I'm going to remind everyone again what is the aim and scope of
AIA:
* It is for an application to initiate an action, period.
* It is aimed at allowing external account console (and similar
applications) to make it possible for users to make changes to their
account where we want to delegate the logic to actions after the
"login flow" rather than having to duplicate the work in rest
endpoints as well as "login flows"
That is it. The design of this feature keeps getting more and more
complex and we're not getting anywhere in the discussion because
people are suggesting nice-to-haves or hypothetical other use-cases
for the feature. So please keep the original use-case in mind when you
are commenting on this and let's not make this into a complex unusable
jack of all trades, but rather keep it as something simple with a
small narrow use-case.
I don't think that what I proposed is very complex. If I understand
correctly, it is very similar to what you proposed with the only
difference, that it requires client to do the whole OIDC flow including
code-to-token request and the model is updated in the code-to-token
request rather than before redirecting to client. It has advantages:
- Client is properly authenticated based on the known OIDC flow. Hence
no need to mandatory display consent screen "Application XY wants you to
do Z"
- Tokens will be available at the end of the flow with the updated state
(EG. facebook claims or the "email_verified" claim)
Disadvantage is the more complex flow, which means that SPI will need to
maintain state and have the additional method, which will be triggered
at the code-to-token request. That's the only real disadvantage I see,
but I agree that added complexity of the SPI has some price...
I don't want to block the work and hence I am not strongly enforce to
follow my proposal :) Just wanted to propose that and it's up to you
guys if you like it or not.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 15:20, Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com
<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 22/03/2019 12:49, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> To authenticate the client, why don't we just
> require id_token_hint to be included?
>
> We would require the ID token to be issued to the client trying
> to initiate the action and also be associated with the current
> session.
>
> I'd say we don't need to finely control what clients can do what
> at least not for now. Client should have scope on the
> manage_account role and that's enough for now.
This assumes that client is authenticated before action is
triggered. Don't we want also a possibility to trigger this
"Application Initiated Actions" for cases when user is not yet
authenticated? For example if I have web application, which will
be something like "Web Email client", I want to ensure that user
always has email verified before he is redirected to my
application as authenticated. So I may want to trigger OIDC flow
with "kc_action" even before user is authenticated.
A few points here:
* AIA are there to specifically run an action, not to request some
sort of condition on the user account. kc_action=verify_email would
run the verify email regardless if email is verified or not.
* AIA are there for an application to allow a user to initiate an
action from within an external app. It's not really there for the app
to request things out of bounds.
Well, that is the question? In current Account management, we show the
link "Link Facebook" just in case that user is not yet linked with
Facebook. Similarly if user is already linked, we display the link
"Unlink Facebook" . It seems to me that people will often do those
actions based on the state of the account (EG. I want to display link
"Verify Email" in my application, just in case that user doesn't yet
have verified email).
Maybe I am wrong and this is not so important, we may see in the future...
Marek
Will be also nice for the "Terms and Conditions"
actions as the
"Terms and Conditions" pages are often client specific, so our
current approach with generic "Terms and Conditions" action is
likely not so nice and requires that many application implements
some equivalent of app-specific "Terms and Conditions" page on
their side rather than rely on Keycloak. But with those
"Application Initiated Actions" we can improve on here.
As far as I know we have never had a request for client specific terms
and conditions. Not sure that is something Keycloak should ever
consider, besides if we did that doesn't need kc_action, but rather
just some way to configure different terms based on the client.
Marek
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 12:42, Stian Thorgersen
> <sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 12:07, Marek Posolda
> <mposolda(a)redhat.com <mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> I am sorry to join this so late.
>
> My concern is, that in the design, it was mentioned that
> consent will be
> always required from the user. I understand that this
> simplifies the
> flow as it's more secure and not need to authenticate the
> client.
> However from the usability perspective, it doesn't look
> so nice to me.
>
> For example assume that in the application, the user just
> clicked on the
> button "Link my account with Facebook" . Then after login
> with Facebook,
> he will see another splash screen like "Application XY
> wants to link
> your account with Facebook", which he needs to confirm.
> It may be
> especially bad for usability in this case with linking
> social accounts,
> as user may see one splash screen shown by Facebook
> "Application
> keycloak wants to access your Facebook profile and email"
> and then
> immediately another splash screen shown by Keycloak
> "Application Foo
> wants to link your account with Facebook" .
>
> Maybe I am wrong, but my guess is, that our users will
> very quickly come
> with requirement "Can I ommit to show the splash screen?"
> . It is bit
> similar to the "Consent Required" switch, which I guess
> most people have
> OFF for their clients. So IMO I would rather count with
> this from the
> beginning and count with the fact, that we will need to
> ommit consent
> screen and hence verify client.
