[keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
Pedro Igor Silva
psilva at redhat.com
Fri Dec 5 08:36:14 EST 2014
----- 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: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:59:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
>
> Another related thing. We've had a few people ask to be able to login to
> Keycloak on mobiles using the native social login mechanism.
>
> I think the best way to do that is to use the direct grant api and make it
> possible to call that endpoint passing a IdP id and a token instead of
> username and password.
>
> WDYT?
The broker endpoint expects the idp id in order to start the authentication process. Today, the endpoint also expects KCs authorization code in order to validate requests from clients and use it as a state to validate responses from the trusted idps.
This authorization code is a blocker for this use case, given that mobile don't have this code and just want to start the authentication.
A possible solution would be to change the broker to also accept a client_id to reference the mobile app and perform some validations based on that. Something like that:
1) Mobile displays a Facebook button
2) User clicks the button and mobile sends a request to KC Broker with the idp id and his client_id.
3) KC Broker checks if the client_id is valid and creates a temporary authorization code.
4) KC Broker redirect mobile to the chosen IdP to perform authentication.
5) KC Broker receives a response from the IdP, generate its own token and send it back to mobile
Makes sense ?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 1:45:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
> >
> > ----- 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: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:22:10 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
> > >
> > > Looks good. I reckon we can combine the two pages. What about if the 'Add
> > > provider' drop-down is:
> > >
> > > OpenID
> > > SAML
> > > ------
> > > Google
> > > GitHub
> > > Facebook
> > > Twitter
> > >
> > > Let's drop social on/off and instead have a enable/disable button on each
> > > provider.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, would be nice if users could set a name or alias for a provider
> > > instance. This would make the callback url easier to use (instead of
> > > callback/<UUID> it's callback/<alias>). The user federation providers
> > > have
> > > this.
> >
> > One of my first tries was using an alias, just like that. But I preferred
> > using the UUID and make the configuration more easier. Beside that, the
> > callback url is just a copy and paste, so I think an alias would not bring
> > so much usability, but add one more step when configuring providers.
> >
> > However, if this is an usability requirement for KC I can change that.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 1:08:53 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > Broker
> > > >
> > > > In one of our last discussions, you suggested to leave Social as it is.
> > > > Although IMO I think we can have a single place to manage both social
> > > > and
> > > > user-defined identity providers. Social ones are just OOTB and
> > > > pre-configured identity providers now.
> > > >
> > > > That said, today I'm using separated tabs for social and user-defined.
> > > > Please, take a look at [1] for more details on how the UI looks like.
> > > >
> > > > I've changed social UI a bit in order to provide a specific page for
> > > > create/update. I've also added a "Show Secret" link to display the
> > > > client_secret in clear text if user wants to.
> > > >
> > > > Beside the enable/disable button, I think another good thing to do is
> > > > specify
> > > > a default role(s) for each provider. That can be useful if applications
> > > > want
> > > > to perform any kind of authorization based on the identity provider or
> > > > authentication method used to authenticate an user (eg.: useful for
> > > > adaptative or multi-level access control). We can also use the "amr"
> > > > claim
> > > > in the ID Token, which seems KC is not considering at all. The latter
> > > > is
> > > > an
> > > > important thing to think of, regardless this broker work I'm doing.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwjsrPoH8khWMFBvNUcwYWVHRUU/view?usp=sharing
> > > >
> > > > ----- 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: Friday, December 5, 2014 6:15:15 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > Broker
> > > >
> > > > Having a separate enable/disable for each provider would be good. If
> > > > you're
> > > > leaving the social tab as is and adding a separate tab for configuring
> > > > brokered idp's then we should leave the social enable/disable button,
> > > > otherwise it depends how it'll look like in the end.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 2:29:37 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > > Broker
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Social has a button to enable/disable it. I'm wondering what to do
> > > > > with
> > > > > the brokered identity providers. Shall we add a similar flag for
> > > > > that
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > I was also wondering if the best would be a flag in a per provider
> > > > > basis.
> > > > > So we can disable/enable a specific provider (social or brokered),
> > > > > instead of doing that for all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards.
> > > > > Pedro Igor
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:42:11 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > > Broker
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- 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 10:23:24 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > > > Broker
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 1:13:08 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll go for it then. Will remove the icon url from the model and
> > > > > > > leave
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > for users if they want to provide icons for their identity
> > > > > > > providers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My point is that icons can be usually served by the same
> > > > > > > server/application
> > > > > > > or proxy, so download images are not such a big deal. Also, the
> > > > > > > icon
> > > > > > > url
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > part of the freemarker model and people can do what ever they
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > What I think will also help in your future plans.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not following. Are you saying that if a named image
> > > > > > 'my-provider.png'
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > loaded from a theme, then you can override it in another theme?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If so, that's basically the same as having a css class
> > > > > > 'my-provider'
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > theme. With the exception that with an image you end up with having
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > require a image per provider per theme per language, which could be
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > lot
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > images for a single provider. Also, buttons for accessibility
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > defined with text and css, not images that can't be interpreted.
> > > > > > You
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > still need to modify the theme, so I don't see any benefits.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right. Having a icon url per provider does not makes sense if
> > > > > there
> > > > > are requirements to change images accordingly to a theme or language.
> > > > > CSS
> > > > > makes life easier.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will remove that property from the model.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- 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 10:04:33 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:55:21 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, there's many issues with having a icon url:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Won't work for internationalization - we don't have this now,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > * Image is not a good button - CSS is much better
> > > > > > > * Doesn't support themes - we allow users to switch l&f by
> > > > > > > switching
> > > > > > > themes,
> > > > > > > but that won't work for a icon url. In the future we may also
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > multiple themes per-realm, for example to depending on the
> > > > > > > devices
> > > > > > > (one
> > > > > > > theme for mobiles, one for desktops, etc)
> > > > > > > * Requires the URL to be hosted somewhere - why require a
> > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > download an image (to a separate server maybe) if it can simply
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > in a single CSS file?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rather than add additional places to define look and feel
> > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > should in the future make it easier to add/customize themes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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