[keycloak-dev] Cross-DC and codeToToken request

Marek Posolda mposolda at redhat.com
Tue May 23 07:56:28 EDT 2017

Yes, security is another thing, which I was slightly worried regarding 
this. +1 to first try on-demand replication approach.


On 23/05/17 12:29, Schuster Sebastian (INST/ESY1) wrote:
> Another argument against providing claims in the code is that it can be stolen by rogue mobile apps and PKCE does not help here as it only prevents using stolen codes. Encrypting the code could help, but this might also have impact on code size. Maybe it is best to first try the on-demand replication approach and see if it nails it before introducing another configuration switch that could be set wrong and the associated code?
> Best regards,
> Sebastian
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
>   Sebastian Schuster
> Engineering and Support (INST/ESY1)
> Bosch Software Innovations GmbH | Schöneberger Ufer 89-91 | 10785 Berlin | GERMANY | www.bosch-si.com
> Tel. +49 30 726112-485 | Fax +49 30 726112-100 | Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com
> Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B
> Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Rainer Kallenbach, Michael Hahn
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: keycloak-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:keycloak-dev-
>> bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Marek Posolda
>> Sent: Dienstag, 23. Mai 2017 10:41
>> To: Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com>; keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Cross-DC and codeToToken request
>> On 22/05/17 15:16, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>> 4) Is it ok to have option to relax on code one-time use? Otherwise
>>>>> in cross-DC and without sticky session, the every code exchange may
>>>>> require SYNC request to another DCs to doublecheck code was not used
>> already.
>>>>> Not good for performance..
>>>> Maybe this is OK. Confidential apps needs credentials and then
>>>> there's Proof Key for Code Exchange for public clients. Although the
>>>> latter may be another issue in cross-DC?
>>>>> For now, I can see some combination of 1,3,4 as a way to go. WDYT?
>>>>> Marek
>>> I think 1 and 4 will hobble us for future things we want to do.
>> Ok, I understand 1 may be problematic for some scenarios and won't do it. But
>> what exactly is a blocker for relax on code one-time use?
>> I am thinking that code will be still single-use by default as it's required per
>> OAuth2/OIDC specs. However admins, who prefer performance over security, may
>> choose to relax strict code one-time use. This may be new option - not sure
>> whether configurable per realm or per client. I can see it's likely ok in some
>> environments (private corporate networks
>> etc) ?
>> Marek
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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