>
> With regards to this, It seems that we may need also to
> specify if
> client is:
> - Allowed to initiate action
> - Allowed to initate action with the consent required
> - Allowed to initate action with no-consent required
> Maybe the "Consent required" switch can be on instead on
> the action
> itself, but the will still need to restrict if client is
> allowed or not
> to perform the action.
>
>
> I can see your point for linking to external IdP.
>
> However, for everything else the actions are requesting a
> user to enter information before something happens. I.e.
> registering WebAuthn device, update password, etc.. All
> require the user to first fill in the form.
>
>
> With regards to the flow, I suggest that KC will require
> full
> OIDC/OAuth2 flow. In other words, when KC redirects back
> to the client,
> the client will be required to send code-to-token
> request. And the
> action (EG. Keycloak user linked with Facebook) is done
> *after* the
> whole flow (including code-to-token flow) is finished.
> That should be
> sufficient to verify the client and at the same time, it
> will allow us
> to add some more things to tokens (EG. some facebook
> details) . Downside
> is, that it will be harder to implement though as the SPI
> will likely
> need another callback after code-to-token flow to
> "finish" the action...
>
>
> I don't think I understand, because if you are proposing what
> I'm thinking it sounds awkward. Can you list the flow?
>
>
> Last thing, I was thinking about using "scope" parameter
> to reference
> those actions instead of have proprietary "kc_action"
> thing. The we
> don't need any extensions of OIDC. It may simplify things
> like consents
> etc. Also client will be able to have something similar
> like we have in
> "Client Scopes" tab - the list of action, which he is
> allowed to
> initiate. But I am not sure about this last point and
> maybe it's better
> to keep things separated...
>
>
> I'm not convinced using scope param makes sense. It just
> doesn't fit in my mental model.
>
>
> Marek
>
>
>
>
> On 21/03/2019 14:07, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
> > Sure, I'm not against the initial design/scope. Just
> tried to make comments
> > about other aspects that, to me, are related or how it
> can be leveraged to
> > also achieve other things.
> >
> > So, what Stian plans mentioned in one of his replies is
> fine for me.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:47 AM Stan Silvert
> <ssilvert(a)redhat.com <mailto:ssilvert@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> Pedro,
> >>
> >> My only concern is getting this nailed down so we can
> move forward with
> >> the new account console.
> >>
> >> It sounds like Stian's proposal is simpler, but covers
> fewer use cases.
> >> Is that correct?
> >>
> >> Would it be practical to implement Stian's plan and
> then implement your
> >> proposal at a later date?
> >>
> >> On 3/21/2019 8:05 AM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
> >>> In addition to everything you said.
> >>>
> >>> * It is not only about making changes to account, but
> updating tokens
> >> with
> >>> information from required actions, which not
> necessarily need to be
> >>> persisted.
> >>>
> >>> * For back-end applications, we could also associate
> these required
> >> actions
> >>> with scopes. If we could have a required action as
> "Re-authenticate" or
> >>> "Provide 2nd factor", that would also help with
> step-up authentication.
> >> As
> >>> an alternative to OIDC acr related parameters/claims.
> I don't think it
> >>> makes sense to bring to the client concerns that are
> really tied to the
> >>> scopes of a resource server. As I said, clients
> should ask for scopes and
> >>> Keycloak should do whatever is necessary to grant
> these (via consent, via
> >>> additional steps/actions). Consider what you
> mentioned at the end of your
> >>> design document at "Require Re-Authentication".
> Couldn't we leverage AIA
> >>> for step-up and ask the user for a more stronger
> credential ?
> >>>
> >>> * Claims gathering flow is simple. The Keycloak
> server would return the
> >>> endpoint to where the client should redirect the
> user. After obtaining
> >>> information from the user, Keycloak would issue a
> ticket (instead of
> >> code).
> >>> The endpoint returned by Keycloak would contain the
> action associated
> >> with
> >>> a resource. The endpoint could be the same as what
> you are using for AIA.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 4:13 AM Stian Thorgersen
> <sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Pedro,
> >>>>
> >>>> I really don't understand what your points are and
> what you propose we
> >> do
> >>>> here.
> >>>>
> >>>> The use-case we're addressing is the following:
> >>>>
> >>>> As a user I would like to initiate an action
> associated with my account
> >>>> through a front-end application so that I can make
> changes to my
> >> account,
> >>>> for example to register a WebAuthn security key with
> my account.
