On 22. 11. 19 12:40, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 12:37, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com
<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 22. 11. 19 12:13, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:37 AM Stian Thorgersen
> <sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Auto-generated labels like "Phone 1", etc. just looks stupid.
> I would
> rather make the label optional for the first one, but
> mandatory for the
> second one.
>
>
> I like this approach. Should we use some base / template name for
> the first one,
> something like "Default one-time token", rather than just allow
> blank name?
Yes, so if "device name" will be optional (or even not present)
for the first OTP, and we don't want to auto-generate anything,
then we can always end in situations when some of the OTP doesn't
have label. Then during authentication, display nothing or display
UUID seems to be even more stupid than display something
auto-generated like "Phone 1" IMO :) So question is what to
display? Not sure that "Default" works, as the OTP without label
doesn't necessarily be the default one... Right now, I can't come
with anything better than "Phone 1" TBH... ;)
I'm assuming you are now talking about the login otp form. In that I
think it should just say "Unnamed" in grey.
Ok, that works. Thanks
Marek
>
> A second one can only be added through the account console
> anyways and the users can then add a label to the first one
> if they didn't
> already do it.
>
>
> Then can add or should be required to add?
Yes, it will be nice if we can "force" user to add label to first
OTP after he registers second OTP. But I doubt it will be possible
to do it in nice and friendly way...
I don't see a need for that - the user is in the account console and
can see the unnamed OTP and can easily rename it from there.
>
> For OTP I would consider not asking for a label for the
> first one. For WebAuthn I would always ask for one. By the
> way doesn't the
> WebAuthn registration include details about the device? Can't
> the device
> name from that be used as the label?
>
>
> It's possible. If (re)-using this information, should we ask the
> user for approval to be
> able to use it? (not to possibly leak something, they wouldn't
> want to be used) Or just use it?
I think it's not reliably possible to retrieve details about
device from the WebAuthn registration. At least in a way that
device info is possible to use as a label. CCing Takashi
Norimatsu, who can possibly confirm. I agree that label should be
mandatory during WebAuthn registration and it is how it works
today. Also Google works this way and requires some label to be
added AFAIK.
Marek
>
> and you are right. UA parser doesn't help as most will
> probably register
> from their desktop, not the phone, so would be the wrong
> device name.
>
> Device name or Phone name, either works to be honest. I'd say
> Phone is
> better as 99% will use an app on a phone, not on the desktop,
> but okay with
> Device name as well.
>
> In the new account console it shouldn't display "Device
> name", but rather
> just have it as a label next to the credential-name, and it
> should use
> something like cards, not tables. So would be something like:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Authenticator app [Samsung] [default]
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Authenticator app [My tablet]
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Security key [YubiCo]
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Similar here, if we are able somehow to extract the information
> in the square brackets
> from the underlying device automagically, should we ask the user
> for the approval to use it?
> (since it would be displayed on the following auth screens later)
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 10:56, Marek Posolda
> <mposolda(a)redhat.com <mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> > On 22. 11. 19 10:36, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >
> > For "Device name" field. What about "Phone name"
and
> prefilling it with
> > the name of the phone? We have the UA parser thing right so
> can just use
> > the value from that?
> >
> > Hmm, but UA parser is used for parsing requests sent to
> Keycloak server
> > AFAIK? And in case of OTP, the phone doesn't send any
> requests and doesn't
> > directly communicate with Keycloak server. So not sure how
> UA parser could
> > help?
> >
> > Marek
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 10:34, Stian Thorgersen
> <sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 "To try another way", but that should only be
displayed
> if the user is
> >> requested to setup two-factor and there are more choices.
> If a user has
> >> selected to enable OTP through the account console (AIA)
> it should not be
> >> displayed.
> >>
> >> On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 15:24, Marek Posolda
> <mposolda(a)redhat.com <mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 21. 11. 19 12:02, Marek Posolda wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > I want to ask some feedback about the screen for the
> "Setup TOTP" .
> >>> > I've created JIRA
>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-12168 ,
> >>> > which contains some screenshot of how currently the
> screen for the
> >>> > required action for "Setup OTP" looks like. In
other
> words, this is
> >>> > displayed to the user at the end of the authentication
> when he has
> >>> > "Setup TOTP" required action on him.
> >>> >
> >>> > Few questions:
> >>> >
> >>> > * Is the "Device name" appropriate label?
Would
> something like
> >>> > "Authenticator App Label" be better?
> >>> >
> >>> > * Should it be more emphasized that "Authenticator
> App Label" is not
> >>> > mandatory? IMO it is currently not very clear. Also
> there is
> >>> > nothing in the help-text about this input field.
> Maybe we can add
> >>> > another sentence to point 3 like "Optionally
> provide Authenticator
> >>> > App Label as a reference." I am not very happy
with
> that sentence.
> >>> > Any better ideas?
> >>> >
> >>> > * Alternatively we can use separate screen for
> providing the
> >>> > "Authenticator App Label" . In other words,
there
> will be just
> >>> > single input for OTP code and than once user clicks
> "Submit" and
> >>> > OTP code is successfully verified, there will be
> another screen
> >>> > where he can provide "Authenticator App
Label" . It
> seems Google
> >>> > is using separate screen for providing labels when
> user register
> >>> > Security Key.
> >>> >
> >>> > * Any better ideas?
> >>> >
> >>> > * We can possibly improve the old account console in
> similar manner.
> >>> > Currently it looks like in screenshot
> setup-otp-account-mgmt.png .
> >>> > Maybe we can at least change the label for
"Device
> name" and also
> >>> > add another sentence to the help text?
> >>> >
> >>> One more point: At the bottom of the page for register
> TOTP, we possibly
> >>> need the link "Try another way" or something like
that.
> This link will
> >>> be displayed just if user is currently trying to
> "Register 2nd factor
> >>> credential" because he is required to do so, and he has
> some more
> >>> alternative credential types to register (EG. WebAuthn).
> >>>
> >>> Marek
> >>>
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> >
> >>> > Marek
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> >>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>