Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 849185
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T07:03:59+00:00 2026-05-15T07:03:59+00:00

in .net Claim-based identity framework If i wanted to restrict users to do an

  • 0

in .net Claim-based identity framework

If i wanted to restrict users to do an operation (view or edit) on let’s say an account, a particular account #123456.(i am talking about business entity, like a bank account.) Is it a good idea to create a claim for each account they can view or edit?

Any disadvantages of having a lot of claims in a set? a system admin might have access to all accounts in the system thus creating hundreds of claims (maybe more than one for each account)

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T07:04:00+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 7:04 am

    The most immediate consequence of a big claimset is lower performance as the token is exchanged back and forth between all involved systems across the network. By default, WIF, for example, serializes the token and puts them in cookies. So in practice, you are also limited in the amount of data you can store there. There are other ways of dealing with this, but the underlying problem persists.

    The second consideration is who and where will you manage the association between the user and the account. If that’s an application specific thing, it is unlikely you will push those associations to a central STS (issuer of claims). You will end up then with 2 STS: the one that identifies users (and Identity provider: IdP) and an application specific STS that will transform the token issued by the IdP into something the app undertsands (including the account list for a particular user)

    Having said that, it might be that the association betwen a user and his accounts is something that is reusable among many applications, then it might make sense to put it behind a specialized STS.

    There’s a third consideration which is the potential unnecesary disclosure of information. The application might only need to know if user X has access to account 123. By providing a list of all accounts user X has access to you are disclosing more information that is needed.

    As a general guideline claims are better for “coarse grained” attributes. “Fine grained” access control is probably better handled inside the app where you can use infrastructure optimizations.

    Here’s an extreme example: imagine a file system. Would you encode as claims the names of the files a user has access to? Unlikely, because you might end up with millions…

    Another extreme example: if you wanted to implement row level security in a database. Would you encode as claims the row_id’s for each user? Unlikely again, because there could be a lot, it is very application specific and also because it is just probably easier (and far more efficient) to solve the row filtering with a database query (this is an example of infrastructure optimization)

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I found the following claim in the documentation for Net::OpenSSH : Note that using
net website, I would like to add button by which user can view the
.NET framework 3.5 introduces Action and Func<> predefined delegate types that are very handy.
I'm doing course 3354 (Implementing System Types and Interfaces in the .NET Framework 2.0)
I come from an ASP.NET background and find the entire roles based authorization scheme
I have an asp.net application which signs users in manually. The custom authentication procedure
I can't claim that I am an expert in what a .Net Assembly Manifest
Microsoft claims that the .Net 3.5 framework has many speed improvements over 2.0. Is
Recently I decided to establish a new repository on a fresh account with nearlyfreespeech.net.
I just set about updating a project from Entity Framework 4.3.1 and .NET 4

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.