

ext['spring-security.version']='5.2.15.RELEASE'

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:

ext['spring.version']='5.2.19.RELEASE'

If you use additional features (such as LDAP, OpenID, and others), you need to also include the appropriate Chapter 6, 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:

plugins {
    id "io.spring.dependency-management" version "1.0.6.RELEASE"
}

dependencyManagement {
    imports {
        mavenBom 'org.springframework.security:spring-security-bom:5.2.15.RELEASE'
    }
}

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

dependencies {
    compile "org.springframework.security:spring-security-web"
    compile "org.springframework.security:spring-security-config"
}

If you use additional features (such as LDAP, OpenID, and others), you need to also include the appropriate Chapter 6, Project Modules.

Spring Security builds against Spring Framework 5.2.19.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 5.2.19.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:

plugins {
    id "io.spring.dependency-management" version "1.0.6.RELEASE"
}

dependencyManagement {
    imports {
        mavenBom 'org.springframework:spring-framework-bom:5.2.19.RELEASE'
    }
}

The preceding example ensures that all the transitive dependencies of Spring Security use the Spring 5.2.19.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:

repositories {
    mavenCentral()
}

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

repositories {
    maven { url 'https://repo.spring.io/snapshot' }
}

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:

repositories {
    maven { url 'https://repo.spring.io/milestone' }
}

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

	Note
	This portion of the documentation discusses the general topic of CSRF protection. Refer to the relevant sections for specific information on CSRF protection for servlet and WebFlux based applications.

<form method="post"
    action="/transfer">
<input type="text"
    name="amount"/>
<input type="text"
    name="routingNumber"/>
<input type="text"
    name="account"/>
<input type="submit"
    value="Transfer"/>
</form>

POST /transfer HTTP/1.1
Host: bank.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=randomid
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

amount=100.00&routingNumber=1234&account=9876

<form method="post"
    action="https://bank.example.com/transfer">
<input type="hidden"
    name="amount"
    value="100.00"/>
<input type="hidden"
    name="routingNumber"
    value="evilsRoutingNumber"/>
<input type="hidden"
    name="account"
    value="evilsAccountNumber"/>
<input type="submit"
    value="Win Money!"/>
</form>

Protecting Against CSRF Attacks

The reason that a CSRF attack is possible is that the HTTP request from the victim’s website and the request from the attacker’s website are exactly the same. This means there is no way to reject requests coming from the evil website and allow requests coming from the bank’s website. To protect against CSRF attacks we need to ensure there is something in the request that the evil site is unable to provide so we can differentiate the two requests.

Spring provides two mechanisms to protect against CSRF attacks:

• The the section called “Synchronizer Token Pattern”
• Specifying the the section called “SameSite Attribute” on your session cookie

	Note
	Both protections require that the section called “Safe Methods Must be Idempotent”

Safe Methods Must be Idempotent

In order for either protection against CSRF to work, the application must ensure that "safe" HTTP methods are idempotent. This means that requests with the HTTP method GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, and TRACE should not change the state of the application.

Synchronizer Token Pattern

The predominant and most comprehensive way to protect against CSRF attacks is to use the Synchronizer Token Pattern. This solution is to ensure that each HTTP request requires, in addition to our session cookie, a secure random generated value called a CSRF token must be present in the HTTP request.

When an HTTP request is submitted, the server must look up the expected CSRF token and compare it against the actual CSRF token in the HTTP request. If the values do not match, the HTTP request should be rejected.

The key to this working is that the actual CSRF token should be in a part of the HTTP request that is not automatically included by the browser. For example, requiring the actual CSRF token in an HTTP parameter or an HTTP header will protect against CSRF attacks. Requiring the actual CSRF token in a cookie does not work because cookies are automatically included in the HTTP request by the browser.

We can relax the expectations to only require the actual CSRF token for each HTTP request that updates state of the application. For that to work, our application must ensure that safe HTTP methods are idempotent. This improves usability since we want to allow linking to our website using links from external sites. Additionally, we do not want to include the random token in HTTP GET as this can cause the tokens to be leaked.

Let’s take a look at how our example would change when using the Synchronizer Token Pattern. Assume the actual CSRF token is required to be in an HTTP parameter named _csrf. Our application’s transfer form would look like:

Example 5.4. Synchronizer Token Form

<form method="post"
    action="/transfer">
<input type="hidden"
    name="_csrf"
    value="4bfd1575-3ad1-4d21-96c7-4ef2d9f86721"/>
<input type="text"
    name="amount"/>
<input type="text"
    name="routingNumber"/>
<input type="hidden"
    name="account"/>
<input type="submit"
    value="Transfer"/>
</form>

The form now contains a hidden input with the value of the CSRF token. External sites cannot read the CSRF token since the same origin policy ensures the evil site cannot read the response.

The corresponding HTTP request to transfer money would look like this:

Example 5.5. Synchronizer Token request

POST /transfer HTTP/1.1
Host: bank.example.com
Cookie: JSESSIONID=randomid
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

amount=100.00&routingNumber=1234&account=9876&_csrf=4bfd1575-3ad1-4d21-96c7-4ef2d9f86721

You will notice that the HTTP request now contains the _csrf parameter with a secure random value. The evil website will not be able to provide the correct value for the _csrf parameter (which must be explicitly provided on the evil website) and the transfer will fail when the server compares the actual CSRF token to the expected CSRF token.

SameSite Attribute

An emerging way to protect against CSRF Attacks is to specify the SameSite Attribute on cookies. A server can specify the SameSite attribute when setting a cookie to indicate that the cookie should not be sent when coming from external sites.

	Note
	Spring Security does not directly control the creation of the session cookie, so it does not provide support for the SameSite attribute. Spring Session provides support for the SameSite attribute in servlet based applications. Spring Framework’s CookieWebSessionIdResolver provides out of the box support for the SameSite attribute in WebFlux based applications.

An example, HTTP response header with the SameSite attribute might look like:

Example 5.6. SameSite HTTP response

Set-Cookie: JSESSIONID=randomid; Domain=bank.example.com; Secure; HttpOnly; SameSite=Lax

Valid values for the SameSite attribute are:

• Strict - when specified any request coming from the same-site will include the cookie. Otherwise, the cookie will not be included in the HTTP request.
• Lax - when specified cookies will be sent when coming from the same-site or when the request comes from top-level navigations and the method is idempotent. Otherwise, the cookie will not be included in the HTTP request.

Let’s take a look at how our example could be protected using the SameSite attribute. The bank application can protect against CSRF by specifying the SameSite attribute on the session cookie.

With the SameSite attribute set on our session cookie, the browser will continue to send the JSESSIONID cookie with requests coming from the banking website. However, the browser will no longer send the JSESSIONID cookie with a transfer request coming from the evil website. Since the session is no longer present in the transfer request coming from the evil website, the application is protected from the CSRF attack.

There are some important considerations that one should be aware about when using SameSite attribute to protect against CSRF attacks.

Setting the SameSite attribute to Strict provides a stronger defense but can confuse users. Consider a user that stays logged into a social media site hosted at https://social.example.com. The user receives an email at https://email.example.org that includes a link to the social media site. If the user clicks on the link, they would rightfully expect to be authenticated to the social media site. However, if the SameSite attribute is Strict the cookie would not be sent and so the user would not be authenticated.

	Note
	We could improve the protection and usability of SameSite protection against CSRF attacks by implementing gh-7537.

Another obvious consideration is that in order for the SameSite attribute to protect users, the browser must support the SameSite attribute. Most modern browsers do support the SameSite attribute. However, older browsers that are still in use may not.

For this reason, it is generally recommended to use the SameSite attribute as a defense in depth rather than the sole protection against CSRF attacks.

<form action="https://bank.example.com/transfer" method="post" enctype="text/plain">
    <input name='{"amount":100,"routingNumber":"evilsRoutingNumber","account":"evilsAccountNumber", "ignore_me":"' value='test"}' type='hidden'>
    <input type="submit"
        value="Win Money!"/>
</form>

{ "amount": 100,
"routingNumber": "evilsRoutingNumber",
"account": "evilsAccountNumber",
"ignore_me": "=test"
}

<form action="https://bank.example.com/transfer.json" method="post" enctype="text/plain">
    <input name='{"amount":100,"routingNumber":"evilsRoutingNumber","account":"evilsAccountNumber", "ignore_me":"' value='test"}' type='hidden'>
    <input type="submit"
        value="Win Money!"/>
</form>

CSRF Considerations

There are a few special considerations to consider when implementing protection against CSRF attacks.

Logging In

In order to protect against forging log in requests the log in HTTP request should be protected against CSRF attacks. Protecting against forging log in requests is necessary so that a malicious user cannot read a victim’s sensitive information. The attack is executed by:

• A malicious user performs a CSRF log in using the malicious user’s credentials. The victim is now authenticated as the malicious user.
• The malicious user then tricks the victim to visit the compromised website and enter sensitive information
• The information is associated to the malicious user’s account so the malicious user can log in with their own credentials and view the vicitim’s sensitive information

A possible complication to ensuring log in HTTP requests are protected against CSRF attacks is that the user might experience a session timeout that causes the request to be rejected. A session timeout is surprising to users who do not expect to need to have a session in order to log in. For more information refer to the section called “CSRF and Session Timeouts”.

Logging Out

In order to protect against forging log out requests, the log out HTTP request should be protected against CSRF attacks. Protecting against forging log out requests is necessary so a malicious user cannot read a victim’s sensitive information. For details on the attack refer to this blog post.

A possible complication to ensuring log out HTTP requests are protected against CSRF attacks is that the user might experience a session timeout that causes the request to be rejected. A session timeout is surprising to users who do not expect to need to have a session in order to log out. For more information refer to the section called “CSRF and Session Timeouts”.

CSRF and Session Timeouts

More often than not, the expected CSRF token is stored in the session. This means that as soon as the session expires the server will not find an expected CSRF token and reject the HTTP request. There are a number of options to solve timeouts each of which come with trade offs.

• The best way to mitigate the timeout is by using JavaScript to request a CSRF token on form submission. The form is then updated with the CSRF token and submitted.
• Another option is to have some JavaScript that lets the user know their session is about to expire. The user can click a button to continue and refresh the session.

• Finally, the expected CSRF token could be stored in a cookie. This allows the expected CSRF token to outlive the session.

  One might ask why the expected CSRF token isn’t stored in a cookie by default. This is because there are known exploits in which headers (i.e. specify the cookies) can be set by another domain. This is the same reason Ruby on Rails no longer skips CSRF checks when the header X-Requested-With is present. See this webappsec.org thread for details on how to perform the exploit. Another disadvantage is that by removing the state (i.e. the timeout) you lose the ability to forcibly terminate the token if it is compromised.

Multipart (file upload)

Protecting multipart requests (file uploads) from CSRF attacks causes a chicken and the egg problem. In order to prevent a CSRF attack from occurring, the body of the HTTP request must be read to obtain actual CSRF token. However, reading the body means that the file will be uploaded which means an external site can upload a file.

There are two options to using CSRF protection with multipart/form-data. Each option has its trade-offs.

• Place CSRF Token in the Body
• Place CSRF Token in the URL

	Note
	Before you integrate Spring Security’s CSRF protection with multipart file upload, ensure that you can upload without the CSRF protection first. More information about using multipart forms with Spring can be found within the 1.1.11. Multipart Resolver section of the Spring reference and the MultipartFilter javadoc.

Place CSRF Token in the Body

The first option is to include the actual CSRF token in the body of the request. By placing the CSRF token in the body, the body will be read before authorization is performed. This means that anyone can place temporary files on your server. However, only authorized users will be able to submit a File that is processed by your application. In general, this is the recommended approach because the temporary file uplaod should have a negligible impact on most servers.

Include CSRF Token in URL

If allowing unauthorized users to upload temporary files is not acceptable, an alternative is to include the expected CSRF token as a query parameter in the action attribute of the form. The disadvantage to this approach is that query parameters can be leaked. More generally, it is considered best practice to place sensitive data within the body or headers to ensure it is not leaked. Additional information can be found in RFC 2616 Section 15.1.3 Encoding Sensitive Information in URI’s.

HiddenHttpMethodFilter

In some applications a form parameter can be used to override the HTTP method. For example, the form below could be used to treat the HTTP method as a delete rather than a post.

Example 5.10. CSRF Hidden HTTP Method Form

<form action="/process"
    method="post">
    <!-- ... -->
    <input type="hidden"
        name="_method"
        value="delete"/>
</form>

Overriding the HTTP method occurs in a filter. That filter must be placed before Spring Security’s support. Note that overriding only happens on a post, so this is actually unlikely to cause any real problems. However, it is still best practice to ensure it is placed before Spring Security’s filters.

	Note
	This portion of the documentation discusses the general topic of Security HTTP Response Headers. Refer to the relevant sections for specific information on Security HTTP Response Headers servlet and WebFlux based applications.

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.

Default Security Headers

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to customize the defaults for both servlet and webflux based applications.

Spring Security provides a default set of security related HTTP response headers to provide secure defaults.

The default for Spring Security is to include the following headers:

Example 5.11. Default Security HTTP Response Headers

Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, max-age=0, must-revalidate
Pragma: no-cache
Expires: 0
X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000 ; includeSubDomains
X-Frame-Options: DENY
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block

	Note
	Strict-Transport-Security is only added on HTTPS requests

If the defaults do not meet your needs, you can easily remove, modify, or add headers from these defaults. For additional details on each of these headers, refer to the corresponding sections:

• Cache Control
• Content Type Options
• HTTP Strict Transport Security
• X-Frame-Options
• X-XSS-Protection

Cache Control

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to customize the defaults for both servlet and webflux based applications.

Spring Security’s default is to disable caching to protect user’s content.

If a user authenticates to view sensitive information and then logs out, we don’t want a malicious user to be able to click the back button to view the sensitive information. The cache control headers that are sent by default are:

Example 5.12. Default Cache Control HTTP Response Headers

Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, max-age=0, must-revalidate
Pragma: no-cache
Expires: 0

In order to be secure by default, Spring Security adds these headers by default. However, if your application provides it’s own cache control headers Spring Security will back out of the way. This allows for applications to ensure that static resources like CSS and JavaScript can be cached.

Content Type Options

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to customize the defaults for both servlet and webflux based applications.

Historically browsers, including Internet Explorer, would try to guess the content type of a request using content sniffing. This allowed browsers to improve the user experience by guessing the content type on resources that had not specified the content type. For example, if a browser encountered a JavaScript file that did not have the content type specified, it would be able to guess the content type and then execute it.

Note

There are many additional things one should do (i.e. only display the document in a distinct domain, ensure Content-Type header is set, sanitize the document, etc) when allowing content to be uploaded. However, these measures are out of the scope of what Spring Security provides. It is also important to point out when disabling content sniffing, you must specify the content type in order for things to work properly.

The problem with content sniffing is that this allowed malicious users to use polyglots (i.e. a file that is valid as multiple content types) to execute XSS attacks. For example, some sites may allow users to submit a valid postscript document to a website and view it. A malicious user might create a postscript document that is also a valid JavaScript file and execute a XSS attack with it.

Spring Security disables content sniffing by default by adding the following header to HTTP responses:

Example 5.13. nosniff HTTP Response Header

X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff

HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to customize the defaults for both servlet and webflux based applications.

When you type in your bank’s website, do you enter mybank.example.com or do you enter https://mybank.example.com? If you omit the https protocol, you are potentially vulnerable to Man in the Middle attacks. Even if the website performs a redirect to https://mybank.example.com a malicious user could intercept the initial HTTP request and manipulate the response (i.e. redirect to https://mibank.example.com and steal their credentials).

Many users omit the https protocol and this is why HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) was created. Once mybank.example.com is added as a HSTS host, a browser can know ahead of time that any request to mybank.example.com should be interpreted as https://mybank.example.com. This greatly reduces the possibility of a Man in the Middle attack occurring.

	Note
	In accordance with RFC6797, the HSTS header is only injected into HTTPS responses. In order for the browser to acknowledge the header, the browser must first trust the CA that signed the SSL certificate used to make the connection (not just the SSL certificate).

One way for a site to be marked as a HSTS host is to have the host preloaded into the browser. Another is to add the Strict-Transport-Security header to the response. For example, Spring Security’s default behavior is to add the following header which instructs the browser to treat the domain as an HSTS host for a year (there are approximately 31536000 seconds in a year):

Example 5.14. Strict Transport Security HTTP Response Header

Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000 ; includeSubDomains ; preload

The optional includeSubDomains directive instructs the browser that subdomains (i.e. secure.mybank.example.com) should also be treated as an HSTS domain.

The optional preload directive instructs the browser that domain should be preloaded in browser as HSTS domain. For more details on HSTS preload please see https://hstspreload.org.

HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP)

	Note
	In order to remain passive Spring Security still provides support for HPKP in servlet environments, but for the reasons listed above HPKP is no longer recommended by the security team.

HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP) specifies to a web client which public key to use with certain web server to prevent Man in the Middle (MITM) attacks with forged certificates. When used correctly, HPKP could add additional layers of protection against compromised certificates. However, due to the complexity of HPKP many experts no longer recommend using it and Chrome has even removed support for it.

For additional details around why HPKP is no longer recommended read Is HTTP Public Key Pinning Dead? and I’m giving up on HPKP.

X-Frame-Options

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to customize the defaults for both servlet and webflux based applications.

Allowing your website to be added to a frame can be a security issue. For example, using clever CSS styling users could be tricked into clicking on something that they were not intending (video demo). For example, a user that is logged into their bank might click a button that grants access to other users. This sort of attack is known as Clickjacking.

	Note
	Another modern approach to dealing with clickjacking is to use the section called “Content Security Policy (CSP)”.

There are a number ways to mitigate clickjacking attacks. For example, to protect legacy browsers from clickjacking attacks you can use frame breaking code. While not perfect, the frame breaking code is the best you can do for the legacy browsers.

A more modern approach to address clickjacking is to use X-Frame-Options header. By default Spring Security disables rendering pages within an iframe using with the following header:

X-Frame-Options: DENY

X-XSS-Protection

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to customize the defaults for both servlet and webflux based applications.

Some browsers have built in support for filtering out reflected XSS attacks. This is by no means foolproof, but does assist in XSS protection.

The filtering is typically enabled by default, so adding the header typically just ensures it is enabled and instructs the browser what to do when a XSS attack is detected. For example, the filter might try to change the content in the least invasive way to still render everything. At times, this type of replacement can become a XSS vulnerability in itself. Instead, it is best to block the content rather than attempt to fix it. By default Spring Security blocks the content using the following header:

X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block

Content Security Policy (CSP)

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to configure both servlet and webflux based applications.

Content Security Policy (CSP) is a mechanism that web applications can leverage to mitigate content injection vulnerabilities, such as cross-site scripting (XSS). CSP is a declarative policy that provides a facility for web application authors to declare and ultimately inform the client (user-agent) about the sources from which the web application expects to load resources.

	Note
	Content Security Policy is not intended to solve all content injection vulnerabilities. Instead, CSP can be leveraged to help reduce the harm caused by content injection attacks. As a first line of defense, web application authors should validate their input and encode their output.

A web application may employ the use of CSP by including one of the following HTTP headers in the response:

• Content-Security-Policy
• Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only

Each of these headers are used as a mechanism to deliver a security policy to the client. A security policy contains a set of security policy directives, each responsible for declaring the restrictions for a particular resource representation.

For example, a web application can declare that it expects to load scripts from specific, trusted sources, by including the following header in the response:

Example 5.15. Content Security Policy Example

Content-Security-Policy: script-src https://trustedscripts.example.com

An attempt to load a script from another source other than what is declared in the script-src directive will be blocked by the user-agent. Additionally, if the report-uri directive is declared in the security policy, then the violation will be reported by the user-agent to the declared URL.

For example, if a web application violates the declared security policy, the following response header will instruct the user-agent to send violation reports to the URL specified in the policy’s report-uri directive.

Example 5.16. Content Security Policy with report-uri

Content-Security-Policy: script-src https://trustedscripts.example.com; report-uri /csp-report-endpoint/

Violation reports are standard JSON structures that can be captured either by the web application’s own API or by a publicly hosted CSP violation reporting service, such as, https://report-uri.io/.

The Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only header provides the capability for web application authors and administrators to monitor security policies, rather than enforce them. This header is typically used when experimenting and/or developing security policies for a site. When a policy is deemed effective, it can be enforced by using the Content-Security-Policy header field instead.

Given the following response header, the policy declares that scripts may be loaded from one of two possible sources.

Example 5.17. Content Security Policy Report Only

Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only: script-src 'self' https://trustedscripts.example.com; report-uri /csp-report-endpoint/

If the site violates this policy, by attempting to load a script from evil.com, the user-agent will send a violation report to the declared URL specified by the report-uri directive, but still allow the violating resource to load nevertheless.

Applying Content Security Policy to a web application is often a non-trivial undertaking. The following resources may provide further assistance in developing effective security policies for your site.

An Introduction to Content Security Policy

CSP Guide - Mozilla Developer Network

W3C Candidate Recommendation

Referrer Policy

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to configure both servlet and webflux based applications.

Referrer Policy is a mechanism that web applications can leverage to manage the referrer field, which contains the last page the user was on.

Spring Security’s approach is to use Referrer Policy header, which provides different policies:

Example 5.18. Referrer Policy Example

Referrer-Policy: same-origin

The Referrer-Policy response header instructs the browser to let the destination knows the source where the user was previously.

Feature Policy

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to configure both servlet and webflux based applications.

Feature Policy is a mechanism that allows web developers to selectively enable, disable, and modify the behavior of certain APIs and web features in the browser.

Example 5.19. Feature Policy Example

Feature-Policy: geolocation 'self'

With Feature Policy, developers can opt-in to a set of "policies" for the browser to enforce on specific features used throughout your site. These policies restrict what APIs the site can access or modify the browser’s default behavior for certain features.

Clear Site Data

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to configure both servlet and webflux based applications.

Clear Site Data is a mechanism by which any browser-side data - cookies, local storage, and the like - can be removed when an HTTP response contains this header:

Clear-Site-Data: "cache", "cookies", "storage", "executionContexts"

This is a nice clean-up action to perform on logout.

Custom Headers

	Note
	Refer to the relevant sections to see how to configure both servlet based applications.

Spring Security has mechanisms to make it convenient to add the more common security headers to your application. However, it also provides hooks to enable adding 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 5.2.15.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.

