Shared Access Signatures with Azure Service Bus
August 27, 2014 16 Comments
Sorry for the silence folks. Microsoft’s fiscal year end was over June 31st and I started on a new team on July 1st. While July and August are usually great periods for folks like me to get some extra blogging done, I’ve had a few distractions that kept me from writing. Namely learning, learning, learning and trying to find my “voice” on the new team.
Going forward, I’m going to start having more of a focus on this “internet of things” fad that everyone’s talking about. And within that, I’m going to be sticking fairly close to home and working on the services side of things. Even more tightly focused, I’m going to go deeper on “build” vs “buy” scenarios and focus a goodly amount of my available time on one of the Azure product collections I’ve often felt didn’t get enough respect… Service Bus.
So in the coming weeks expect to see blog posts on Event Hub, possibly Hybrid Connections, and for starters, setting a few things straight about Service Bus in general.
SAS vs. ACS
So my first starting point is to call out a ‘stealth update’ that happened recently. As of sometime on/after August 21st 2014, if you create a new Service Bus root namespace via the Azure Management Portal, it will no longer include the associated Access Control Service namespace. This change is in following with recommended guidance the product team has been saying for some time. Namely to use SAS over ACS whenever possible.
Note: You can still generate the associated ACS namespace automatically by using the new-azuresbnamespace powershell cmdlet. Just be aware that a new version of this will be coming soon that will match the default behavior of the management portal. When the new cmdlet is available, you will need to append the “-useAcs true” parameter to the command if you still want to create the ACS namespace.
There are a few reasons for this guidance. The first is that according to the data the team had available to them, many folks doing ACS authentication were using the “owner” credential. This identity had FULL control over the namespace. So using it was akin to having an app use the SA (system administrator) identity for a SQL database. Secondly, ACS requires two calls for the first time operation: one to get the ACS token, one to perform the requested service bus operation. Now the token had a default time to life of 3 hours, but some SDKs didn’t cache the token and as a result all operations against the SB were generating two calls which increases the latency of the operation significantly. As if these weren’t enough, ACS only supports about 40 authentications per second. So if your SDK didn’t cache the token, your possible throughput on a single queue goes from somewhere near 2,000 messages a second down to 40 at best.
Now ACS has some benefits to be sure. In general, folks are much more familiar with username/password models then shared access signatures. You could create identities for specific publishers/consumers (within reason), as well as scope those identities and their permissions to specific paths. Allowing a single identity to send/receive from multiple queues for example. It also had the ACS management namespace with a GUI to help manage things. And to shut down access, all one has to do is revoke the identity and access is cut off.But many of these needs can also be met using Shared Access Signatures if one knows how. And that is what I’d like to start helping you with in this post. J
Shared Access Policies/Rules & Connection Information
Ok, first issue… If you use the management portal, you’ll see the ability to create/manage Shared Access Policies, but in the SDK and API, these are referred to as a SharedAccessAuthorizationRule. For the sake of simplicity, and consistency with Azure storage, I’ll refer to this from now on simply as “policies” (which matches the Azure Storage naming).
In Service Bus terms, a policy (aka SharedAccessAuthorizationRule) is a named set of permissions associated with an entity. The entity can be the Service Bus’ root namespace (the name you gave it when it was created), a queue, a topic, or an event hub. Basically an addressable endpoint that has a name assigned to it. For each entity you can have up to twelve policies and each policy is allowed a mix of the same three permissions: manage, send, and listen. Each policy also has two access keys much like Azure Storage and for the same reason. So you can do key swaps periodically and ensure you always have at least one active, valid key available to your applications when an old one is regenerated.
It’s these policies that are the “Connection Information” you access via the portal and see available as SAS connection strings. And it’s the connection strings that lead me to a bit of an issue I have with how many service bus demos are done.
Service Bus Clients
When you create your first service bus project using the .NET SDK and one of the tutorials, you’ll likely be asked at some point to add code that looks like the following:
// Create EventHubClient
QueueClient client = QueueClient.Create(“vendor-queue2”);
// insert the message body into the request
BrokeredMessage message = new BrokeredMessage(“hello world!”);
// execute the request and get the response
Notice that the sample specifies a queue name that we want a client for, but no credentials. That’s because within the SDK, this method is overloaded to look for an application configuration setting by the name of “Microsoft.ServiceBus.ConnectionString”. The value of this string is the SAS connection string you can get from the portal. It gives the application access to the entity until such time as the policy/rule is removed. In other words, you can re-write this code to look like this:
// Create EventHubClient
QueueClient client = QueueClient.CreateFromConnectionString("Endpoint=sb://<namespace>/;SharedAccessKeyName=<SharedAccessRuleName>;SharedAccessKey=<RuleKey>", "vendor-queue2");
// insert the message body into the request
BrokeredMessage message = new BrokeredMessage("hello world!");
// execute the request and get the response
By using CreateFromConnectionString in place of the simple Create, we can specify our own connection string. But again, this is permanent access until the policy/rule is removed. It also highlights the issue I have with the way the available samples/demos work I mentioned earlier. I bemoaned the use of the “owner” credential when doing ACS. Lets look at the default connection string that the Service Bus Nuget package puts into the application configuration file:
<add key="Microsoft.ServiceBus.ConnectionString" value="Endpoint=sb://[your namespace].servicebus.windows.net;SharedAccessKeyName=RootManageSharedAccessKey;SharedAccessKey=[your secret]" />
This sample refers to a policy/rule named “RootManageSharedAccessKey”. When you create a new namespace, this default policy has been created for you automatically with permission to listen, send, AND MANAGE the entire namespace. Please! For the love of all that is digital, NEVER… EVER use this credential for anything other than an application that needs to manage all aspects of a given namespace! Instead, configure your own policies with just the permissions that are needed. If you put the default policy into all your apps, we’re right back to the “owner” credential situation we had with ACS.
There’s another issue with this approach. Rules/policies must be associated with a specific service bus entity. This is where SAS comes into play.
Our First SAS
From the root namespace, entities in service bus are accessible by a path that lies directly under that namespace. Together with the root namespace, this can be represented by a path. Like so…
Now I could create a policy at the root namespace that has “send” permission. But using it as a connection string would give the sender access to send to everything in the namespace. Alternatively, I could create individual policies/rules on each of these entities. But then I need to juggle all those different connection strings.
If we opt to use a SAS, we have a simpler way to help restrict access, but also make management a touch easier by creating signatures that allow access to a partial path, namely something like entities that begin with “my-“. Unfortunately, the management portal does yet provide the ability to create a SAS. So we either need to write a bit of .NET code, or leverage 3rd party utilities. Fortunately the code is pretty simple. Using Visual Studio, you can create a new Console Application and then add the Nuget package for Azure Service Bus. Then all that remains is to populate some variables and use these two lines of code to generate our signature.
var serviceUri = ServiceBusEnvironment.CreateServiceUri("https", sbNamespace, sbPath).ToString().Trim('/');
string generatedSaS = SharedAccessSignatureTokenProvider.GetSharedAccessSignature(sbPolicy, sbKey, serviceUri, expiry);
The important variables in here are:
sbNamespace – the name of the service bus namespace. Don’t include the “.servicebus.windows.net” stuff. Just the name when we created it.
sbPath – the name, or partial name of the entities we want to access. For this example, let’s pretend its “my-”
sbPolicy – this is the rule/policy that has the permissions we want to the signature to include
sbKey – one of the two secret keys of the rule/policy we’re referencing
expiry – a date/time of when the signature should expire.
If we fill these in, we get a signature that looks something like:
Now that we have this signature, we want to be able to use it to interact with one of our entities. There’s no “CreateFromSAS” option, but fortunately in the .NET SDK we can use this signature together with a MessagingFactory to create our entity client.
MessagingFactorySettings mfSettings = new MessagingFactorySettings();
mfSettings.TransportType = TransportType.NetMessaging;
mfSettings.TokenProvider = TokenProvider.CreateSharedAccessSignatureTokenProvider("<signature we just created>");
MessagingFactory mf = MessagingFactory.Create("sb://thatconference-ns.servicebus.windows.net", mfSettings);
// Create Client
QueueClient client = mf.CreateQueueClient(queueName);
var xmlHttpRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
xmlHttpRequest.open('POST', 'https://thatconference-ns.servicebus.windows.net/my-eventhub/publishers/vendorA-DeviceIDnnn/messages', true);
In the case of event hub, were we’ll have various publishers, we can do exactly the same but using a rule/policy from the event hub and generate a signature that goes deeper like “my-eventhub/publishers/vendorA-“.
Policy Expiry and Renewal
So here’s the $50,000 question. With ACS I could (at least to a certain scale), have a single identity for each client and remove them at any time. With SAS, I can remove a signature by removing its underlying policy at any time. But since I’m limited to twelve policies. How to I recreate the ability to revoke on demand. Simply put, you don’t.
Now before you throw your hands up and state with exasperation that this approach “simply won’t work”, I do ask you to take a long hard look at this requirement. In my experience, I find that the vast majority of the time, allowing someone to publish to an entity is a matter of trust. You’ve entered into an agreement with them and aren’t likely to revoke that access on a whim. The nature of this trust is rarely volatile/short term in nature. If it’s a customer, they are usually engaged for the term of their subscription (monthly or annual are common). So you know when your trust will expire and need to be renewed.
In this situation, were are planning for an eventuality that rarely comes to pass. And one that has an alternative that requires just a small amount of work, implementing your own “credential broker”.
If we look back at what the ACS did, you present it with credentials, and it issued you a token. You then used that token to access the appropriate service bus resources. That’s exactly what our credential broker would do. Periodically, the requesting client would call to a service you are hosting and present some credentials (username/pass, certificate, PSK, etc…). Your broker service validates this request (and likely logs it), then issues back a SAS ‘token’ with an appropriate expiry. The client then (hopefully) caches the SAS ‘token’, and uses it on subsequent requests until it expires and then goes back to the broker to get a new SAS ‘token’.
Now if this isn’t enough, we still have the ability to remove/disable the queue (or event hub). So in a way we get the best of both worlds. We have automatic expiry of tokens to ensure “key rotation” while also having the ability revoke access immediately.
This is just one possible pattern. So instead of offering up alternatives, I’d love to hear from any of you via the comments on the patterns you have used to help manage shared access signatures.
In the coming weeks/months I’m going to generate a series of posts that will dive into various Service Bus related topics more deeply. If there’s something specific you’d like to see, please let me know. Otherwise you can look forward to posts on access service bus from other languages/sdks, programmatic management of namespaces/rules, and resilient architectures around Service Bus.
I hope this article has helped clear up some of the fog around the Azure Service Bus. So until next time!