[keycloak-dev] Implementation of artifact binding (JIRA KEYCLOAK-831)

Implementation of artifact binding (JIRA KEYCLOAK-831) Hello, Last week I did a PoC implementation of the SAML artifact binding in a branch off keycloak 4.3.0.Final. The implementation can be seen here at https://github.com/AlistairDoswald/keycloak/tree/projectathon (don't judge me too harshly for the quality of the code if you look at it, I had about 2 days to have a working implementation, which included finding out how that part of the protocol worked). However, I now want to write a "correct" implementation against keycloak/master and if possible I'd like some feedback/advice on my intended implementation. 1. General implementation Initially, I intend only to do the implementation for the response messages. If I'm not mistaken, this means only for the Response and LogoutResponse messages. Would this be considered a suitable implementation of the JIRA? 2. User interface When a SP requests an artifact, it can do so by specifying HTTP-Artifact instead of HTTP-POST or HTTP-redirect, and the process is then transparent with regard to the configuration of the client. However, I believe that the client should have a "Force artifact binding" binary slider and also a field to specify an artifact binding address. In this manner, the artifact binding can be used in conjunction with the IdP initiated login method. Importing must also set the artifact binding address if it is present in the SP metadata. 3. IdP metadata IdP metadata must contain at least one ArtifactResolutionService, I intend to have only one, with its index set to 0 and isDefault=true, and the binding set to the same address as the HTTP-POST (as for ECP) 4. Sending an artifact instead of the normal saml message This is the section for which I have the greatest uncertainty with respect to a correct implementation. Broadly this means intercepting the output response, and sending a 302 redirect or a POSTed form with the artifact instead. Considering the length of the artifact, I see no reason to use a form, but should this be an option in the GUI? More practically, this means generating the response, saving it in the cache, and sending the redirect (or form) instead. I believe that the client's cache would be the best place to save this information (through the AuthenticatedClientSessionModel to be precise), but I'm not certain because it's the first time I'm seeking to store some new information in the cache. The key would be the artifact, and the value in my view should be the document, as that way we can create a complete signed/encrypted ArtifactResponse containing the Response or LogoutResponse. For the implementation details I'm not sure if it would be best to make the changes directly in the SamlProtocol class, or to do something similar to the SamlECPProfileService which overrides the methods of the SamlProtocol. For SamlECPProfileService the current implementation makes sense, but for artifact binding I fear there would be significant code duplication (of course, I could also do a mix with some small modifications in the SamlProtocol class and a SamlArtifactProfileService, or something similar). For triggering this artifact workflow, it would either be if the AuthnRequest has a ProtocolBinding set to urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-Artifact, or if the client has "force artifact binding" set to true. 5. Receiving an ArtifactResolve message For this part, my current implementation seems correct to me: the soapBinding method in class SamlService is modified to check the contents of the soap message arriving: if it is an ArtifactResolve, the corresponding ArtifactResponse generated earlier is packaged in a soap message and sent as a response. If not, the ECP profile is tried. The key-ArtifactResponse pair is removed from the cache during this operation. I am, however, not sure yet how the cache should handle purging of expired ArtifactResponse messages that are never asked for. 6. Errors, logging and audit Obviously, the error handling should work as described in the protocol, but also be logged as such. I don't think there's any messages to log in INFO, but the DEBUG logs should show the messages and allow an admin to easily put the entire sequence together. Also, I don't think there's any need for any extra information in the audit logs. 7. Tests Obviously, I'll have to add some tests for these functions, which should be: - Standard unit tests for individual functions that can be separated from objects that would otherwise have to be mocked - Tests with arquillian to test the flow with artifact binding (sp initiated and idp initiated), the options available in the GUI (extra field, forced) as well as the error cases (i.e. asking twice for the same artifact, for an artifact that doesn't exist, etc...). If you have any comments (anything missing, things that should be implemented differently in your view, etc...) feel free to let me know. Best regards, Alistair Doswald