12:19 p.m.
Thanks for the quick response Stian! Still getting my feet wet with OIDC,
so please bear with me as I try to reconcile what I'm reading @ the spec
with the Keycloak implementation. A few questions on your response:
You say that it's 'usual' for these access tokens to have a long lifespan
with implicit flow. How does that interact with the general guideline in
section 16.18 of the spec when it says:
Access Tokens might not be revocable by the Authorization Server. Access
Token lifetimes SHOULD therefore be kept to single use or very short
lifetimes.
I would agree that a long-lived refresh token is indeed much preferred to
doing something like extending the lifetime of an access token. However,
is 'the OAuth redirect dance' the only alternative? I know that Keycloak's
identity/session cookies will have been issued at this point - would it be
possible to use something like an iFrame to refresh a short-lived access
token?
Josh Cain | Software Applications Engineer
*Identity and Access Management*
*Red Hat*
+1 843-737-1735
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
With Implicit flow it's usual to have a long expiration on access
tokens
as there is no refresh token. Once the access token is expired you're left
with having to do the whole OAuth redirect dance again to obtain a new
token. What's even worse is that if you have long lived access tokens
there's potentially a longer time between the verification of
the access token directly with Keycloak, which means that an access token
could potentially be used long after the session has been removed.
With that in mind having short lived access tokens with a refresh token is
better in our opinion even for public clients.
On 12 July 2016 at 19:22, Josh Cain <josh.cain(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We're looking to start rolling the Keycloak OIDC flow out to some
> client-side Javascript applications, and I came across a question in coming
> up to speed on OIDC. You state in your docs
>
<https://keycloak.gitbooks.io/securing-client-applications-guide/content/v...
> that the Javascript adapter is intended for client-side use:
>
> Keycloak comes with a client-side JavaScript library that can be used to
>> secure HTML5/JavaScript applications.
>>
>
> The docs also state that the default flow for this adapter is the
> Authorization Code flow:
>
> By default, the JavaScript adapter uses the Authorization Code
>> <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#CodeFlowAuth>
>> flow.
>>
>
> However, the OIDC spec
> <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html> says (section
> 3.1):
>
> ...The Authorization Code flow is suitable for Clients that can securely
>> maintain a Client Secret between themselves and the Authorization Server.
>>
>
> And again echoes the sentiment using the non-requisite MAY language in
> section 15.4:
>
> In general, it is up to Relying Parties which features they use when
>> interacting with OpenID Providers. However, some choices are dictated by
>> the nature of their OAuth Client, such as whether it is a Confidential
>> Client, capable of keeping secrets, in which case the Authorization Code
>> Flow may be appropriate, or whether it is a Public Client, for instance, a
>> User Agent Based Application or a statically registered Native Application,
>> in which case the Implicit Flow may be appropriate.
>>
>
> I'm aware that public clients who do not present a client secret are
> allowed under the OAuth spec <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749>;, and
> that these are often the type of javascript client that Keycloak sets up
> with the authorization code flow. What's more, I understand that the
> client secret is most commonly the reason cited for the client/server
> distinction with respect to flows.
>
> However, I was curious as to why the authorization code flow remains the
> default setting for Javascript applications. Isn't the refresh token also
> considered a form of a 'secret' since it's a long-lived mechanism
whereby
> additional access/identity tokens can be retrieved? Why would the default
> setting *not* be implicit here? Could you help me understand why the
> authorization code flow was chosen as the default?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Josh Cain | Software Applications Engineer
> *Identity and Access Management*
> *Red Hat*
> +1 843-737-1735
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>