[Apiman-user] Authorization question

[Stephen Henrie]

Hi Marc,

Yes and no. We decided to go a different route and not use the contracts
and plans, since we don't want to have to dole out apikeys. We are just
using the "public" API functionality at this point.

However, in order to minimize the configuration needed for each new API
entry, I went ahead and created a custom policy plugin which combines some
parts of the keycloak oauth plugin and the authorization plugin. Instead of
requiring all of that preconfiguration data for each API to point the
plugin to a specific keycloak realm, it dynamically makes a call to
Keycloak in real-time to get and cache the token's realm's public key so
that the oauth token can be validated.

Thanks for checking in though.

Stephen

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Marc Savy <marc.savy at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hey Stephen,
>
> Any progress on this? Did you manage to solve your issue?
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
> On 10 August 2017 at 10:33, Marc Savy <marc.savy at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Is your setup roughly:
> >
> > ClientApp -> Plan [Keycloak] -> API [Authz]
> >
> > Which version of Keycloak are you using?
> > What type of roles are you using? For example, realm.
> >
> > The way Keycloak roles are modelled has changed fairly significantly
> > over the last few versions of KC. We might not be handling that
> > correctly anymore.
> >
> > On 8 August 2017 at 11:08, Marc Savy <marc.savy at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> If I understand your description correctly, this should work. And in
> >> my quick tests, it seems to work.  I might not be replicating
> >> your setup perfectly though.
> >>
> >> For example let's imagine we have a setup such that:
> >>
> >> Client Policies [] // None
> >> Plan Policies [Foo, Bar]
> >> API Policies [Baz]
> >>
> >> This ultimately flattens to a policy chain of:
> >>
> >> Caller <-> [ Foo <-> Bar <-> Baz ] <-> API
> >>
> >> So if your setup is (N of):
> >>
> >> Plan [ Keycloak Auth ]
> >> API [ Authz ]
> >>
> >> This should always result in: Keycloak *then* Authz, passing roles as
> >> defined in config.
> >>
> >> If that isn't happening then there's a bug. I may may need to collect
> >> some more information from you to see whether I can replicate the
> >> issue.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Marc
> >>
> >> On 5 August 2017 at 01:21, Stephen Henrie <stephen at saasindustries.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My goal is minimize the amount of Apiman configuration that I need to
> do by
> >>> sharing a single, common authentication Plan using the Keycloak plugin
> >>> across all APIs while using an API specific authorization policy for
> each
> >>> individual API.
> >>>
> >>> As such,  I am trying to configure a single, global plan within Apiman
> that
> >>> can be used for ensuring authentication policy using the Keycloak
> plugin
> >>> which forwards all of my realm roles. This single plan would be
> assigned to
> >>> all of my APIs in the Org, which would allow me to only have to
> configure
> >>> the Keycloak realm information in one place. Then for each individual
> API, I
> >>> was hoping to add a single Authorization policy plugin configured with
> >>> endpoints and paths specific for each API.
> >>>
> >>> Something like
> >>>
> >>> Api1 ---> Keycloak Plan Abc
> >>>   +---->Authorization Policy (123)
> >>>
> >>> Api2 ---> Keycloak Plan Abc
> >>>   +---->Authorization Policy (456)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> When I do this and call one of the API endpoints, I am getting the
> following
> >>> error:
> >>>
> >>> curl -k  -H "Authorization: Bearer $T"
> >>> https://localhost:9443/apiman-gateway/chassi/chassi-tenant-
> bff/1.0/mytenants
> >>>
> >>> {"type":"Other","failureCode":10010,"responseCode":0,"message":"No
> roles
> >>> have been extracted during authentication.  Make sure the authorization
> >>> policy comes *after* a compatible authentication policy in your
> >>> configuration.","headers":[]}
> >>>
> >>> It would seem that the Keycloak plugin that is configured in the Plan
> >>> assigned to the API is not forwarding the realm roles to the
> Authentication
> >>> policy which is also assigned to the same API.
> >>>
> >>> Is this by design? Do the authentication and authorization policies
> have to
> >>> be within the same entity (ie. Plan, Api, etc) and not passed out of a
> plan
> >>> to be used by downstream policies?  If so, is there another way to
> configure
> >>> plans and policies that will allow me to accomplish my goal?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance!
> >>> Stephen
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Apiman-user mailing list
> >>> Apiman-user at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/apiman-user
> >>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/apiman-user/attachments/20171113/6c9f444b/attachment.html