Object principal = SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication().getPrincipal();

if (principal instanceof UserDetails) {
String username = ((UserDetails)principal).getUsername();
} else {
String username = principal.toString();
}

The UserDetailsService

Another item to note from the above code fragment is that you can obtain a principal from the Authentication object. The principal is just an Object. Most of the time this can be cast into a UserDetails object. UserDetails is a core interface in Spring Security. It represents a principal, but in an extensible and application-specific way. Think of UserDetails as the adapter between your own user database and what Spring Security needs inside the SecurityContextHolder. Being a representation of something from your own user database, quite often you will cast the UserDetails to the original object that your application provided, so you can call business-specific methods (like getEmail(), getEmployeeNumber() and so on).

By now you’re probably wondering, so when do I provide a UserDetails object? How do I do that? I thought you said this thing was declarative and I didn’t need to write any Java code - what gives? The short answer is that there is a special interface called UserDetailsService. The only method on this interface accepts a String-based username argument and returns a UserDetails:

UserDetails loadUserByUsername(String username) throws UsernameNotFoundException;

This is the most common approach to loading information for a user within Spring Security and you will see it used throughout the framework whenever information on a user is required.

On successful authentication, UserDetails is used to build the Authentication object that is stored in the SecurityContextHolder (more on this below). The good news is that we provide a number of UserDetailsService implementations, including one that uses an in-memory map (InMemoryDaoImpl) and another that uses JDBC (JdbcDaoImpl). Most users tend to write their own, though, with their implementations often simply sitting on top of an existing Data Access Object (DAO) that represents their employees, customers, or other users of the application. Remember the advantage that whatever your UserDetailsService returns can always be obtained from the SecurityContextHolder using the above code fragment.

Note

There is often some confusion about UserDetailsService. It is purely a DAO for user data and performs no other function other than to supply that data to other components within the framework. In particular, it does not authenticate the user, which is done by the AuthenticationManager. In many cases it makes more sense to implement AuthenticationProvider directly if you require a custom authentication process.

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.

import org.springframework.security.authentication.*;
import org.springframework.security.core.*;
import org.springframework.security.core.authority.SimpleGrantedAuthority;
import org.springframework.security.core.context.SecurityContextHolder;

public class AuthenticationExample {
private static AuthenticationManager am = new SampleAuthenticationManager();

public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
    BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));

    while(true) {
    System.out.println("Please enter your username:");
    String name = in.readLine();
    System.out.println("Please enter your password:");
    String password = in.readLine();
    try {
        Authentication request = new UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken(name, password);
        Authentication result = am.authenticate(request);
        SecurityContextHolder.getContext().setAuthentication(result);
        break;
    } catch(AuthenticationException e) {
        System.out.println("Authentication failed: " + e.getMessage());
    }
    }
    System.out.println("Successfully authenticated. Security context contains: " +
            SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication());
}
}

class SampleAuthenticationManager implements AuthenticationManager {
static final List<GrantedAuthority> AUTHORITIES = new ArrayList<GrantedAuthority>();

static {
    AUTHORITIES.add(new SimpleGrantedAuthority("ROLE_USER"));
}

public Authentication authenticate(Authentication auth) throws AuthenticationException {
    if (auth.getName().equals(auth.getCredentials())) {
    return new UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken(auth.getName(),
        auth.getCredentials(), AUTHORITIES);
    }
    throw new BadCredentialsException("Bad Credentials");
}
}

Please enter your username:
bob
Please enter your password:
password
Authentication failed: Bad Credentials
Please enter your username:
bob
Please enter your password:
bob
Successfully authenticated. Security context contains: \
org.springframework.security.authentication.UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken@441d0230: \
Principal: bob; Password: [PROTECTED]; \
Authenticated: true; Details: null; \
Granted Authorities: ROLE_USER

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.

Storing the SecurityContext between requests

Depending on the type of application, there may need to be a strategy in place to store the security context between user operations. In a typical web application, a user logs in once and is subsequently identified by their session Id. The server caches the principal information for the duration session. In Spring Security, the responsibility for storing the SecurityContext between requests falls to the SecurityContextPersistenceFilter, which by default stores the context as an HttpSession attribute between HTTP requests. It restores the context to the SecurityContextHolder for each request and, crucially, clears the SecurityContextHolder when the request completes. You shouldn’t interact directly with the HttpSession for security purposes. There is simply no justification for doing so - always use the SecurityContextHolder instead.

Many other types of application (for example, a stateless RESTful web service) do not use HTTP sessions and will re-authenticate on every request. However, it is still important that the SecurityContextPersistenceFilter is included in the chain to make sure that the SecurityContextHolder is cleared after each request.

Note

In an application which receives concurrent requests in a single session, the same SecurityContext instance will be shared between threads. Even though a ThreadLocal is being used, it is the same instance that is retrieved from the HttpSession for each thread. This has implications if you wish to temporarily change the context under which a thread is running. If you just use SecurityContextHolder.getContext(), and call setAuthentication(anAuthentication) on the returned context object, then the Authentication object will change in all concurrent threads which share the same SecurityContext instance. You can customize the behaviour of SecurityContextPersistenceFilter to create a completely new SecurityContext for each request, preventing changes in one thread from affecting another. Alternatively you can create a new instance just at the point where you temporarily change the context. The method SecurityContextHolder.createEmptyContext() always returns a new context instance.

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).

Secure Objects and the AbstractSecurityInterceptor

So what is a "secure object" anyway? Spring Security uses the term to refer to any object that can have security (such as an authorization decision) applied to it. The most common examples are method invocations and web requests.

Each supported secure object type has its own interceptor class, which is a subclass of AbstractSecurityInterceptor. Importantly, by the time the AbstractSecurityInterceptor is called, the SecurityContextHolder will contain a valid Authentication if the principal has been authenticated.

AbstractSecurityInterceptor provides a consistent workflow for handling secure object requests, typically:

1. Look up the "configuration attributes" associated with the present request
2. Submitting the secure object, current Authentication and configuration attributes to the AccessDecisionManager for an authorization decision
3. Optionally change the Authentication under which the invocation takes place
4. Allow the secure object invocation to proceed (assuming access was granted)
5. Call the AfterInvocationManager if configured, once the invocation has returned. If the invocation raised an exception, the AfterInvocationManager will not be invoked.

What are Configuration Attributes?

A "configuration attribute" can be thought of as a String that has special meaning to the classes used by AbstractSecurityInterceptor. They are represented by the interface ConfigAttribute within the framework. They may be simple role names or have more complex meaning, depending on the how sophisticated the AccessDecisionManager implementation is. The AbstractSecurityInterceptor is configured with a SecurityMetadataSource which it uses to look up the attributes for a secure object. Usually this configuration will be hidden from the user. Configuration attributes will be entered as annotations on secured methods or as access attributes on secured URLs. For example, when we saw something like <intercept-url pattern='/secure/**' access='ROLE_A,ROLE_B'/> in the namespace introduction, this is saying that the configuration attributes ROLE_A and ROLE_B apply to web requests matching the given pattern. In practice, with the default AccessDecisionManager configuration, this means that anyone who has a GrantedAuthority matching either of these two attributes will be allowed access. Strictly speaking though, they are just attributes and the interpretation is dependent on the AccessDecisionManager implementation. The use of the prefix ROLE_ is a marker to indicate that these attributes are roles and should be consumed by Spring Security’s RoleVoter. This is only relevant when a voter-based AccessDecisionManager is in use. We’ll see how the AccessDecisionManager is implemented in the authorization chapter.

RunAsManager

Assuming AccessDecisionManager decides to allow the request, the AbstractSecurityInterceptor will normally just proceed with the request. Having said that, on rare occasions users may want to replace the Authentication inside the SecurityContext with a different Authentication, which is handled by the AccessDecisionManager calling a RunAsManager. This might be useful in reasonably unusual situations, such as if a services layer method needs to call a remote system and present a different identity. Because Spring Security automatically propagates security identity from one server to another (assuming you’re using a properly-configured RMI or HttpInvoker remoting protocol client), this may be useful.

