Re: [keycloak-dev] Client Scope naming

I see. I think you guys have very good points. I've created JIRA https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-6883 to make sure that we return "scope" in the access token. With my PR, the "scope" is already returned in the TokenResponse as defined in the OAuth2 [1] . But Introspection endpoint doesn't return "scope" because access token doesn't yet have scope in my PR. I've just added scope information to the refresh token, but I didn't add scope claim directly. I've added "client-scopes" claim to the refresh token with the list of UUIDs referencing used client scopes. I did this just because: a) refreshToken is opaque to the application and just Keycloak needs to be able to read it and decode used client scopes from it. b) referencing by UUID is in theory bit safer instead of referencing by scope names. I was just thinking about corner case when admin deletes scope "foo" and then re-create scope "foo" again, it would be something different then what user granted, even if it's same name. Hence I used reference by UUID. But this is probably just corner case, which won't happen in practice. When thinking more about it, it seems that none of the points (a) and (b) justifies this unecessary complication with using "client-scopes" rather then just "scope". It will be just easier if both access token and refreshToken contains "scope" claim in the OAuth2 format. WDYT? [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749#section-5.1 Marek On 19/03/18 13:59, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Schuster Sebastian (INST/ESY1) < Sebastian.Schuster(a)bosch-si.com&gt; wrote: > If you support scopes you definitely need some claims in the token that > represent the granted scopes. Otherwise as a resource server you could only > do token introspection to retrieve the scopes and having to do this always > defeats the purpose of self-contained tokens. The fact that Keycloak > supports defining custom mappings of scopes to roles (and now arbitrary > claims with token mappers) is just fine, I think. > > > > Btw. access tokens and scopes is not always user consent, see client > credentials grant… > Yeah, that is why I said usually. My initial idea was discuss cases where scopes are *not* limited to the protected resources under the control of the client. > > > Best regards, > > Sebastian > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards > > > *Dr.-Ing. Sebastian Schuster * > Engineering and Support (INST/ESY1) > Bosch Software Innovations GmbH | Ullsteinstr. 128 | 12109 Berlin | > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ullsteinstr.+128+%7C+12109+Berlin+%7C++%0D%0AG... > GERMANY | www.bosch-si.com > Tel. +49 30 726112-485 <+49%2030%20726112485> | Fax +49 30 726112-100 > <+49%2030%20726112100> | Sebastian.Schuster(a)bosch-si.com > > Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B > Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: > Dr. Stefan Ferber, Michael Hahn > > > > *From:* Pedro Igor Silva [mailto:psilva@redhat.com] > *Sent:* Montag, 19. März 2018 13:19 > *To:* Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; > *Cc:* Schuster Sebastian (INST/ESY1) <Sebastian.Schuster(a)bosch-si.com>; > keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > *Subject:* Re: [keycloak-dev] Client Scope naming > > > > OAuth2 does not define any format for access tokens - as you know they > are opaque - so you can push whatever you want into it, use it as a > reference, etc. But if you look https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662 > you'll see that token introspection response includes a "scope" claim. > > > > The main point I'm trying to make here is that access tokens usually > represent user consent. Consent is not the same thing as a role granted to > an user. So I may want to build my REST API without any role mapping but > based on user consent to specific scopes. Where these scopes grant access > to different parts of my API. > > > > But I think that should also be possible with your changes. We would just > need to have a mapper that adds to an access token the scopes granted by > the user to a client. Or maybe make this information also available via > introspection endpoint (which I think we are missing). > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:22 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > Yes, and this (almost) all should be possible now with new client scopes > stuff I did. It won't be a problem to have "device.localization" client > scope, which doesn't have any roles or protocolMappers. And require this > client scope to be present on consent screen. > > Only thing, which is not directly available OOTB from what you mentioned, > is the: Check if scope "device.localization" is granted by introspecting > the token. For instance, checking a scope claim within a token. > > For now, I've just added client scopes to refresh token, but that one is > opaque to the adapter. I did not add anything to access token or ID token. > The "scope" claim is not defined on OIDC or OAuth2, so we don't have it in > our tokens. Do you know if it's defined in some other specification? We can > do our extension and add some stuff into access token similarly like we did > for roles, but not sure we want that? > > Marek > > > > On 16/03/18 14:27, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: > > We already had discussions a long time ago about it. I do think that > scopes are a first class citizen when doing OIDC and OAuth2, not RBAC. We > are too role-based ... > > > > Thinking it simple, as an admin user I may want to: > > > > * Create a scope "device.localization" with consent required for a client > > > > As a client: > > > > * Ask for "device.localization" scope when obtaining tokens from AS > > > > As a resource server: > > > > * Check if scope "device.localization" is granted by introspecting the > token. For instance, checking a scope claim within a token. > > > > See, no role mapping, no scope -> role mapping, etc. User just consented > to grant "device.localization" scope. > > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > On 16/03/18 13:24, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: > > That is what I was thinking. In authz services, scopes are not related > with roles or protocol mappers. They are just a string representing > something you can perform/access in a protected resource. Use client scopes > to represent such concept and remove "authz scopes" tab is a bit overkill, > I think. > > > > Currently, if I have a Localization API and a scope that grants access > based on a "device.localization" scope, I would need to create a > role/mapper and associate it with a client scope, right ? > > You mean that you have support for "device.localization" value of OAuth > scope parameter? Yes, you would need to create clientScope and associate > role "device.localization" with it. With client scopes support, the scope > parameter doesn't reference single role, but single client scope. > > Marek > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > Scope parameter would reference client scopes. For example scope > parameter "openid email profile offline_access" will reference client > scopes "email", "profile" and "offline_access" (openid is jsut generic > OpenID Connect marker). And each client scope is set of protocolMappers > and/or Role scope mappings. > > Marek > > > > On 15/03/18 12:39, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: > > How a scope looks like now after your changes ? Are they just strings > referencing a set of one or more roles ? Or they are still roles ? > > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > That's good question. As you know, we also have "Scope" tab (used to > specify scope role mappings of client) and "Authorization scope", which > is used when Authorization is enabled :) > > Marek > > > On 14/03/18 14:37, Schuster Sebastian (INST/ESY1) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I saw there are activities to replace client templates with client > scopes. UMA 2.0 uses the term “client scope” to determine what the OAuth > client wants to do with the granted access (e.g. this could be used to > determine the purpose of processing some data for GDPR compliance). Since > Keycloak will also support UMA 2.0, I am a little concerned this might lead > to some confusion. As you know, there are only two hard problems in > computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors. > ☺ WDYT? > > > > Best regards, > > Sebastian > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards > > > > Dr.-Ing. Sebastian Schuster > > > > Engineering and Support (INST/ESY1) > > Bosch Software Innovations GmbH | Ullsteinstr. 128 | 12109 Berlin | > GERMANY > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ullsteinstr.+128+%7C+12109+Berlin+%7C+GERMANY&... > | www.bosch-si.com<http://www.bosch-si.com> > > Tel. +49 30 726112-485 <%2B49%2030%20726112-485> | Fax +49 30 > 726112-100 | Sebastian.Schuster@bosch-si.com<mailto:Sebastian.Schuster@bo > sch-si.com> > > > > Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B > > Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: > Dr. Stefan Ferber, Michael Hahn > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > keycloak-dev mailing list > > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > keycloak-dev mailing list > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >