When to use Spring Security`s antMatcher()?

Question

When do we use antMatcher() vs antMatchers()?

For example:

http
   .antMatcher("/high_level_url_A/**")
   .authorizeRequests()
      .antMatchers("/high_level_url_A/sub_level_1").hasRole('USER')
      .antMatchers("/high_level_url_A/sub_level_2").hasRole('USER2')
      .somethingElse()
      .anyRequest().authenticated()
      .and()
   .antMatcher("/high_level_url_B/**")
   .authorizeRequests()
      .antMatchers("/high_level_url_B/sub_level_1").permitAll()
      .antMatchers("/high_level_url_B/sub_level_2").hasRole('USER3')
      .somethingElse()
      .anyRequest().authenticated()
      .and()
   ...

What I expect here is,

• Any request matches to /high_level_url_A/** should be authenticated + /high_level_url_A/sub_level_1 only for USER and /high_level_url_A/sub_level_2 only for USER2
• Any request matches to /high_level_url_B/** should be authenticated + /high_level_url_B/sub_level_1 for public access and /high_level_url_A/sub_level_2 only for USER3.
• Any other pattern I don't care - But should be public ?

I have seen latest examples do not include antMatcher() these days. Why is that? Is antMatcher() no longer required?

Answer 1

You need antMatcher for multiple HttpSecurity, see Spring Security Reference:

5.7 Multiple HttpSecurity

We can configure multiple HttpSecurity instances just as we can have multiple <http> blocks. The key is to extend the WebSecurityConfigurationAdapter multiple times. For example, the following is an example of having a different configuration for URL’s that start with /api/.

@EnableWebSecurity
public class MultiHttpSecurityConfig {
  @Autowired
  public void configureGlobal(AuthenticationManagerBuilder auth) { 1
      auth
          .inMemoryAuthentication()
              .withUser("user").password("password").roles("USER").and()
              .withUser("admin").password("password").roles("USER", "ADMIN");
  }

  @Configuration
  @Order(1)                                                        2
  public static class ApiWebSecurityConfigurationAdapter extends WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter {
      protected void configure(HttpSecurity http) throws Exception {
          http
              .antMatcher("/api/**")                               3
              .authorizeRequests()
                  .anyRequest().hasRole("ADMIN")
                  .and()
              .httpBasic();
      }
  }    

  @Configuration                                                   4
  public static class FormLoginWebSecurityConfigurerAdapter extends WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter {

      @Override
      protected void configure(HttpSecurity http) throws Exception {
          http
              .authorizeRequests()
                  .anyRequest().authenticated()
                  .and()
              .formLogin();
      }
  }
}

1 Configure Authentication as normal

2 Create an instance of WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter that contains @Order to specify which WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter should be considered first.

3 The http.antMatcher states that this HttpSecurity will only be applicable to URLs that start with /api/

4 Create another instance of WebSecurityConfigurerAdapter. If the URL does not start with /api/ this configuration will be used. This configuration is considered after ApiWebSecurityConfigurationAdapter since it has an @Order value after 1 (no @Order defaults to last).

In your case you need no antMatcher, because you have only one configuration. Your modified code:

http
    .authorizeRequests()
        .antMatchers("/high_level_url_A/sub_level_1").hasRole('USER')
        .antMatchers("/high_level_url_A/sub_level_2").hasRole('USER2')
        .somethingElse() // for /high_level_url_A/**
        .antMatchers("/high_level_url_A/**").authenticated()
        .antMatchers("/high_level_url_B/sub_level_1").permitAll()
        .antMatchers("/high_level_url_B/sub_level_2").hasRole('USER3')
        .somethingElse() // for /high_level_url_B/**
        .antMatchers("/high_level_url_B/**").authenticated()
        .anyRequest().permitAll()