[aerogear-dev] Keycloak integration and UPS Sender

Tue Jun 17 14:51:05 EDT 2014

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:

> Hi Matthias, answer inline.
>
> On 2014-06-17, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Good morning peeps,
> > >
> > > I have a problem to solve which might affect the Sender and
> > > all the related clients.
> > >
> > > Previously, the UPS Sender was protected by the basic authentication
> > > method[1], so anyone in possession of _PushApplicationID_ and
> > > _MasterSecret_ is able to send push messages.
> > >
> > > After the integration with Keycloak now everything under _/rest_
> > > is properly protect by KC which is totally correct. Our sender is under
> > > the same umbrella which means that now Bearer token authentication is
> > > required[2] and Basic authentication won't exist anymore.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The device (un)registration endpoints are hit by this as well
> > (/rest/registry/device/*).
>
> Currently Keycloak is protecting our endpoints under /rest/*
>
> >
> > I am wondering if it isn't it possible to keep those URLs protected via
> > HTTP_BASIC, or does the keycloak.js usage deny this?
>
> Is not the Keycloak.js usage responsible for this, but the correct
> configuration of the application atm. Please compare:
>
> - master branch:
>
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/server/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.xml#L56
> - keycloak.js branch:
>
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/keycloak.js/server/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.xml#L33
>
> Now we're fully using Keycloak bearer tokens instead of Basic.
>

Oh, I was following Bill's sample project, where he did not use the
'KEYCLOAK' auth-method:
https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/project-integrations/aerogear-ups/app/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.xml#L44

But we had the exclusion working w/ the KEYCLOAK 'auth-method', but this
goes back to our initial starts in Dec/Jan.
Here is a rebased commit based on your initial commit:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/2aabd073aaaafa79943ea41d2651f6f0c5e4248e/server/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.xml#L42-L53

>
> >
> > On master (plain keycloak; before keycloak.js usage) we are doing an
> > exclude for those URLs:
> >
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/server/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.xml#L46-L52
>
> I tried to include your exclusions, but that didn't work for me.
>
> >
> >
> > IMO if possible, keeping these 'exceptions' (or excludes) under
> HTTP_BASIC
> > would be the simplest solution, as that means none of our client SDKs
> > (Android, iOS, Cordova, Node.js Sender, Java-Sendet etc) would require an
> > update.
>
> I had a chat with Stian and looks like it's possible to support both
> auth methods in a single app, but that would involve changes on Keycloak.
> It's just the matter of discuss with KC team.
>

I don't think we need to enable to <auth-method> settings in our web.xml;

My initial hope was to be able to simply exclude a few URLs from the
overall Keycloak protection, like the above referenced commit:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/2aabd073aaaafa79943ea41d2651f6f0c5e4248e/server/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.xml#L42-L53

That would be best as that would mean no API change at all, and our
client-registration and sender SDKs could stay as they are.

>
> My two cents is the fact that we should use bearer tokens only, instead
> of mix both auth methods in a single app — now that we have KC.
> And discuss the changes into our clients rather sooner than later.
>
> But I'm open for whatever you guys think it's the best.
>
>
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The consequence of this is the basic form being presented when you try
> > > to send push notifications[3]. The problem didn't occur before, because
> > > we were just using Basic authentication[4] instead of Bearer tokens.
> > >
> > > Possible solutions:
> > >
> > > 1- After the removal of Basic authentication, move _PushApplicationID_
> > > and _MasterSecret to http headers like:
> > >
> > > -H "PushApplicationID: XXXXXX" -H "MasterSecret: 42"
> > >
> > > IMO it sounds correct and reasonable for me.
> > >
> > > 2. Create a role specific for the sender like _push-applications_ and
> > > dinamically add _PushApplicationID_ and _MasterSecret on Keycloak
> where:
> > >
> > > username: _PushApplicationID_
> > > password: _MasterSecret_
> > >
> > > The implications of this alternative is the fact of have to manage
> those
> > > credentials on the server side inclusion/exclusion/login
> > >
> > > 3. Implement another authentication provider specifically for the
> sender
> > > and Basic authentication[5]
> > >
> > > 4. Do nothing. The consequences of this alternative is to implement
> > > everything already done by Keycloak.js and manage session tokens by
> hand
> > > on the admin-ui.
> > >
> > > To me the first alternative seems to be more simple, but I really want
> > > your feedback on it, once it affects the whole project.
> > >
> > > [1] -
> > >
> > >
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/6c1a0d3fedea8fb6ba918009fd8e9785779c151f/jaxrs/src/main/java/org/jboss/aerogear/unifiedpush/rest/sender/PushNotificationSenderEndpoint.java#L56
> > >
> > > [2] -
> > >
> https://github.com/abstractj/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/tree/keycloak.js
> > > [3] -
> > >
> > >
> http://photon.abstractj.org/AeroGear_UnifiedPush_Server_2014-06-17_10-00-09_2014-06-17_10-00-12.jpg
> > >
> > > [4] -
> > >
> > >
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/server/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.xml#L57
> > >
> > > [5] -
> > >
> https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/tree/master/examples/providers/authentication-properties
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > abstractj
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> --
>
> abstractj
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>

-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140617/dcd79c30/attachment-0001.html 