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/*).
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?
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...
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.
-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