AfterInvocationManager

Following the secure object invocation proceeding and then returning - which may mean a method invocation completing or a filter chain proceeding - the AbstractSecurityInterceptor gets one final chance to handle the invocation. At this stage the AbstractSecurityInterceptor is interested in possibly modifying the return object. We might want this to happen because an authorization decision couldn’t be made "on the way in" to a secure object invocation. Being highly pluggable, AbstractSecurityInterceptor will pass control to an AfterInvocationManager to actually modify the object if needed. This class can even entirely replace the object, or throw an exception, or not change it in any way as it chooses. The after-invocation checks will only be executed if the invocation is successful. If an exception occurs, the additional checks will be skipped.

AbstractSecurityInterceptor and its related objects are shown in Figure 9.1, “Security interceptors and the "secure object" model”

Figure 9.1. Security interceptors and the "secure object" model

Extending the Secure Object Model

Only developers contemplating an entirely new way of intercepting and authorizing requests would need to use secure objects directly. For example, it would be possible to build a new secure object to secure calls to a messaging system. Anything that requires security and also provides a way of intercepting a call (like the AOP around advice semantics) is capable of being made into a secure object. Having said that, most Spring applications will simply use the three currently supported secure object types (AOP Alliance MethodInvocation, AspectJ JoinPoint and web request FilterInvocation) with complete transparency.

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:

<bean id="authenticationManager"
        class="org.springframework.security.authentication.ProviderManager">
    <constructor-arg>
        <list>
            <ref local="daoAuthenticationProvider"/>
            <ref local="anonymousAuthenticationProvider"/>
            <ref local="ldapAuthenticationProvider"/>
        </list>
    </constructor-arg>
</bean>

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.

<bean id="daoAuthenticationProvider"
    class="org.springframework.security.authentication.dao.DaoAuthenticationProvider">
<property name="userDetailsService" ref="inMemoryDaoImpl"/>
<property name="passwordEncoder" ref="passwordEncoder"/>
</bean>

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:

UserDetails loadUserByUsername(String username) throws UsernameNotFoundException;

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.

<user-service id="userDetailsService">
<!-- Password is prefixed with {noop} to indicate to DelegatingPasswordEncoder that
NoOpPasswordEncoder should be used. This is not safe for production, but makes reading
in samples easier. Normally passwords should be hashed using BCrypt -->
<user name="jimi" password="{noop}jimispassword" authorities="ROLE_USER, ROLE_ADMIN" />
<user name="bob" password="{noop}bobspassword" authorities="ROLE_USER" />
</user-service>

<user-service id="userDetailsService" properties="users.properties"/>

username=password,grantedAuthority[,grantedAuthority][,enabled|disabled]

jimi=jimispassword,ROLE_USER,ROLE_ADMIN,enabled
bob=bobspassword,ROLE_USER,enabled

<bean id="dataSource" class="org.springframework.jdbc.datasource.DriverManagerDataSource">
<property name="driverClassName" value="org.hsqldb.jdbcDriver"/>
<property name="url" value="jdbc:hsqldb:hsql://localhost:9001"/>
<property name="username" value="sa"/>
<property name="password" value=""/>
</bean>

<bean id="userDetailsService"
    class="org.springframework.security.core.userdetails.jdbc.JdbcDaoImpl">
<property name="dataSource" ref="dataSource"/>
</bean>

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:

<ldap-server root="dc=springframework,dc=org"/>

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:

<ldap-server ldif="classpath:users.ldif" />

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.

<ldap-authentication-provider user-dn-pattern="uid={0},ou=people"/>

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:

<ldap-authentication-provider user-search-filter="(uid={0})"
        user-search-base="ou=people"/>

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

<ldap-authentication-provider user-dn-pattern="uid={0},ou=people"
        group-search-base="ou=groups" />

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:

<bean id="contextSource"
        class="org.springframework.security.ldap.DefaultSpringSecurityContextSource">
    <constructor-arg value="ldap://monkeymachine:389/dc=springframework,dc=org"/>
    <property name="userDn" value="cn=manager,dc=springframework,dc=org"/>
    <property name="password" value="password"/>
</bean>

<bean id="ldapAuthProvider"
        class="org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.LdapAuthenticationProvider">
    <constructor-arg>
        <bean class="org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.BindAuthenticator">
            <constructor-arg ref="contextSource"/>
            <property name="userDnPatterns">
                <list><value>uid={0},ou=people</value></list>
            </property>
        </bean>
    </constructor-arg>
    <constructor-arg>
        <bean class="org.springframework.security.ldap.userdetails.DefaultLdapAuthoritiesPopulator">
            <constructor-arg ref="contextSource"/>
            <constructor-arg value="ou=groups"/>
            <property name="groupRoleAttribute" value="ou"/>
        </bean>
    </constructor-arg>
</bean>

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

<bean id="userSearch"
        class="org.springframework.security.ldap.search.FilterBasedLdapUserSearch">
    <constructor-arg index="0" value=""/>
    <constructor-arg index="1" value="(uid={0})"/>
    <constructor-arg index="2" ref="contextSource" />
</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:

public interface UserDetailsContextMapper {

    UserDetails mapUserFromContext(DirContextOperations ctx, String username,
            Collection<GrantedAuthority> authorities);

    void mapUserToContext(UserDetails user, DirContextAdapter ctx);
}

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:

<bean id="adAuthenticationProvider"
        class="org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.ad.ActiveDirectoryLdapAuthenticationProvider">
    <constructor-arg value="mydomain.com" />
    <constructor-arg value="ldap://adserver.mydomain.com/" />
</bean>

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:

	Note
	This is only used if the AuthenticationManagerBuilder has not been populated

@Bean
public SpringAuthenticationProvider springAuthenticationProvider() {
    return new SpringAuthenticationProvider();
}

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

<authentication-manager>
    <authentication-provider user-service-ref='myUserDetailsService'/>
</authentication-manager>

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

<authentication-manager>
<authentication-provider>
    <jdbc-user-service data-source-ref="securityDataSource"/>
</authentication-provider>
</authentication-manager>

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:

<authentication-manager>
<authentication-provider user-service-ref='myUserDetailsService'/>
</authentication-manager>

<beans:bean id="myUserDetailsService"
    class="org.springframework.security.core.userdetails.jdbc.JdbcDaoImpl">
<beans:property name="dataSource" ref="dataSource"/>
</beans:bean>

You can also use standard AuthenticationProvider beans as follows

<authentication-manager>
    <authentication-provider ref='myAuthenticationProvider'/>
</authentication-manager>

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 Section 10.11, “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.

PasswordEncoder passwordEncoder =
    PasswordEncoderFactories.createDelegatingPasswordEncoder();

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

String idForEncode = "bcrypt";
Map encoders = new HashMap<>();
encoders.put(idForEncode, new BCryptPasswordEncoder());
encoders.put("noop", NoOpPasswordEncoder.getInstance());
encoders.put("pbkdf2", new Pbkdf2PasswordEncoder());
encoders.put("scrypt", new SCryptPasswordEncoder());
encoders.put("sha256", new StandardPasswordEncoder());

PasswordEncoder passwordEncoder =
    new DelegatingPasswordEncoder(idForEncode, encoders);

Password Storage Format

The general format for a password is:

{id}encodedPassword

Such that id is an identifier used to look up which PasswordEncoder should be used and encodedPassword is the original encoded password for the selected PasswordEncoder. The id must be at the beginning of the password, start with { and end with }. If the id cannot be found, the id will be null. For example, the following might be a list of passwords encoded using different id. All of the original passwords are "password".

