Re: [keycloak-dev] Claims Mapping and Identity Federation

From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:36:31 PM Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Claims Mapping and Identity Federation I'm still working things out. Right now I have a realm set of ProtocolMappers. The data model is protocol (saml or oidc) protocolMapper (this references a provider) These 3 are for simple one to one attribute mappings. protocolClaim sourceAttributeType sourceAttribute For OIDC there will be just one protocolMapper for simple one to one claim/attribute mappings. For SAML there will be a "Friendly AttributeStatement" and "URI AttributeStatement" for attribute mappings.

For more complex OIDC stuff, there will be you'll be able to write a provider that implements an AccessTokenTransformer interface so that you can modify the access token however you want. For more complex SAML stuff you'll haven multiple transformation points. You'll be able to get access to the SamlBuilder for each saml document type. You also be able to get access to the document model after the Builder has created it. The idea is that we want to have full extension points for use cases we haven't seen. As for Identity Brokering, we'll have something very similar. For OIDC/SAML brokering, we'll have ProtocolMappers that implement a SamlImporter or TokenImporter interface and we'll have simple claim/assertion to UserModel.attribute mappings, and a more extension transformation interface. On 2/20/2015 10:18 AM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: > When brokering an identity provider, we also need to map claims in order to > properly federate the users identities in Keycloak. > > When doing identity federation, we may have different claims from different > providers. We may also need to update those claims when re-authenticating > with a specific provider. > > Another possible situation is that we may have the same claim (eg.: same > name) across different providers. So we need some way to identify this > conflict and fix. Or just update the claim specific for a provider. > > How that is being considered by the claim mapping that is being developed ? > > Regards. > Pedro Igor > > _______________________________________________ > keycloak-dev mailing list > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com _______________________________________________ keycloak-dev mailing list keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev