<div dir="ltr">Would be even simpler for users if we just removed authentication completely and only had the username on the login form - we could just add a statement "only use your own username, we trust you to not try to login as someone else" ;)<div><br></div><div>Seriously though - social accounts are hacked all the time and allowing this auto linking of accounts without requiring users to authenticate to the existing account is just plain scary.</div><div><br></div><div>The solution to the use case you've given is not login with another social provider, it's having good account recovery options in place.<div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 October 2015 at 14:57, Bill Burke <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com" target="_blank">bburke@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">There's an alternative problem. Logs in with Twitter in 2005. Logs in again 2015 with Google. Is required to link with Twitter, says "screw it" because he doesn't remember his Twitter password and just closes his browser and doesn't use the website.<br>
<br>
I've been on really popular high-traffic sites where their google login was broken for months (<a href="http://mmqb.si.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">mmqb.si.com</a> which is an NFL website for Sports Illustrated). I used my Facebook identity instead. If I had been required to merge accounts manually, I would have not been able to use the site.<span class=""><br>
<br>
On 10/29/2015 4:35 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
Linking accounts automatically is fine, but we should not have an option<br>
that can do that without requiring users to authenticate first.<br>
<br>
There are so many cases where a user could have one social account<br>
compromised. They may not care that much about the account, they may<br>
never use the service so they've completely forgotten about it.<br>
<br>
Imagine the following scenario:<br>
<br>
* Tom signed up for GMail in 2005 - figured it was great and continued<br>
using the service the rest of his life<br>
* Tom signed up for Twitter in 2005 - figured it was not to his taste<br>
and never used the account again<br>
* Tom now read about two factor auth and configured it on his GMail account<br>
* Mary (a bad person) figured that the password to Toms twitter account<br>
was 'password' so she's gained access to Tom's Twitter - Tom doesn't<br>
know, but he doesn't care either<br>
* Tom signs up for a website that uses Keycloak and logs in with his<br>
trusted GMail account<br>
* Now if we let Mary login to the website that uses Keycloak with Toms<br>
old Twitter account, without first proving she's Tom (which she can't),<br>
would be just plain daft!<br>
<br>
On 29 October 2015 at 06:37, Bill Burke <<a href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com" target="_blank">bburke@redhat.com</a><br></span><span class="">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:bburke@redhat.com" target="_blank">bburke@redhat.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/29/2015 5:42 AM, Vlastimil Elias wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 28.10.2015 21:32, Bill Burke wrote:<br>
>> If a user has loads of social networks and links a bunch of them, if<br>
>> *any one* of them is compromised the entire account is compromised.<br>
>> Most sites using social login, the only reason is there is a login is<br>
>> for the appliation to collect marketing data. So, the default behavior<br>
>> should make things as simple as possible for the user.<br>
>><br>
>> At a minimum, by default, the user should not be required to link an<br>
>> account if there is a conflicting duplicate email given by the provider.<br></span>
>> I have <a href="http://founddeveloeprs.redhat.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">founddeveloeprs.redhat.com</a> <<a href="http://develoeprs.redhat.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://develoeprs.redhat.com</a>> very difficult<span class=""><br>
to use.<br>
><br>
> yep, it is difficult to use because it have to follow company's policy<br>
> with unique emails and Keycloak do not provide necessary support for<br>
> simple and user friendly account linking currently ;-)<br>
><br>
<br>
Yeah, its not your fault. Its ours.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Bill Burke<br>
JBoss, a division of Red Hat<br>
<a href="http://bill.burkecentral.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bill.burkecentral.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
keycloak-dev mailing list<br></span>
<a href="mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br>
-- <br>
Bill Burke<br>
JBoss, a division of Red Hat<br>
<a href="http://bill.burkecentral.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bill.burkecentral.com</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>