|
@@ -68,7 +68,8 @@ SecurityFilterChain web(HttpSecurity http) throws Exception {
|
|
.requestMatchers("/resources/**", "/signup", "/about").permitAll() // <2>
|
|
.requestMatchers("/resources/**", "/signup", "/about").permitAll() // <2>
|
|
.requestMatchers("/admin/**").hasRole("ADMIN") // <3>
|
|
.requestMatchers("/admin/**").hasRole("ADMIN") // <3>
|
|
.requestMatchers("/db/**").access(new WebExpressionAuthorizationManager("hasRole('ADMIN') and hasRole('DBA')")) // <4>
|
|
.requestMatchers("/db/**").access(new WebExpressionAuthorizationManager("hasRole('ADMIN') and hasRole('DBA')")) // <4>
|
|
- .anyRequest().denyAll() // <5>
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ // .requestMatchers("/db/**").access(AuthorizationManagers.allOf(AuthorityAuthorizationManager.hasRole("ADMIN"), AuthorityAuthorizationManager.hasRole("DBA"))) // <5>
|
|
|
|
+ .anyRequest().denyAll() // <6>
|
|
);
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
return http.build();
|
|
return http.build();
|
|
@@ -83,7 +84,8 @@ Specifically, any user can access a request if the URL starts with "/resources/"
|
|
You will notice that since we are invoking the `hasRole` method we do not need to specify the "ROLE_" prefix.
|
|
You will notice that since we are invoking the `hasRole` method we do not need to specify the "ROLE_" prefix.
|
|
<4> Any URL that starts with "/db/" requires the user to have both "ROLE_ADMIN" and "ROLE_DBA".
|
|
<4> Any URL that starts with "/db/" requires the user to have both "ROLE_ADMIN" and "ROLE_DBA".
|
|
You will notice that since we are using the `hasRole` expression we do not need to specify the "ROLE_" prefix.
|
|
You will notice that since we are using the `hasRole` expression we do not need to specify the "ROLE_" prefix.
|
|
-<5> Any URL that has not already been matched on is denied access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+<5> The same rule from 4, could be written by combining multiple `AuthorizationManager`.
|
|
|
|
+<6> Any URL that has not already been matched on is denied access.
|
|
This is a good strategy if you do not want to accidentally forget to update your authorization rules.
|
|
This is a good strategy if you do not want to accidentally forget to update your authorization rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can take a bean-based approach by constructing your own xref:servlet/authorization/architecture.adoc#authz-delegate-authorization-manager[`RequestMatcherDelegatingAuthorizationManager`] like so:
|
|
You can take a bean-based approach by constructing your own xref:servlet/authorization/architecture.adoc#authz-delegate-authorization-manager[`RequestMatcherDelegatingAuthorizationManager`] like so:
|
|
@@ -116,7 +118,7 @@ AuthorizationManager<RequestAuthorizationContext> requestMatcherAuthorizationMan
|
|
RequestMatcher admin = mvcMatcherBuilder.pattern("/admin/**");
|
|
RequestMatcher admin = mvcMatcherBuilder.pattern("/admin/**");
|
|
RequestMatcher db = mvcMatcherBuilder.pattern("/db/**");
|
|
RequestMatcher db = mvcMatcherBuilder.pattern("/db/**");
|
|
RequestMatcher any = AnyRequestMatcher.INSTANCE;
|
|
RequestMatcher any = AnyRequestMatcher.INSTANCE;
|
|
- AuthorizationManager<HttpRequestServlet> manager = RequestMatcherDelegatingAuthorizationManager.builder()
|
|
|
|
|
|
+ AuthorizationManager<HttpServletRequest> manager = RequestMatcherDelegatingAuthorizationManager.builder()
|
|
.add(permitAll, (context) -> new AuthorizationDecision(true))
|
|
.add(permitAll, (context) -> new AuthorizationDecision(true))
|
|
.add(admin, AuthorityAuthorizationManager.hasRole("ADMIN"))
|
|
.add(admin, AuthorityAuthorizationManager.hasRole("ADMIN"))
|
|
.add(db, AuthorityAuthorizationManager.hasRole("DBA"))
|
|
.add(db, AuthorityAuthorizationManager.hasRole("DBA"))
|