Scope parameter support
by Marek Posolda
It seems that for OIDC certification, we will need more proper support
for "scope" parameter. There are few tests from OIDC conformance
testsuite, which end with WARNING because of issues with "scope" parameter.
SUMMARY OF SPECS REQUIREMENTS
-----------------------------
- In OIDC specification, the "scope" parameter is actually REQUIRED. And
you must add the scope value "openid" to all authorization requests.
Hence if you don't use "scope=openid", the request is pure OAuth2
request, but it's not OIDC request.
In https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-3147 we discuss the
possibility that we should change our adapters and add "scope=openid" to
all requests, and also the possibility to remove IDToken if it's not
OIDC request (and maybe other things). However it may be potential issue
with backward compatibility with older adapters (which don't add
"scope=openid" at all).
- OIDC also prescribes the "scope=offline_access", which you use if you
want offline token. We actually support this as we have realm role
"offline_access", with scopeParamRequired=true . So this role is applied
just if it's included in scope parameter. This is our only support of
scope param actually. ATM we reference the realm roles by name (role
name must match the value of scope parameter) and clientRoles by
"clientId/roleName" . So it's not very flexible and won't work well in
the future with role namespaces.
- OIDC defines four other scope values, which we don't support, with the
meaning like this:
profile
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the End-User's
default profile Claims, which are: "name", "family_name", "given_name",
"middle_name", "nickname", "preferred_username", "profile", "picture",
"website", "gender", "birthdate", "zoneinfo", "locale", and "updated_at".
email
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the "email" and
"email_verified" Claims.
address
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the "address" Claim.
phone
OPTIONAL. This scope value requests access to the "phone_number"
and "phone_number_verified" Claims.
- Not directly related to scopes, however OIDC also has one parameter
"claims" described in section
http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ClaimsParameter .
This allows to define some additional claims, which should be included
in IDToken or UserInfo endpoint in addition to claims specified by
"scope" parameter.
HOW TO IMPLEMENT?
-----------------
My current thinking is, that we will have 2 kinds of protocolMappers and
roles.
1) "Always applied" - Those roles/protocolMappers are always applied to
token even if they are not specified by scope parameter.
2) "Applied on demand" - Those roles/protocolMappers are applied just if
they are specifically requested by scope parameter
For roles, we already have that with "scope param required" flag defined
per roleModel. However for protocolMappers we don't have it yet.
IMO We will also need some more flexible way to specify how the value of
scope parameter will be mapped to roles and protocolMappers. For example
if I use "scope=foo", it can mean that I want realm role "foo1", client
role "client1/foo2" and protocolMapper for "firstName" and "lastName" etc.
I can see 2 possibilities:
a) Configure allowed scope param separately per each role / protocolMapper
If some role has "Scope param required" checked, you will have
possibility to configure list of available values of scope parameter,
which this role will be applied to. This will be configured per-each
role separately.
Example: I have realm role "foo" . I check "scope param required" to
true. Then I will define "scope param values" : "bar" and "baz". It
means that if someone uses parameter "scope=bar" or
scope=baz", then role "foo" will be applied to token. Otherwise it won't
be applied.
Similarly it will be for protocolMappers. We will add switch "Scope
param required" to protocolMappers and we will use list of available
values of scope parameter, which is configured per each protocolMapper
separately.
b) Configure scope parameter in separate place
We will have another tab "Scope parameter config" (or maybe rather
another sub-tab under existing "Scope" tab). Here you will define the
allowed values of scope parameter. For each allowed value, you will
define protocolMappers and roles to apply. Hence for example for
"profile" scope parameter, you will define all protocolMappers for
corresponding claims ( name, family_name, ...) here.
We will still need "scope param required" switch for protocolMappers in
case (b).
My current thinking is to go with (a). So when you go to some role (or
protocolMapper) in admin console you will see if you need scope
parameter and what are available values of scope parameter to request it.
WDYT? Another ideas?
Marek
9 years, 3 months
Scope Param with Keycloak
by Tomas Cerny
Hi all,
I am trying to use the scope param with keycloak, which is part of the open
id
http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ScopeClaims
Here is an sample URL (from
https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-basic-1_0.html#AuthenticationRequest
)
Which is
https://server.example.com/authorize?
response_type=code
&client_id=s6BhdRkqt3
&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fclient.example.org%2Fcb
&scope=openid%20profile
&state=af0ifjsldkj
note the state param there
with keycloak this is my auth URL:
http://127.0.0.1:8080/auth/realms/example/protocol/openid-connect/auth?cl...
When I pass scope param, then it is ignored.
Does keycloak support scope param? Can I intercept it to make a custom
handler? (e.g. lookup DB data)
Sample Use Case: Keycloak has my custom UserFederation provides where I
issue user lookup to my SQL DB, and determine access, next basing on the
scope I like to post back to the app roles relevant to the scope param.
I know keycloak has static roles, but I need it contextual, such as - user
is master in scope = A, but reader in scope = B. Since the range of scopes
is dynamic and large, the use of client-ids is not sufficient.
