[keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
Pedro Igor Silva
psilva at redhat.com
Tue Dec 2 06:55:21 EST 2014
Users can now specify a Icon Url to be rendered on the login page when social or any other identity provider is configured. So we just load the image the url entered by the user.
Are you saying that users should change the theme or customize css if they only want to change an icon for a provider ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 9:42:15 AM
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
All look and feel related things including images and stylesheets should be part of themes. This is to allow customizing them in the theme. Also, an image is not the correct way to render a button, it should be defined in CSS.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:34:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
>
> You shouldn't have icon images for social providers. They should be specified
> as part of the theme in CSS as is now.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > To: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:22:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Anyone know where I can get the icons images for social providers ? It
> > seems zocial defines them encoded in some way in CSS. I need that to
> > provide default images if user does not specify their own.
> >
> > Or is still possible to use zocial ones ?
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > To: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:01:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I've done some initial work covering both persistence and brokering. No
> > UI, yet. I'm focused on the model, rest api and brokering functionality
> > for now.
> >
> > What I have is enough to decide if we are aligned about this
> > functionality. So you can understand how the model (and persistence),
> > rest api and brokering functionality looks like. Can we schedule a
> > meeting ?
> >
> > Btw, my branch is here [1].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/pedroigor/keycloak/tree/authentication-broker2
> >
> > Regards.
> > Pedro Igor
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > To: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:48:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
> >
> > Currently adapters can only make authz decisions (@RolesAllowed) based
> > on either realm roles or the roles of one specific application. This is
> > related to 1) too.
> >
> > On 11/20/2014 11:40 AM, Bolesław Dawidowicz wrote:
> > > 1) Sounds like something definitely worth aiming for.
> > >
> > > On 11/20/2014 09:55 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> > >> I just wanted to quickly list the additional work we discussed so
> > >> everyone
> > >> can think about it (in no particular order):
> > >>
> > >> 1) Mapping of tokens - how do we deal with mapping of an external token
> > >> to
> > >> a KC token? For example an external token with attribute 'group' that
> > >> contains 'sales' and 'manager' could be mapped to 'manager' role for
> > >> 'sales app in a KC token. Could we use Drools? This could also be used
> > >> in
> > >> user federation to allow more complex mapping of roles/groups than a
> > >> simple 1-1
> > >> 2) Retrieving tokens - if an application wants to retrieve the external
> > >> token (for example to view Facebook friends if user logged in with
> > >> Facebook)
> > >> 3) Configure scope - currently for social we only request a very limited
> > >> scope (basic profile and email), to for example view Facebook friends
> > >> we'd need to ask for that as well
> > >> 4) Selecting provider - currently in social (and for first pass of
> > >> brokering) we have an icon user has to select, but can we select the
> > >> provider in a different way (for example ask user for email, and select
> > >> based on email domain)
> > >> 5) Gateway - don't create a KC token, but just forward the external
> > >> token
> > >>
> > >> IMO 1) is a killer feature, as it would allow companies to add external
> > >> users without having to modify their applications. Issue with 5) is that
> > >> applications need to understand more than one token, which would require
> > >> rewriting applications.
> > >>
> > >> This work is also somewhat related to other authentication mechanisms
> > >> (for
> > >> example Kerberos ticket, LDAP and passwordless).
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > >>> To: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > >>> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 November, 2014 8:27:58 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > >>> Broker
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > >>>> To: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:39:52 PM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > >>>> Broker
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11/19/2014 1:22 PM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Would like to start a discussion about how to enable KC as an
> > >>>>> Authentication Broker in order to supported Chained Federation
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>> also Identity Federation. First of all, some background about
> > >>>>> what
> > >>>>> this is all about.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Currently KeyCloak provides two basic types of authentication
> > >>>>> (correct
> > >>>>> me if I'm wrong, please):
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1) Local authentication (based on some credential type
> > >>>>> enabled
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>> a realm)
> > >>>>> 2) Social authentication
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Local authentication is about authenticating the user locally
> > >>>>> using
> > >>>>> KC's own identity store. Nothing special here. And Social
> > >>>>> Authentication which allows users to choose the Social IdP
> > >>>>> they
> > >>>>> want
> > >>>>> to authenticate with. In this case, the IdP is always one of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> built-in social providers supported by KC such as Facebook,
> > >>>>> Google,
> > >>>>> Twitter, Github and so forth.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> When doing social, the user is automatically provisioned in KC
> > >>>>> identity store after a successful authentication. The user
> > >>>>> does
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>> need to fill a registration form and can access the
> > >>>>> application
> > >>>>> very
> > >>>>> quickly. During the provisioning some basic information is
> > >>>>> retrieved
> > >>>>> from the social provider such as email, firstname and so
> > >>>>> forth.
