10:58 a.m.
I disagree Pedro. Needs to be based scopes and/or audience. In our
original example, Service B only knows he wants to talk to Service C.
Shouldn't have to know the set of scopes he needs to "downgrade" to talk
to C.
The original OAuth spec assumed that the browser would be involved.
Scopes are useful in that sense as the IDP can ask for consent. There's
no way to ask for consent from the user in a service to service
invocation. Hence, we have the token-exchange Draft in OAuth WG and this
is why that spec offers both scope and audience as parameters.
On 8/15/17 9:48 AM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
IMO, we should do it based on scopes. That is how OAuth2 is supposed
to work, specially when AS is 1:N to resource servers. Clients would
need to ask for a scope which can be mapped to a specific resource
server / client application.
There are other options that we can consider, but using scopes seems
more aligned with the specs.
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Stian Thorgersen
<sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
'aud' is broken:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-1201
<https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-1201>
Big question is how do you control what the list of "clients" in
the aud should be? Manually? Based on scope (what about full scope
and loads of clients, what about when there are no client roles)?
On 15 August 2017 at 14:41, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com
<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Bill Burke
<bburke(a)redhat.com <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> wrote:
CLI tool I wrote doesn't allow token exchange, yet, but
you're correct, I'm thinking of using it to perform token
exchange.
Our ID tokens are not signed right now. Also you still
need client to client exchange so that you can "downgrade"
a token to talk to an untrusted service. I've also added
new fine-grain permissions "exchange-from" and
"exchange-to".
For example, lets say Client A gets token and invokes on
service B which needs to invoke on untrusted service C.
When Client A gets token to invoke Service B, how the "aud"
claim in the token looks like for you ? Is it referencing
Service B ?
Asking because I noticed that our access tokens are being
issued using the authenticated client in "aud" claim where it
should contain (or in addition to other audiences) the target
service. A typical scenario for bearer token authentication.
Also, our BearerTokenRequestAuthenticator does not seem to
validate audience.
Considering the flow you described, Client A would need a
token with Service B as a valid audience in order to be able
to start the flow.