I assume the scope can help me solving situation such as am I owned of an
object?
I did days of debugging keycloak code and cannot find much even thought
there is OAuth2Constants.Scope but may be that is something different?
and I seem some dead sample here: FishEye: changeset
d309fab8251d95f50f94c77e4d08e6e8c2977994
<https://source.jboss.org/changelog/Keycloak?cs=d309fab8251d95f50f94c77e4d...>
The alternative OpenAM supports scope param it - OpenAM Project - About
OpenAM <http://openam.forgerock.org/>
Thanks, Tom
Here a forum public users.
https://developer.jboss.org/message/934762#934762
10 years
Client Self-Registration and Administration Plugin
by Erik Berdonces Bonelo
Hello,
I’m working at the moment in a Master Thesis project in TU Berlin where we are using Keycloak for Authentication and Authorisation purposes.
We are planning on extending Keycloak in order to provide users a way to register clients/applications by themselves into the platform, while having an admin overseeing the system.
This would mean that as a user, if I have the proper rights I should be able to create and manage my own clients. With, this it comes the idea of ownership, as this would mean that a client ownership could be transferred to someone else.
Also, the admin should be able to accept, revoke and delete the clients and requests to create clients in my Keycloak.
At the moment the only option would be giving the permission to create clients to the user, but that would allow to change ANY of the possible clients.
Then, I have two questions:
1. Would it make sense to integrate this to the Keycloak core?
2. If it doesn’t make sense to merge it in the core, is there any plugin system to extend Keycloak’s core? I’ve seen a discussion related to a plugin system in GitHub but there is no outcome yet. We would rather like to integrate it with Keycloak itself, otherwise the other option would be creating a client that uses Keycloak’s REST API to manage the clients remotely.
Thanks a lot in advance!
—
Best Regards,
Erik Berdonces Bonelo
10 years
PAM conversations- Custom login form
by Bruno Oliveira
Good morning,
Today to authentication against PAM with just simple username/password I
implemented UserFederationProvider and added the proper PAM login to
validCredentials[1]. This covers the most basic scenario.
Now I would like to cover a more complex scenario like OTP and change
the flow a little bit like this:
1. User providers her username
2. The next screen asks to provide how many factor our user has(For
example: OTP, password). We just don't know, PAM will tell what's next.
3. We authenticate against it
To see in practice against FreeIPA server, I just recorded it
for a practical example[2].
What would be the best approach to implement this flow? I was considering to
move my authentication logic out of SSSD federation provider and create a PAM
authenticator.
Does it make sense?
[1] - http://www.keycloak.org/docs/javadocs/org/keycloak/models/UserFederationP...
[2] - https://asciinema.org/a/atwnfbu0kqfasjl65weyoiz7a
--
abstractj
PGP: 0x84DC9914
10 years, 1 month
Preferred storage mechanism for custom settings
by Mitya
Hi,
I'm developing a KeyCloak extension, and I want some custom (per-realm)
parameters to be tuned via the GUI form. Speaking of the storage
mechanism for my settings, are realm attributes suitable for that? or
should I create a dedicated custom entity instead?
Thx,
Mitya
10 years, 2 months
PAM Conversations - Custom login form
by Bruno Oliveira
Good morning,
Today to authentication against PAM with just simple username/password I
implemented UserFederationProvider and added the proper PAM login to
validCredentials[1]. This covers the most basic scenario.
Now I would like to cover a more complex scenario like OTP and change
the flow a little bit like this:
1. User providers her username
2. The next screen asks to provide how many factor our user has(For
example: OTP, password). We just don't know, PAM will tell what's next.
3. We authenticate against it
To see in practice against FreeIPA server, I just recorded it
for a practical example[2].
What would be the best approach to implement this flow? I was considering to
move my authentication logic out of SSSD federation provider and create a PAM
authenticator.
Does it make sense?
[1] - http://www.keycloak.org/docs/javadocs/org/keycloak/models/UserFederationP...
[2] - https://asciinema.org/a/atwnfbu0kqfasjl65weyoiz7a
--
abstractj
PGP: 0x84DC9914
10 years, 2 months
renaming transaction interfaces
by Bill Burke
I am also renaming KeycloakTransaction to
KeycloakTransactionSynchronization and KeycloakTransactionManager to
KeycloakTransaction.
10 years, 2 months
Brute force lock out and password reset error
by Joakim Löfgren
Hey,
I noticed that if you get your account temporarily locked due to the brute
force detection then you cannot reset your password until the temporary
locked has been lifted.
Is this behaviour intended ?
We've gotten a few users that become confused when they do not receive a
reset password email, and thus contact us asking for help.
Sincerely,
Joakim
10 years, 2 months
Fwd: Authenticated base on roles
by gambol
Hiya
Assuming you have a realm with x client defined and each have a APP-USER
role. Is there a way to authenticate a user only if the user have the role
associated? ...
Obviously I can check the check the access token, or place a proxy in-front
which does that for me, but is there a native way of saying ask for this
scope and if you don't have it you are denied
Best Regards ..
10 years, 2 months