> > >>>>> These
> > >>>>> are very basic information, any other information such as
> > >>>>> those
> > >>>>> related with authorization policies - eg.: roles and groups -
> > >>>>> must
> > >>>>> be
> > >>>>> defined later via KC's admin console.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Another important characteristic of social authentication is
> > >>>>> that
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> application receives a KC token and not the token that was
> > >>>>> issued by
> > >>>>> the social IdP during the authentication process. If the
> > >>>>> application
> > >>>>> wants to consume resources from the resource provider he was
> > >>>>> authenticated it must obtain the access token(again) by itself
> > >>>>> prior
> > >>>>> to invoke the resource provider API. Assuming all those social
> > >>>>> providers are based on oAuth 1.0 or 2.0.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That said, the Authentication Broker functionality aims to
> > >>>>> cover
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> same use cases but with a lot of more flexibility on how you
> > >>>>> setup
> > >>>>> identity providers(not only social ones) and the different
> > >>>>> federation
> > >>>>> protocols they may support such as SAML, OpenID, oAuth and so
> > >>>>> forth.
> > >>>>> This is useful when an enterprise is providing services to
> > >>>>> different
> > >>>>> customers(IdP) and does not want to manage many to many
> > >>>>> relationships. When using a broker, the authentication steps
> > >>>>> are
> > >>>>> pretty much the same when you are using social authentication,
> > >>>>> with
> > >>>>> important differences on how you support different identity
> > >>>>> providers, different federation protocols, how users are
> > >>>>> provisioned
> > >>>>> and how claims and attributes are resolved.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The brokering functionality can be done in two ways depending
> > >>>>> if
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> broker service is acting as a gateway or not. When acting as a
> > >>>>> gateway, the broker will respond to the application the same
> > >>>>> token
> > >>>>> issued by the trusted identity provider. For instance, if the
> > >>>>> user
> > >>>>> selects a SAML IdP to authenticate with, the application will
> > >>>>> receive
> > >>>>> a SAML Response. In this case, the application must also be
> > >>>>> prepared
> > >>>>> to handle a specific federation protocol.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> However, the broker service can also be used to completely
> > >>>>> abstract
> > >>>>> from the application the protocol used to authenticate an
> > >>>>> user.
> > >>>>> In
> > >>>>> this case, the application will just receive an ordinary KC
> > >>>>> token
> > >>>>> after a successful authentication.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In both cases, the broker acts as an intermediary where
> > >>>>> specific
> > >>>>> security policies can be applied when users try to
> > >>>>> authenticate
> > >>>>> themselves against a 3rd party IdP. That brings a lot of value
> > >>>>> when
> > >>>>> you think about auditing, authorization and how users are
> > >>>>> provisioned
> > >>>>> when federation of identities is needed. This also allows
> > >>>>> existing
> > >>>>> security infrastructures (eg.: SAML-based infrastructures) to
> > >>>>> benefit
> > >>>>> from KC's support for cloud, rest and mobile use cases.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think this is enough to start a discussion. I've an initial
> > >>>>> discussion with Stian about all that and we agreed that
> > >>>>> abstract
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> protocol from applications should be prioritized. The main
> > >>>>> reason is
> > >>>>> that it makes life easier for applications so they only need
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>> know
> > >>>>> about KC tokens and nothing else. However that brings some new
> > >>>>> requirements around user provisioning and claim/attribute
> > >>>>> resolution
> > >>>>> or mapping. But that would be another thread.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can you elaborate on "abstract the protocol from applications"? Not
> > >>>> sure what you mean by that. IDP federation should be configured at
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> realm level and really has nothing to do with applications.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm really happy that somebody is doing this. We're getting a real
> > >>>> impressive feature set!
> > >>>
> > >>> Sure. What I meant was that the application only knows about KC tokens
> > >>> nothing else. It will always receive a KC token regardless the protocol
> > >>> used
> > >>> to authenticate the user against a 3rd party IdP (saml, oidc,
> > >>> whatever).
> > >>> The
> > >>> example I gave was about an user trying to authenticate against a SAML
> > >>> IdP.
> > >>> In this case, after a successful authentication on the IdP, the IdP
> > >>> will
> > >>> issue a token to KC. Then KC will validate the token, perform trust and
> > >>> security checks, do user provisioning and attribute/claim resolution to
> > >>> finally issue a KC token and redirect the user to the application. If
> > >>> the
> > >>> app is configured to use openid in KC then it will receive a openid
> > >>> token
> > >>> from KC, not saml ...
> > >>>
> > >>> The other scenario is pretty much the same. The difference is that KC
> > >>> will
> > >>> not issue its own token but just replay the token issued by the 3rd
> > >>> party
> > >>> IdP to the service provider.
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree that this config goes at the realm level. For instance, to
> > >>> create
> > >>> and
> > >>> enable providers for being used. However, I think we would need some
> > >>> specific configuration for applications as well. Specially when
> > >>> defining
> > >>> default roles, mapping attributes. Another example of application
> > >>> config
> > >>> is
> > >>> when using a OIDC/oAuth IdP. You may want to define scopes
> > >>> per-application.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Bill Burke
> > >>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > >>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> > >>>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > >>>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> > >>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> keycloak-dev mailing list
> > >> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Bill Burke
> > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > http://bill.burkecentral.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
More information about the keycloak-dev
mailing list