[keycloak-user] Token Exchange AWS Cognito & Keycloak

Fri Apr 12 09:20:10 EDT 2019

Thanks. Now it is more clear.

Answers inline below.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 7:29 AM Matteo Restelli <mrestelli at cuebiq.com>
wrote:

> Hi Pedro,
> i'll try to reply to your questions:
>
> - We've configured Cognito as an identity provider in Keycloak, importing
> the configuration via the OIDC discovery-configuration endpoint. At this
> point we needed to introduce the clientID & secret, so we've created a new
> confidential client inside AWS Cognito and used its id &secret in the
> Keycloak's Identity provider config
>
> - We've set the permission & policy about token exchange feature to our
> Keycloak client
>
> - The SRP flow leverages the SRP authentication protocol (so basically, no
> password is sent to the server). The result of this flow is a couple of JWT
> tokens (access and id token), but the access token doesn't respect the OIDC
> rules (it doesn't contain the openid scope). This last point is what make
> the token exchange process impossible (this because, during the process,
> Cognito replies that "the token doesn't contain the openid scope"). About
> that i want to highlight the fact that these problems are entirely Cognito
> related: if we use a standard OAuth2 Flow (like Authorization code grant or
> implicit) the process works as expected.
>

I see now. In this case, I think you should try to include somehow the
openid scope in the access token so that Cognito can process it. I guess
this error is returned when the broker is invoking the user endpoint  on
Cognito? based on the OIDC user info endpoint definition, the endpoint
should accept access tokens.

> - Since the SRP flow enables us to use a self-hosted login page which
> doesn't send the password directly to the server, we've tried to find other
> solution. So we've tried to provide to the token exchange endpoint the id
> token, changing some parameters of the HTTP call. And at this point
> something unexpected for us happened: the token exchange process works also
> providing the id token. Here's the reason of my first flow of questions: is
> this behaviour expected? Is the "exchange with id token" approach a
> feasible and good one? Or is completely a bad approach?
>
> - Since using this flow (SRP) force us to provide the id token to our
> backend side, here comes the other flow of questions :). From an OIDC point
> of view, can be a right approach accessing a backend resource from a single
> page application, using an id token? I've always read that if you want to
> access to a backend resource, from a client application, is better to use
> the access token, because the id token contains a lot of user informations
> and must be used only by the client application.
>
>
It is fine to use id_token (or any other format supported by the server
that can be specified via subject_token_type) when doing the exchange.

However, here is the interesting part. If you look our documentation we
should only support "access_token" and "jwt" as a subject_token_type. But
the implementation can also handle "id_token". The reason why "id_token"
works is that the validation of the token is done locally by Keycloak,
differently than when you are using an access_token where a request will be
sent to the user info endpoint on Cognito.

Regarding your last question, no it is not a good practice to use id_token
for bearer token authorization. In addition to privacy concerns (which is
not really different than when using JWTs in access tokens), ID Token is
about carrying the authentication context with specific constraints. For
instance, the audience is the client, not the backend. The lifetime of ID
Token is shorter as they are mainly important to authenticate the user into
a client, etc.

So, you are right. You should try to use access tokens.

