[keycloak-dev] Fw: Custom Policy Enforcer

AuthorizationContext authzContext = keycloakSecurityContext.getAuthorizationContext(); AdapterAuthorizationContext clientContext = AdapterAuthorizationContext.class.cast(, ); clientContext.authorize(Map); I think this is the way , i will invoke it programatically. yeah i can write a simple quick-start , i will do it by tomorrow or day after tomorrow and then we can discuss further ------------------------------ *From:* Pedro Igor Silva <psilva@redhat.com<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> *Sent:* 12 November 2019 02:42 *To:* Sushil Singh <sushil.singh@guavus.com<mailto:sushil.singh@guavus.com>> *Cc:* keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>> *Subject:* Re: Custom Policy Enforcer You should be able to obtain the context instance like that [1]. And then, invoke the method to programmatically enforce access. If I understand correctly, the permission map you pass is basically the set of resource/scopes that you want to return in a permission ticket and later on check if the resulting RPT is granted with the same set. We should ideally reuse as much as possible the main logic in the enforcer. And the enforcement mode should be permissive or disabled to allow the request to reach your endpoint so you can enforce access by yourself. In any case, the PE should allow the request to pass with an empty authorization context so that you can invoke the appropriate method to enforce access. [1] https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/authorization_services/index.html#_e... On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:56 PM Sushil Singh <sushil.singh@guavus.com<mailto:sushil.singh@guavus.com>> wrote: Just by looking , changes look good . I have a question , how will I invoke it programatically , I mean on what object i have to call , giving permission (Map) as as an input parameter. If I specify enforcement mode as Enforcing or Permissive , permission will always be null Also it will be good if we can incorporate audit logging , if not now then we can consider it in future ------------------------------ *From:* Pedro Igor Silva <psilva@redhat.com<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> *Sent:* 12 November 2019 01:58 *To:* Sushil Singh <sushil.singh@guavus.com<mailto:sushil.singh@guavus.com>> *Cc:* keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>> *Subject:* Re: Custom Policy Enforcer I see. I'm just trying to figure out if we can't somehow address the problem by enhancing the configuration. For instance, in regards to the `/api/datasets/{databasename}` I think we have a similar approach in the Photoz quickstart, where the path parameter representing the ID of the resource is used to automatically create the ticket and enforce access later on when an RPT arrives. But yeah, the other scenarios are not covered. I'm OK to improve this based on your changes and following an approach similar to what I shared from my branch. Does it make sense for you ? I may have removed some bits from your original changes but the idea is just to show how we could leverage the `AuthorizationContext`, which is already available to the application through `KeycloakSecurityContext`. On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:25 PM Sushil Singh <sushil.singh@guavus.com<mailto:sushil.singh@guavus.com>> wrote: @Pedro Igor Silva <psilva@redhat.com<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> I want to clarify little bit about the example you are stating , { "path" : "/someUri/*", "methods" : [ { "method": "GET", "scopes" : ["view"] }, { "method": "DELETE", "scopes" : ["delete"] } ] }, See , if our resources are static and not dynamic , I can put them in a keycloak.json file no worries. But when it comes to resources which are not end-point specific or not directly related to endpoint , but the actual data itself. I think it is better to keep them on server side rather than a config file . It can be 1000 at present , it can be lakhs and crores if i consider the future scope for eg-: /api/datasets/{datasetname} , each dataset will be resource and we will be configuring resources as /datasets/dataset1 /datasets/dataset2 So, each dataset will be a resource and will be created in keycloak server when the actual Data is created. So , every time i create a resource , i won't require to configure keycloak.json. The current implementation of configuring paths that keycloak provides is good when resources are static. for eg-: if end points are resources , so they are most likely static . But for our case it won't work Another example can be , if there is a non rest resource and scope / action is coming as a query parameter. Current keycloak implementation will not work as we can configure only on URL's . So the customEnforcer will provide the flexibility to cover all these cases. There are other cases , where there is a pipeline which is dependent on another resources. So let's consider Non Rest resource such as PIPELINE , A pipeline itself will contain a set of resources , So Pipeline can have a scope START, STOP , DELETE , RESTART etc. So resources and actions can come as a query parameter . So , the custom-enforcer functionality can provide us enforcing policies with use cases like that Hope the use case is getting more clearer to you Thanks Sushil Pratap Singh ------------------------------ *From:* Pedro Igor Silva <psilva@redhat.com<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> *Sent:* 11 November 2019 23:33 *To:* Sushil Singh <sushil.singh@guavus.com<mailto:sushil.singh@guavus.com>>; keycloak-dev < keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>> *Subject:* Re: Custom Policy Enforcer Here is a scratch [1]. But I'm not fully convinced about the changes you are proposing. Maybe what is missing is an example of how this will be used in practice. Isn't that the same thing as configuring a path like this? ``` { "path" : "/someUri/*", "methods" : [ { "method": "GET", "scopes" : ["view"] }, { "method": "DELETE", "scopes" : ["delete"] } ] }, ``` [1] https://github.com/pedroigor/keycloak/tree/KEYCLOAK-11300 On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:44 PM Pedro Igor Silva <psilva@redhat.com<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> wrote: OK. I'm going to write something and give to you ... On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:41 PM Sushil Singh <sushil.singh@guavus.com<mailto:sushil.singh@guavus.com>> wrote: @Pedro Igor Silva <psilva@redhat.com<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> Can you suggest pseudo flow what you are trying to say It will be good for me to understand how it can be achieved using AuthorizationContext . Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36> ------------------------------ *From:* Pedro Igor Silva <psilva@redhat.com<mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> *Sent:* Monday, November 11, 2019 10:05:06 PM *To:* keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>>; Sushil Singh < sushil.singh@guavus.com<mailto:sushil.singh@guavus.com>> *Subject:* Custom Policy Enforcer Hi, We have started some discussions about a custom policy enforcer at https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/pull/6448. For those interested in how to programmatically enforce permissions, please look at that PR and discussions that should start to happen here. @Sushil Singh <sushil.singh@guavus.com<mailto:sushil.singh@guavus.com>>, If the idea is to expose the PE functionality so that you can programmatically get the same behavior to when requests are processed, I think we can still make it through the `AuthorizationContex` interface. In fact, the code won't change much from what you did so we basically encapsulate the call to the actual policy enforcer. Regards. Pedro Igor