> >>>>
> >>>> Further, we want an action to be implemented once
> and re-usable in
> >>>> login/registration flows as well as from
> applications managing user
> >>>> accounts, incuding our new account console. That
> means our new account
> >>>> console needs to be able to invoke an action in the
> login flow,
> >> otherwise
> >>>> we would have to implement actions as react/rest also.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now the solution I have proposed is simple. It
> allows an application to
> >>>> request an action being invoked after the user has
> authenticated. Think
> >> of
> >>>> it as a "required action" on-demand. It can
be
> implemented with a few
> >> lines
> >>>> of code and easily tested. It is very easy to use as
> it just means
> >> adding
> >>>> an extra query param to the login flows, which makes
> it very easy to use
> >>>> both for confidential and non-confidential clients.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is not trying to cover claims gathering use-case
> from UMA. I see no
> >>>> connection to this and step-up authentication. These
> both already have
> >>>> clearly defined protocols. Neither can be used to
> address the above
> >>>> use-case.
> >>>>
> >>>> So please come with a concrete proposal as I have no
> clue what your
> >>>> objections are.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 19:37, Pedro Igor Silva
> <psilva(a)redhat.com <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM Stian Thorgersen
> <sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 17:19, Pedro Igor Silva
> <psilva(a)redhat.com <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:28 PM Stian
Thorgersen <
> >> sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 16:02, Pedro Igor
Silva
> <psilva(a)redhat.com <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:17 AM Stian
Thorgersen <
> >> sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:09,
Pedro Igor Silva
> <psilva(a)redhat.com <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:33
PM Stian
> Thorgersen <
> >>>>>>>>>>> sthorger(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it this stuff
you're thinking about:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
>
https://docs.kantarainitiative.org/uma/wg/uma-core-2.0-20.html#claim-redi...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> From that it does a
get including the
> ticket as a query
> >> parameter.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't like the
idea of sending tickets as
> query params as
> >> they could be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> logged. For the
application initiated action
> it would have to
> >> be an ID
> >>>>>>>>>>>> token sent as the
ticket. Or as I mentioned
> before perhaps we
> >> have a way of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> creating a ticket that
can only be used to
> initiate an action.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why you need to send the id
token if the
> client already got an id
> >>>>>>>>>>> token and, considering
browser flow, there is
> a cookie that can
> >> be used by
> >>>>>>>>>>> Keycloak to identify the
client/user ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Cookie doesn't authenticate
the client, only
> the user.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But the identity cookie has the user
session
> and from it we can
> >> check
> >>>>>>>>> whether or not the client initiating
the action
> (client_id) has a
> >>>>>>>>> authenticated client session, no ?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That only proves that the client_id
belongs to a
> client that has
> >>>>>>>> obtained a token. It doesn't
authenticate the
> client in any way.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Q- Why is authentication of the client
required?
> IMO it is not
> >>>>>>>> required.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure, but the client obtained token and is
> authenticated, thus acting
> >>>>>>> on behalf of the user. If the client is
already
> acting on behalf of
> >> a user,
> >>>>>>> we don't need to authenticate it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's not correct. All we know is that a
client
> with the same
> >> client_id
> >>>>>> has obtained a token. Anyone can use the same
> client_id to initiate an
> >>>>>> action.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps what we could do
is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. By default any
application can initiate
> an action
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1. To initiate an
action there's no need
> for a ticket of any
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sort, just a regular
oauth flow
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Later add support if
demand to limit what
> applications can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> initiate actions
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1 Same as before if
the action being
> initiated is open for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> everyone then no need
for a ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.2 If the action being
initiated is only
> permitted by some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> applications we would
need some form of
> authentication.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For 2.2 I have 3
suggestions in mind:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a. Just include id_token
as a ticket query
> param like UMA claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>> redirect does
> >>>>>>>>>>>> b. Add support to obtain
an initiate action
> ticket from a
> >> endpoint
> >>>>>>>>>>>> using an id token as
bearer token
> >>>>>>>>>>>> c. Add a note into
client session with a
> initiate action ticket
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for clients that can
initiate actions and
> map this into the id
> >> token.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not sure ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you think about it, the
part interested in
> obtaining the
> >> claims
> >>>>>>>>>>> after an action is completed
is not the
> client but the audience
> >> of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> token, the resource server.
In this case, the
> UMA approach seems
> >> more
> >>>>>>>>>>> appropriate because the
resource server is in
> control about what
> >> actions
> >>>>>>>>>>> the client should initiate
in order to
> fulfill the constraints
> >> imposed by
> >>>>>>>>>>> the resource server to
access its protected
> resources. Where
> >> these
> >>>>>>>>>>> constraints could be a DOB
in the token or a
> higher security
> >> level.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The app initiating actions
in the server is
> not the goal, but the
> >>>>>>>>>>> tool to obtain additional
claims from the
> server ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> However, for some
applications acting as both
> client and resource
> >>>>>>>>>>> server (e.g.: a monolithic
jee) can avoid all
> the ticket dance
> >> and just
> >>>>>>>>>>> redirect the user to the
server as you
> pointed out in 1.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps there's a case for
that, but that
> would be claims
> >> gathering,
> >>>>>>>>>> not application initiated
actions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Application initiated actions
are more a tool
> for folks to add
> >>>>>>>>>> actions for the user account
into their own
> GUIs, and as such
> >> should be a
> >>>>>>>>>> simple protocol. OAuth
incremental scopes for
> example doesn't
> >> have any
> >>>>>>>>>> flows between app and service,
but rather just
> allows the app to
> >> get the
> >>>>>>>>>> scopes it out of bounds knows it
needs for
> specific actions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think claims gathering and AIA are
pretty
> much the same thing.