{bcrypt}$2a$10$dXJ3SW6G7P50lGmMkkmwe.20cQQubK3.HZWzG3YB1tlRy.fqvM/BG 
{noop}password 
{pbkdf2}5d923b44a6d129f3ddf3e3c8d29412723dcbde72445e8ef6bf3b508fbf17fa4ed4d6b99ca763d8dc 
{scrypt}$e0801$8bWJaSu2IKSn9Z9kM+TPXfOc/9bdYSrN1oD9qfVThWEwdRTnO7re7Ei+fUZRJ68k9lTyuTeUp4of4g24hHnazw==$OAOec05+bXxvuu/1qZ6NUR+xQYvYv7BeL1QxwRpY5Pc=  
{sha256}97cde38028ad898ebc02e690819fa220e88c62e0699403e94fff291cfffaf8410849f27605abcbc0 

	The first password would have a PasswordEncoder id of bcrypt and encodedPassword of $2a$10$dXJ3SW6G7P50lGmMkkmwe.20cQQubK3.HZWzG3YB1tlRy.fqvM/BG. When matching it would delegate to BCryptPasswordEncoder
	The second password would have a PasswordEncoder id of noop and encodedPassword of password. When matching it would delegate to NoOpPasswordEncoder
	The third password would have a PasswordEncoder id of pbkdf2 and encodedPassword of 5d923b44a6d129f3ddf3e3c8d29412723dcbde72445e8ef6bf3b508fbf17fa4ed4d6b99ca763d8dc. When matching it would delegate to Pbkdf2PasswordEncoder
	The fourth password would have a PasswordEncoder id of scrypt and encodedPassword of $e0801$8bWJaSu2IKSn9Z9kM+TPXfOc/9bdYSrN1oD9qfVThWEwdRTnO7re7Ei+fUZRJ68k9lTyuTeUp4of4g24hHnazw==$OAOec05+bXxvuu/1qZ6NUR+xQYvYv7BeL1QxwRpY5Pc= When matching it would delegate to SCryptPasswordEncoder
	The final password would have a PasswordEncoder id of sha256 and encodedPassword of 97cde38028ad898ebc02e690819fa220e88c62e0699403e94fff291cfffaf8410849f27605abcbc0. When matching it would delegate to StandardPasswordEncoder

	Note
	Some users might be concerned that the storage format is provided for a potential hacker. This is not a concern because the storage of the password does not rely on the algorithm being a secret. Additionally, most formats are easy for an attacker to figure out without the prefix. For example, BCrypt passwords often start with $2a$.

{bcrypt}$2a$10$dXJ3SW6G7P50lGmMkkmwe.20cQQubK3.HZWzG3YB1tlRy.fqvM/BG

User user = User.withDefaultPasswordEncoder()
  .username("user")
  .password("password")
  .roles("user")
  .build();
System.out.println(user.getPassword());
// {bcrypt}$2a$10$dXJ3SW6G7P50lGmMkkmwe.20cQQubK3.HZWzG3YB1tlRy.fqvM/BG

UserBuilder users = User.withDefaultPasswordEncoder();
User user = users
  .username("user")
  .password("password")
  .roles("USER")
  .build();
User admin = users
  .username("admin")
  .password("password")
  .roles("USER","ADMIN")
  .build();

Troubleshooting

The following error occurs when one of the passwords that are stored has no id as described in the section called “Password Storage Format”.

java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: There is no PasswordEncoder mapped for the id "null"
    at org.springframework.security.crypto.password.DelegatingPasswordEncoder$UnmappedIdPasswordEncoder.matches(DelegatingPasswordEncoder.java:233)
    at org.springframework.security.crypto.password.DelegatingPasswordEncoder.matches(DelegatingPasswordEncoder.java:196)

The easiest way to resolve the error is to switch to explicitly provide the PasswordEncoder that you passwords are encoded with. The easiest way to resolve it is to figure out how your passwords are currently being stored and explicitly provide the correct PasswordEncoder. If you are migrating from Spring Security 4.2.x you can revert to the previous behavior by exposing a NoOpPasswordEncoder bean. For example, if you are using Java Configuration, you can create a configuration that looks like:

	Warning
	Reverting to NoOpPasswordEncoder is not considered to be secure. You should instead migrate to using DelegatingPasswordEncoder to support secure password encoding.

@Bean
public static NoOpPasswordEncoder passwordEncoder() {
    return NoOpPasswordEncoder.getInstance();
}

if you are using XML configuration, you can expose a PasswordEncoder with the id passwordEncoder:

<b:bean id="passwordEncoder"
        class="org.springframework.security.crypto.password.NoOpPasswordEncoder" factory-method="getInstance"/>

Alternatively, you can prefix all of your passwords with the correct id and continue to use DelegatingPasswordEncoder. For example, if you are using BCrypt, you would migrate your password from something like:

$2a$10$dXJ3SW6G7P50lGmMkkmwe.20cQQubK3.HZWzG3YB1tlRy.fqvM/BG

to

{bcrypt}$2a$10$dXJ3SW6G7P50lGmMkkmwe.20cQQubK3.HZWzG3YB1tlRy.fqvM/BG

For a complete listing of the mappings refer to the Javadoc on PasswordEncoderFactories.

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.

// Create an encoder with strength 16
BCryptPasswordEncoder encoder = new BCryptPasswordEncoder(16);
String result = encoder.encode("myPassword");
assertTrue(encoder.matches("myPassword", result));

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.

// Create an encoder with all the defaults
Argon2PasswordEncoder encoder = new Argon2PasswordEncoder();
String result = encoder.encode("myPassword");
assertTrue(encoder.matches("myPassword", result));

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.

// Create an encoder with all the defaults
Pbkdf2PasswordEncoder encoder = new Pbkdf2PasswordEncoder();
String result = encoder.encode("myPassword");
assertTrue(encoder.matches("myPassword", result));

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.

// Create an encoder with all the defaults
SCryptPasswordEncoder encoder = new SCryptPasswordEncoder();
String result = encoder.encode("myPassword");
assertTrue(encoder.matches("myPassword", result));

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:

<beans:bean name="bcryptEncoder"
    class="org.springframework.security.crypto.bcrypt.BCryptPasswordEncoder"/>

<authentication-manager>
<authentication-provider>
    <password-encoder ref="bcryptEncoder"/>
    <user-service>
    <user name="jimi" password="$2a$10$ddEWZUl8aU0GdZPPpy7wbu82dvEw/pBpbRvDQRqA41y6mK1CoH00m"
            authorities="ROLE_USER, ROLE_ADMIN" />
    <user name="bob" password="$2a$10$/elFpMBnAYYig6KRR5bvOOYeZr1ie1hSogJryg9qDlhza4oCw1Qka"
            authorities="ROLE_USER" />
    </user-service>
</authentication-provider>
</authentication-manager>

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:

<http>
...
<session-management invalid-session-url="/invalidSession.htm" />
</http>

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:

<http>
<logout delete-cookies="JSESSIONID" />
</http>

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

	Note
	=== If you are running your application behind a proxy, you may also be able to remove the session cookie by configuring the proxy server. For example, using Apache HTTPD’s mod_headers, the following directive would delete the JSESSIONID cookie by expiring it in the response to a logout request (assuming the application is deployed under the path /tutorial):

<LocationMatch "/tutorial/logout">
Header always set Set-Cookie "JSESSIONID=;Path=/tutorial;Expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT"
</LocationMatch>

===

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:

<listener>
<listener-class>
    org.springframework.security.web.session.HttpSessionEventPublisher
</listener-class>
</listener>

Then add the following lines to your application context:

<http>
...
<session-management>
    <concurrency-control max-sessions="1" />
</session-management>
</http>

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

<http>
...
<session-management>
    <concurrency-control max-sessions="1" error-if-maximum-exceeded="true" />
</session-management>
</http>

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:

<http>
<custom-filter position="FORM_LOGIN_FILTER" ref="myAuthFilter" />
<session-management session-authentication-strategy-ref="sas"/>
</http>

<beans:bean id="myAuthFilter" class=
"org.springframework.security.web.authentication.UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter">
    <beans:property name="sessionAuthenticationStrategy" ref="sas" />
    ...
</beans:bean>

<beans:bean id="sas" class=
"org.springframework.security.web.authentication.session.SessionFixationProtectionStrategy" />

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.

