Why Can't Spring Security Properly Restrict Access Based on User Roles?

Resolving Role Issues in Spring Security

Issue:

While implementing Spring Security into a project, it's observed that users with only the "user" role can access admin-specific resources. The suspected issue lies within the user authentication query.

Analysis:

The configuration attempts to both authenticate based on in-memory and JDBC. The query for retrieving authorities is configured with "select users_username, roles_id from roles_users where users_username=?" and prefixes roles with "ROLE_".

Cause:

However, the problem stems from a logical error in the order of authorization matchers. The matcher "anyRequest().authenticated()" is wrongly placed before "antMatchers("/users/all").hasRole("admin")", allowing all authenticated users access, regardless of their roles.

Solution:

To address this issue, the authorization rules should be reorganized to follow the order specified in the Spring Security documentation. The modified configuration below corrects the error:

@Override
protected void configure(HttpSecurity http) throws Exception {
    http
        .csrf().disable()      
        .httpBasic()
            .and()
        .authorizeRequests()
            .antMatchers("/users/all").hasRole("admin")
            .anyRequest().authenticated()
            .and()
        .formLogin()
            .and()
        .exceptionHandling().accessDeniedPage("/403");
}

With this modification, only users with the "admin" role will be granted access to "/users/all", and non-admin users will be restricted from accessing protected resources.

The above is the detailed content of Why Can't Spring Security Properly Restrict Access Based on User Roles?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!