Re: [aerogear-dev] Keycloak integration and UPS Sender

Ahoy Jay, answers inline. On 2014-06-17, Jay Balunas wrote: > Great explanation of the issue and options! > > On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; wrote: > > > Good morning peeps, > > > > I have a problem to solve which might affect the Sender and > > all the related clients. > > > > Previously, the UPS Sender was protected by the basic authentication > > method[1], so anyone in possession of _PushApplicationID_ and > > _MasterSecret_ is able to send push messages. > > > > After the integration with Keycloak now everything under _/rest_ > > is properly protect by KC which is totally correct. Our sender is under > > the same umbrella which means that now Bearer token authentication is > > required[2] and Basic authentication won't exist anymore. > > > > The consequence of this is the basic form being presented when you try > > to send push notifications[3]. The problem didn't occur before, because > > we were just using Basic authentication[4] instead of Bearer tokens. > > > > Possible solutions: > > > > 1- After the removal of Basic authentication, move _PushApplicationID_ > > and _MasterSecret to http headers like: > > > > -H "PushApplicationID: XXXXXX" -H "MasterSecret: 42" > > > > IMO it sounds correct and reasonable for me. > > How will this impact CURL usage from the command line? > How will this impact Java sender usage? We would change from (being logged in would be required): curl -3 -u "{PushApplicationID}:{MasterSecret}" -v -H "Accept: application/json" -H "Content-type: application/json" -X POST To: curl -3 -v -H "PushApplicationID: XXXXXX" -H "MasterSecret: 42" \ -H "Accept: application/json" -H "Content-type: application/json" -X POST

> > > > > 2. Create a role specific for the sender like _push-applications_ and > > dinamically add _PushApplicationID_ and _MasterSecret on Keycloak where: > > > > username: _PushApplicationID_ > > password: _MasterSecret_ > > > > The implications of this alternative is the fact of have to manage those > > credentials on the server side inclusion/exclusion/login > > Would each application have its own "role" just for the sender in this case? Each application would have the same role "ups-application". > > > > > 3. Implement another authentication provider specifically for the sender > > and Basic authentication[5] > > Not sure of the impact here, but sounds like a complex solution. Yes, totally agree on that. > > > > > 4. Do nothing. The consequences of this alternative is to implement > > everything already done by Keycloak.js and manage session tokens by hand > > on the admin-ui. > > -1 Stian sent to me a message, he might have more ideas about how to overcome this issue. I will update you guys during this week. > > > > > To me the first alternative seems to be more simple, but I really want > > your feedback on it, once it affects the whole project. > > > > [1] - > > https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/6c1a0d3fedea... > > > > [2] - > > https://github.com/abstractj/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/tree/keycloak.js > > [3] - > > http://photon.abstractj.org/AeroGear_UnifiedPush_Server_2014-06-17_10-00-... > > > > [4] - > > https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/serve... > > > > [5] - https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/tree/master/examples/providers/authe... > > > > -- > > > > abstractj > > _______________________________________________ > > aerogear-dev mailing list > > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev -- abstractj _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev