12:17 p.m.
Hi Matthias, answer inline.
On 2014-06-17, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Bruno Oliveira
<bruno(a)abstractj.org> 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 device (un)registration endpoints are hit by this as well
(/rest/registry/device/*).
Currently Keycloak is protecting our endpoints under /rest/*
I am wondering if it isn't it possible to keep those URLs protected via
HTTP_BASIC, or does the keycloak.js usage deny this?
Is not the Keycloak.js usage responsible for this, but the correct
configuration of the application atm. Please compare:
- master branch:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/serve...
- keycloak.js branch:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/keycloak.js/...
Now we're fully using Keycloak bearer tokens instead of Basic.
On master (plain keycloak; before keycloak.js usage) we are doing an
exclude for those URLs:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/serve...
I tried to include your exclusions, but that didn't work for me.
IMO if possible, keeping these 'exceptions' (or excludes) under HTTP_BASIC
would be the simplest solution, as that means none of our client SDKs
(Android, iOS, Cordova, Node.js Sender, Java-Sendet etc) would require an
update.
I had a chat with Stian and looks like it's possible to support both
auth methods in a single app, but that would involve changes on Keycloak.
It's just the matter of discuss with KC team.
My two cents is the fact that we should use bearer tokens only, instead
of mix both auth methods in a single app — now that we have KC.
And discuss the changes into our clients rather sooner than later.
But I'm open for whatever you guys think it's the best.
-Matthias
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> 3. Implement another authentication provider specifically for the sender
> and Basic authentication[5]
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
abstractj