> - Here's the curl of the token exchange process with the access token (i'm
> omitting some infos):
>
> curl -X POST \
> -d "client_id=test" \
> -d "client_secret=<client_secret>" \
> --data-urlencode
> "grant_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange" \
> -d "subject_issuer=<alias_of_the_identity_provider_in_keycloak>" \
> -d "subject_token=<access_token>" \
> --data-urlencode
> "subject_token_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:access_token" \
> -d "audience=test" \
> http://localhost:8080/auth/realms/
> <realm_name>/protocol/openid-connect/token
>
>
> - Here's the curl of the token exchange process with the id token (i'm
> omitting some infos):
>
> curl -X POST \
> -d "client_id=test" \
> -d "client_secret=<client_secret>" \
> --data-urlencode
> "grant_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:token-exchange" \
> -d "subject_issuer=<alias_of_the_identity_provider_in_keycloak>" \
> -d "subject_token=<id_token>" \
> --data-urlencode
> "subject_token_type=urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:id_token" \
> -d "audience=test" \
> http://localhost:8080/auth/realms/
> <realm_name>/protocol/openid-connect/token
>
> Let me know if you need more infos.
>
> Thank you again,
> Matteo Restelli
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:40 PM Pedro Igor Silva <psilva at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So you are doing external to internal exchange. It is not clear to me how
>> you configured AWS Cognito as an identity provider and what/how the SRP
>> flow works. Could you provide more details, please? Is the token issued by
>> Cognito a JWT ?
>>
>> In addition to that, how your token exchange request looks like when
>> using both id_token and access_token as a subject_token ?
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:56 AM Matteo Restelli <mrestelli at cuebiq.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Any news on that?
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>> Matteo
>>>
>>> =============================
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> We're using AWS Cognito as our Identity provider for our platform. We're
>>> trying to use an internal instance of Keycloak, in order to check the
>>> possibility to use KC for authorization purposes (this because Keycloak
>>> has
>>> a wonderful and powerful authorization system that fulfill our needs, and
>>> for that i want to say you "Thank you very much" :) ). For this reason we
>>> want to use the token exchange feature of Keycloak.
>>> More specifically we want to follow this flow:
>>>
>>> - User authenticates on AWS Cognito via SRP auth flow (which basically is
>>> not a standard OIDC/OAuth2 authentication flow)
>>> - User sends the access token to contact the backend service and, in the
>>> middle, this token is translated to an internal one, minted by Keycloak
>>>
>>> If we provide the AWS Cognito access token to the token exchange
>>> endpoint,
>>> with the subject_token_type parameter set to
>>> "urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:access_token", an error is returned
>>> stating that the access token doesn't contain the "openid" scope. Despite
>>> this we've tried another way, providing the id token to the token
>>> exchange
>>> endpoint with the subject_token_parameter set to
>>> "urn:ietf:params:oauth:token-type:id_token", and we discovered that this
>>> alternative way works. So, my questions are:
>>>
>>> - Is the "exchange with id token" approach a feasible and good one? Or is
>>> completely a bad approach?
>>> - From an OIDC point of view, can be a right approach accessing a backend
>>> resource from a single page application, using an id token? I've always
>>> read that if you want to access to a backend resource, from a client
>>> application, is better to use the access token, because the id token
>>> contains a lot of user informations and must be used only by the client
>>> application
>>>
>>> Thank you very much,
>>> Matteo
>>>
>>>
>>> PS:  As a side note, i want to clarify that if we follow an authorization
>>> code grant flow, or an implicit flow, during the authentication against
>>> AWS
>>> Cognito, the access token exchange works as expected. So this means that
>>> the problem is related to the shape of the token released by Cognito.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Like <https://www.facebook.com/cuebiq/> I Follow
>>> <https://twitter.com/Cuebiq>I Connect
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cuebiq>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email is reserved
>>> exclusively for sending and receiving messages inherent working
>>> activities,
>>> and is not intended nor authorized for personal use. Therefore, any
>>> outgoing messages or incoming response messages will be treated as
>>> company
>>> messages and will be subject to the corporate IT policy and may possibly
>>> to
>>> be read by persons other than by the subscriber of the box. Confidential
>>> information may be contained in this message. If you are not the address
>>> indicated in this message, please do not copy or deliver this message to
>>> anyone. In such case, you should notify the sender immediately and delete
>>> the original message.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Like <https://www.facebook.com/cuebiq/> I Follow
>>> <https://twitter.com/Cuebiq>I Connect
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cuebiq>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email is reserved
>>> exclusively for sending and receiving messages inherent working
>>> activities,
>>> and is not intended nor authorized for personal use. Therefore, any
>>> outgoing messages or incoming response messages will be treated as
>>> company
>>> messages and will be subject to the corporate IT policy and may possibly
>>> to
>>> be read by persons other than by the subscriber of the box. Confidential
>>> information may be contained in this message. If you are not the address
>>> indicated in this message, please do not copy or deliver this message to
>>> anyone. In such case, you should notify the sender immediately and
>>> delete
>>> the original message.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> keycloak-user mailing list
>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>
>>
> Like <https://www.facebook.com/cuebiq/> I Follow
> <https://twitter.com/Cuebiq>I Connect
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cuebiq>
>
> This email is reserved exclusively for sending and receiving messages
> inherent working activities, and is not intended nor authorized for
> personal use. Therefore, any outgoing messages or incoming response
> messages will be treated as company messages and will be subject to the
> corporate IT policy and may possibly to be read by persons other than by
> the subscriber of the box. Confidential information may be contained in
> this message. If you are not the address indicated in this message, please
> do not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should
> notify the sender immediately and delete the original message.
>