Note

Previously the concurrent authentication check was made by the ProviderManager, which could be injected with a ConcurrentSessionController. The latter would check if the user was attempting to exceed the number of permitted sessions. However, this approach required that an HTTP session be created in advance, which is undesirable. In Spring Security 3, the user is first authenticated by the AuthenticationManager and once they are successfully authenticated, a session is created and the check is made whether they are allowed to have another session open.

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

<listener>
    <listener-class>
    org.springframework.security.web.session.HttpSessionEventPublisher
    </listener-class>
</listener>

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:

<http>
<custom-filter position="CONCURRENT_SESSION_FILTER" ref="concurrencyFilter" />
<custom-filter position="FORM_LOGIN_FILTER" ref="myAuthFilter" />

<session-management session-authentication-strategy-ref="sas"/>
</http>

<beans:bean id="redirectSessionInformationExpiredStrategy"
class="org.springframework.security.web.session.SimpleRedirectSessionInformationExpiredStrategy">
<beans:constructor-arg name="invalidSessionUrl" value="/session-expired.htm" />
</beans:bean>

<beans:bean id="concurrencyFilter"
class="org.springframework.security.web.session.ConcurrentSessionFilter">
<beans:constructor-arg name="sessionRegistry" ref="sessionRegistry" />
<beans:constructor-arg name="sessionInformationExpiredStrategy" ref="redirectSessionInformationExpiredStrategy" />
</beans:bean>

<beans:bean id="myAuthFilter" class=
"org.springframework.security.web.authentication.UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter">
<beans:property name="sessionAuthenticationStrategy" ref="sas" />
<beans:property name="authenticationManager" ref="authenticationManager" />
</beans:bean>

<beans:bean id="sas" class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.session.CompositeSessionAuthenticationStrategy">
<beans:constructor-arg>
    <beans:list>
    <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.session.ConcurrentSessionControlAuthenticationStrategy">
        <beans:constructor-arg ref="sessionRegistry"/>
        <beans:property name="maximumSessions" value="1" />
        <beans:property name="exceptionIfMaximumExceeded" value="true" />
    </beans:bean>
    <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.session.SessionFixationProtectionStrategy">
    </beans:bean>
    <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.session.RegisterSessionAuthenticationStrategy">
        <beans:constructor-arg ref="sessionRegistry"/>
    </beans:bean>
    </beans:list>
</beans:constructor-arg>
</beans:bean>

<beans:bean id="sessionRegistry"
    class="org.springframework.security.core.session.SessionRegistryImpl" />

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:

base64(username + ":" + expirationTime + ":" +
md5Hex(username + ":" + expirationTime + ":" password + ":" + key))

username:          As identifiable to the UserDetailsService
password:          That matches the one in the retrieved UserDetails
expirationTime:    The date and time when the remember-me token expires, expressed in milliseconds
key:               A private key to prevent modification of the remember-me token

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:

<http>
...
<remember-me key="myAppKey"/>
</http>

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:

<http>
...
<remember-me data-source-ref="someDataSource"/>
</http>

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

create table persistent_logins (username varchar(64) not null,
                                series varchar(64) primary key,
                                token varchar(64) not null,
                                last_used timestamp not null)

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:

Authentication autoLogin(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response);

void loginFail(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response);

void loginSuccess(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response,
    Authentication successfulAuthentication);

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.

<bean id="rememberMeFilter" class=
"org.springframework.security.web.authentication.rememberme.RememberMeAuthenticationFilter">
<property name="rememberMeServices" ref="rememberMeServices"/>
<property name="authenticationManager" ref="theAuthenticationManager" />
</bean>

<bean id="rememberMeServices" class=
"org.springframework.security.web.authentication.rememberme.TokenBasedRememberMeServices">
<property name="userDetailsService" ref="myUserDetailsService"/>
<property name="key" value="springRocks"/>
</bean>

<bean id="rememberMeAuthenticationProvider" class=
"org.springframework.security.authentication.RememberMeAuthenticationProvider">
<property name="key" value="springRocks"/>
</bean>

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:

<openid-login>
<attribute-exchange>
    <openid-attribute name="email" type="https://axschema.org/contact/email" required="true"/>
    <openid-attribute name="name" type="https://axschema.org/namePerson"/>
</attribute-exchange>
</openid-login>

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:

OpenIDAuthenticationToken token =
    (OpenIDAuthenticationToken)SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication();
List<OpenIDAttribute> attributes = token.getAttributes();

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:

<bean id="anonymousAuthFilter"
    class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.AnonymousAuthenticationFilter">
<property name="key" value="foobar"/>
<property name="userAttribute" value="anonymousUser,ROLE_ANONYMOUS"/>
</bean>

<bean id="anonymousAuthenticationProvider"
    class="org.springframework.security.authentication.AnonymousAuthenticationProvider">
<property name="key" value="foobar"/>
</bean>

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:

<bean id="filterSecurityInterceptor"
    class="org.springframework.security.web.access.intercept.FilterSecurityInterceptor">
<property name="authenticationManager" ref="authenticationManager"/>
<property name="accessDecisionManager" ref="httpRequestAccessDecisionManager"/>
<property name="securityMetadata">
    <security:filter-security-metadata-source>
    <security:intercept-url pattern='/index.jsp' access='ROLE_ANONYMOUS,ROLE_USER'/>
    <security:intercept-url pattern='/hello.htm' access='ROLE_ANONYMOUS,ROLE_USER'/>
    <security:intercept-url pattern='/logoff.jsp' access='ROLE_ANONYMOUS,ROLE_USER'/>
    <security:intercept-url pattern='/login.jsp' access='ROLE_ANONYMOUS,ROLE_USER'/>
    <security:intercept-url pattern='/**' access='ROLE_USER'/>
    </security:filter-security-metadata-source>" +
</property>
</bean>

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.

Spring MVC resolves parameters of type Principal using its own argument resolver.

This means that a construct like this one:

@GetMapping("/")
public String method(Authentication authentication) {
    if (authentication instanceof AnonymousAuthenticationToken) {
        return "anonymous";
    } else {
        return "not anonymous";
    }
}

will always return "not anonymous", even for anonymous requests. The reason is that Spring MVC resolves the parameter using HttpServletRequest#getPrincipal, which is null when the request is anonymous.

If you’d like to obtain the Authentication in anonymous requests, use @CurrentSecurityContext instead:

@GetMapping("/")
public String method(@CurrentSecurityContext SecurityContext context) {
    return context.getAuthentication().getName();
}

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.

protected abstract Object getPreAuthenticatedPrincipal(HttpServletRequest request);

protected abstract Object getPreAuthenticatedCredentials(HttpServletRequest request);

public interface AuthenticationUserDetailsService {
    UserDetails loadUserDetails(Authentication token) throws UsernameNotFoundException;
}

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

Request-Header Authentication (Siteminder)

An external authentication system may supply information to the application by setting specific headers on the HTTP request. A well-known example of this is Siteminder, which passes the username in a header called SM_USER. This mechanism is supported by the class RequestHeaderAuthenticationFilter which simply extracts the username from the header. It defaults to using the name SM_USER as the header name. See the Javadoc for more details.

