11:08 a.m.
I would vote for 2). We also have some funny requirements around usernames of an LDAP we
import from to be short and numeric
because of some SAP system that only likes usernames that way. Instead of using this name
as the Keycloak username we used a
special attribute and a mapper like you said and this works like a charm for us.
Best regards,
Sebastian
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
Dr.-Ing. Sebastian Schuster
Open Source Services (INST-CSS/BSV-OS2)
Bosch Software Innovations GmbH | Ullsteinstr. 128 | 12109 Berlin | GERMANY |
www.bosch-si.com
Tel. +49 30 726112-485 | Mobil +49 152 02177668 | Fax +49 30 726112-100 |
Sebastian.Schuster(a)bosch-si.com
Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Ferber,
Michael Hahn, Dr. Aleksandar Mitrovic
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: keycloak-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org <keycloak-dev-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org> Im
Auftrag von Marek Posolda
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. September 2019 17:16
An: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Betreff: [keycloak-dev] Support case sensitive usernames
At this moment, Keycloak internally saves all usernames in the DB in lowercase. This means
that if Keycloak DB contains user "john" and user fills the login form with
uppercase like "John", Keycloak is still able to find the user because it
lowercase the username from the login form to "john" and then query DB for
lookup of username "john" . At the same time, DB queries have good performance
as they are not needed to be case sensitive.
Also when we import users from the 3rd party user storage like ldap, we first convert them
to lowercase. Unfortunately this causes issues for some users, as they have LDAP users in
uppercase like "JOHN" and usernames in keycloak tokens are returned in lowercase
like "john", which causes issues in some applications.
I see 2 possibilities to address this issue:
1) Have a switch at the realm level to support case-sensitive usernames
2) Address this issue at LDAP level and add special attribute to users imported from LDAP
More details:
The solution (1) has some more flexibility and is not LDAP specific, however it may either
have non-trivial performance penalty due the case-sensitive DB searches or it may mean
possibility of duplicated usernames different just by cases like "john",
"John" and "JOHN".
I can imagine that switch at realm level will have 3 options similar to
this:
* (a) Don't support case insensitive usernames (default value and
current behaviour). So usernames are lowercased before saving to
Keycloak DB and before DB searches.
* (b) Support case sensitive usernames with case-sensitive duplicated
users. If this option is chosen, it will be possible to have for
example 3 separate Keycloak users like "mposolda", "Mposolda" and
"MPOSOLDA". This will mean that users will need to fill exactly
their case-sensitive username on the login form
* (c) Support case sensitive usernames without case-sensitive
duplicated users. If this option is chosen, you will have
case-sensitive user saved in the DB, however it won't be allowed to
have duplicated usernames different just by cases. So you won't be
able to have "mposolda", "Mposolda" and "MPOSOLDA". The
third option
has price-to-pay as DB searches will need to be case-sensitive and
hence may have quite bad performance as mentioned for example in
this blog:
https://alvinalexander.com/sql/sql-select-case-insensitive-query-queries-...
. I am not even convinced whether to ever support this option, I
rather vote for no. Performance may be better once we move away from
RDBMS to Keycloak.next storage, but not sure.
2) Address this issue at LDAP level and add special attribute to users imported from LDAP.
That will allow that LDAP user "MPOSOLDA" can be mapped to Keycloak user
"mposolda". At the Keycloak level, the user "mposolda" will have the
attribute like LDAP_USERNAME with the value "MPOSOLDA" . In this case, people
may need to create protocol mapper, which will map the LDAP_USERNAME attribute to their
token. Protocol mapper can be added to client scope, which can be added to all required
clients. Not sure if this is workaround or not
So far, I vote for (1) and maybe just add the (a) and (b) options. WDYT?
Marek
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev