[keycloak-dev] Keycloak Impersonation feature | KEYCLOAK-4219

[Ritesh Garg]

Apologies for the late reply. My use case was similar to what Gribov mentioned. I agree, offline tokens approach is the right approach to achieve that. Feel free to reject the issue in Jira. Thank you.

________________________________
From: Konstantin Gribov <grossws at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 8:20 AM
To: stian at redhat.com
Cc: Ritesh Garg; keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Keycloak Impersonation feature | KEYCLOAK-4219

Yes, I totally agree. I'm not a OP, though. Maybe he has some other use case where he think he need impersonation.

I've just explained a workaroud I have in use case where I *could* think impersonation would be way to go because it's hard to integrate offline tokens in my case.

But I'm totally aware that such feature shouldn't be implemented because of its security implications.

ср, 25 янв. 2017 г. в 15:31, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com<mailto:sthorger at redhat.com>>:
On 25 January 2017 at 13:24, Konstantin Gribov <grossws at gmail.com<mailto:grossws at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello, Stian.

I have such usecase where app should be able to work on behalf of some user for periodic tasks.

But I'm not sure that such case should be implemented using impersonation. It's too coarse grained and makes attack surface much larger, since it allows to get access token for any scope including offline for impersonated user.

Currently I use usernames (which are unique in my case because of my ldap contraints on users `cn`s) and a little service to obtain all required info (like email, groups/roles) for periodic tasks via Keycloak Admin API using service user for this activity. I have to make this service a confidential client because of bearer-only lacks support for service accounts (so I hope that KEYCLOAK-4156 will come soon).

Another way to do something on behalf of some user would be offline token which is intended for such usecases, but it can't be easily integrated to our system.

Offline tokens are the way your use-case should be solved and we won't add another approach. Allowing an application to impersonate any arbitrary user is just plain crazy. It's actually a really god reason we should not support impersonation through an api.



ср, 25 янв. 2017 г. в 15:03, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com<mailto:sthorger at redhat.com>>:
Please have patience rather than repeat yourself. I don't really need 3
emails about the same thing in my mailbox as I have loads of email to get
through in a day!

I don't really see the use-case for this. Impersonation is specifically for
a user to impersonate another user. As such there has to be a front-end
application as users don't go around manually obtaining tokens to invoke
backend services.

On 23 January 2017 at 15:30, Ritesh Garg <ritesh.garg at outlook.com<mailto:ritesh.garg at outlook.com>> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ritesh
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ritesh Garg <ritesh.garg at outlook.com<mailto:ritesh.garg at outlook.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:47 AM
> To: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Subject: Keycloak Impersonation feature | KEYCLOAK-4219
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> As of now, Keycloak supports impersonation by an admin user at the front
> end application level. However, if someone is using JWT token based API
> security, there is no existing way to get a user's JWT token "on behalf" of
> the user by admin u.
>
> I understand and agree with Stian Thorgersen that this is not just adding
> the return of a JWT token to the current impersonation endpoint. But I
> believe if keycloak supports impersonation; we should support that for API
> security as well and not just front-end applications.
>
> If we decide to incorporate it; one implementation approach can be to
> introduce an impersonation grant type which would perform client and admin
> user authentication before granting a token on behalf of the user it is
> requested for. Please let me know if this sounds completely absurd to you
> guys.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Ritesh Garg
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
--

Best regards,
Konstantin Gribov

--

Best regards,
Konstantin Gribov