	Tip
	Note that when using a system like this, the framework performs no authentication checks at all and it is extremely important that the external system is configured properly and protects all access to the application. If an attacker is able to forge the headers in their original request without this being detected then they could potentially choose any username they wished.

Siteminder Example Configuration

A typical configuration using this filter would look like this:

<security:http>
<!-- Additional http configuration omitted -->
<security:custom-filter position="PRE_AUTH_FILTER" ref="siteminderFilter" />
</security:http>

<bean id="siteminderFilter" class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.preauth.RequestHeaderAuthenticationFilter">
<property name="principalRequestHeader" value="SM_USER"/>
<property name="authenticationManager" ref="authenticationManager" />
</bean>

<bean id="preauthAuthProvider" class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.preauth.PreAuthenticatedAuthenticationProvider">
<property name="preAuthenticatedUserDetailsService">
    <bean id="userDetailsServiceWrapper"
        class="org.springframework.security.core.userdetails.UserDetailsByNameServiceWrapper">
    <property name="userDetailsService" ref="userDetailsService"/>
    </bean>
</property>
</bean>

<security:authentication-manager alias="authenticationManager">
<security:authentication-provider ref="preauthAuthProvider" />
</security:authentication-manager>

We’ve assumed here that the security namespace is being used for configuration. It’s also assumed that you have added a UserDetailsService (called "userDetailsService") to your configuration to load the user’s roles.

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.

<bean id="jaasAuthProvider"
class="org.springframework.security.authentication.jaas.DefaultJaasAuthenticationProvider">
<property name="configuration">
<bean class="org.springframework.security.authentication.jaas.memory.InMemoryConfiguration">
<constructor-arg>
    <map>
    <!--
    SPRINGSECURITY is the default loginContextName
    for AbstractJaasAuthenticationProvider
    -->
    <entry key="SPRINGSECURITY">
    <array>
    <bean class="javax.security.auth.login.AppConfigurationEntry">
        <constructor-arg value="sample.SampleLoginModule" />
        <constructor-arg>
        <util:constant static-field=
            "javax.security.auth.login.AppConfigurationEntry$LoginModuleControlFlag.REQUIRED"/>
        </constructor-arg>
        <constructor-arg>
        <map></map>
        </constructor-arg>
        </bean>
    </array>
    </entry>
    </map>
    </constructor-arg>
</bean>
</property>
<property name="authorityGranters">
<list>
    <!-- You will need to write your own implementation of AuthorityGranter -->
    <bean class="org.springframework.security.authentication.jaas.TestAuthorityGranter"/>
</list>
</property>
</bean>

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:

JAASTest {
    sample.SampleLoginModule required;
};

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:

<bean id="jaasAuthenticationProvider"
class="org.springframework.security.authentication.jaas.JaasAuthenticationProvider">
<property name="loginConfig" value="/WEB-INF/login.conf"/>
<property name="loginContextName" value="JAASTest"/>
<property name="callbackHandlers">
<list>
<bean
    class="org.springframework.security.authentication.jaas.JaasNameCallbackHandler"/>
<bean
    class="org.springframework.security.authentication.jaas.JaasPasswordCallbackHandler"/>
</list>
</property>
<property name="authorityGranters">
    <list>
    <bean class="org.springframework.security.authentication.jaas.TestAuthorityGranter"/>
    </list>
</property>
</bean>

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

Subject subject = Subject.getSubject(AccessController.getContext());

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.

<bean id="serviceProperties"
    class="org.springframework.security.cas.ServiceProperties">
<property name="service"
    value="https://localhost:8443/cas-sample/login/cas"/>
<property name="sendRenew" value="false"/>
</bean>

<security:http entry-point-ref="casEntryPoint">
...
<security:custom-filter position="CAS_FILTER" ref="casFilter" />
</security:http>

<bean id="casFilter"
    class="org.springframework.security.cas.web.CasAuthenticationFilter">
<property name="authenticationManager" ref="authenticationManager"/>
</bean>

<bean id="casEntryPoint"
    class="org.springframework.security.cas.web.CasAuthenticationEntryPoint">
<property name="loginUrl" value="https://localhost:9443/cas/login"/>
<property name="serviceProperties" ref="serviceProperties"/>
</bean>

<security:authentication-manager alias="authenticationManager">
<security:authentication-provider ref="casAuthenticationProvider" />
</security:authentication-manager>

<bean id="casAuthenticationProvider"
    class="org.springframework.security.cas.authentication.CasAuthenticationProvider">
<property name="authenticationUserDetailsService">
    <bean class="org.springframework.security.core.userdetails.UserDetailsByNameServiceWrapper">
    <constructor-arg ref="userService" />
    </bean>
</property>
<property name="serviceProperties" ref="serviceProperties" />
<property name="ticketValidator">
    <bean class="org.jasig.cas.client.validation.Cas20ServiceTicketValidator">
    <constructor-arg index="0" value="https://localhost:9443/cas" />
    </bean>
</property>
<property name="key" value="an_id_for_this_auth_provider_only"/>
</bean>

<security:user-service id="userService">
<!-- Password is prefixed with {noop} to indicate to DelegatingPasswordEncoder that
NoOpPasswordEncoder should be used.
This is not safe for production, but makes reading
in samples easier.
Normally passwords should be hashed using BCrypt -->
<security:user name="joe" password="{noop}joe" authorities="ROLE_USER" />
...
</security:user-service>

<security:http entry-point-ref="casEntryPoint">
...
<security:logout logout-success-url="/cas-logout.jsp"/>
<security:custom-filter ref="requestSingleLogoutFilter" before="LOGOUT_FILTER"/>
<security:custom-filter ref="singleLogoutFilter" before="CAS_FILTER"/>
</security:http>

<!-- This filter handles a Single Logout Request from the CAS Server -->
<bean id="singleLogoutFilter" class="org.jasig.cas.client.session.SingleSignOutFilter"/>

<!-- This filter redirects to the CAS Server to signal Single Logout should be performed -->
<bean id="requestSingleLogoutFilter"
    class="org.springframework.security.web.authentication.logout.LogoutFilter">
<constructor-arg value="https://localhost:9443/cas/logout"/>
<constructor-arg>
    <bean class=
        "org.springframework.security.web.authentication.logout.SecurityContextLogoutHandler"/>
</constructor-arg>
<property name="filterProcessesUrl" value="/logout/cas"/>
</bean>

<filter>
<filter-name>characterEncodingFilter</filter-name>
<filter-class>
    org.springframework.web.filter.CharacterEncodingFilter
</filter-class>
<init-param>
    <param-name>encoding</param-name>
    <param-value>UTF-8</param-value>
</init-param>
</filter>
<filter-mapping>
<filter-name>characterEncodingFilter</filter-name>
<url-pattern>/*</url-pattern>
</filter-mapping>
<listener>
<listener-class>
    org.jasig.cas.client.session.SingleSignOutHttpSessionListener
</listener-class>
</listener>

<!--
NOTE: In a real application you should not use an in memory implementation.
You will also want to ensure to clean up expired tickets by calling
ProxyGrantingTicketStorage.cleanup()
-->
<bean id="pgtStorage" class="org.jasig.cas.client.proxy.ProxyGrantingTicketStorageImpl"/>

<bean id="casAuthenticationProvider"
    class="org.springframework.security.cas.authentication.CasAuthenticationProvider">
...
<property name="ticketValidator">
    <bean class="org.jasig.cas.client.validation.Cas20ProxyTicketValidator">
    <constructor-arg value="https://localhost:9443/cas"/>
        <property name="proxyCallbackUrl"
        value="https://localhost:8443/cas-sample/login/cas/proxyreceptor"/>
    <property name="proxyGrantingTicketStorage" ref="pgtStorage"/>
    </bean>
</property>
</bean>