> >> Both
> >>>>>>>>> are querying the user for
additional
> information. Despite if you
> >> are
> >>>>>>>>> initiating an action to request
user's DOB or
> update a password,
> >> they are
> >>>>>>>>> steps that the user must perform in
order to
> enrich its security
> >> context
> >>>>>>>>> and be able to continue using both
client and
> resource server.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The point I'm trying to make is
that AIA can
> solve other problems
> >>>>>>>>> too. You would still solve the
original problem
> from your design
> >> document
> >>>>>>>>> as defined in the motivation
section. While you
> would also help
> >> with
> >>>>>>>>> step-up authentication and UMA
claims
> gathering. Another point is
> >> related
> >>>>>>>>> to the party interested in the
action. Is it
> the client or the
> >> resource
> >>>>>>>>> server (the API)?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If the client (which honestly I
don't see much
> use as most apps
> >> seem
> >>>>>>>>> to be a combination of front-end +
back-end,
> where the
> >> functionality is
> >>>>>>>>> provided by the back-end and
protected by a
> bearer token) then you
> >> may just
> >>>>>>>>> consider passing the
"kc_action" parameter and
> have the action
> >> initiated.
> >>>>>>>>> If the resource server, you could
associate the
> required actions
> >> with
> >>>>>>>>> the scopes. So when a client
requests a
> specific scope, Keycloak
> >> will start
> >>>>>>>>> the action(s) and query the user for
some
> information prior to
> >> issuing the
> >>>>>>>>> access token.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Still, if the resource server, the
resource
> server could respond to
> >>>>>>>>> the client (e.g: UMA flow)
indicating that it
> needs more info,
> >> then the
> >>>>>>>>> client will just redirect the user
to the
> location provided in the
> >> response
> >>>>>>>>> to initiate the actions.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't understand what your point
is or what
> you are proposing
> >> here.
> >>>>>>> And I do understand your point of view. I
just
> think that it can do
> >>>>>>> much more than address new account
management
> console requirements.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Based on your design document, I understand
what
> you described in the
> >>>>>>> Motivation section. But again, instead of
> considering the "two
> >> things" that
> >>>>>>> originated the idea behind AIA, I think we
can
> take the opportunity
> >> and do
> >>>>>>> much more. As they seem related to me.
Especially
> after your DOB
> >> example.
> >>>>>> I don't see the additional use-cases you
are
> mentioning as related at
> >>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> How it is not related ? The audience of the
> information gathered during
> >>>>> the AIA does impact where the token with the
> information will be used.
> >> If I
> >>>>> need a DOB to access some page in my front-end,
> this is one thing. If I
> >>>>> need DOB to access some resource protected by a
> resource server it is
> >>>>> another thing. Both require tokens with different
> audiences, the former
> >>>>> will probably be an ID Token where the latter the
> access token.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In OAuth2 the scopes represent the permissions to
> access protected
> >>>>> resources. Thus, it does make sense to have
> required actions that can
> >>>>> challenge a user when requesting scopes.
> Considering your DOB example,
> >> if
> >>>>> my client wants to access resource /api/age/check
> why you want the
> >> client
> >>>>> to request kc_action=dob if the scope
"dob" is what
> he needs to access
> >> the
> >>>>> API ? Otherwise, you are making the client aware of
> things that are
> >> really
> >>>>> related to the resource server. It is OK the client
> ask for scope
> >> "age", it
> >>>>> is how OAuth2 authorization model works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> UMA leverages OAuth2 in a way that the permission
> ticket makes the
> >> client
> >>>>> really dumb about what it needs to access protected
> resources. With
> >> UMA,
> >>>>> the client will just receive a ticket and with that
> ticket it can
> >> perform
> >>>>> the necessary actions to make a successful
> authorization request to the
> >>>>> server.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> * Step-up authentication has already clear
> parameters in OIDC/OAuth to
> >>>>>> request high level of authentication. On the
> implementation side it's
> >> about
> >>>>>> invoking additional parts of the authentication
> flow, not to initiate
> >> an
> >>>>>> required action that has nothing to do with the
> authentication flow.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Can we consider a required action as a prompt for
> 2nd factor, for
> >>>>> instance ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> * Claims gathering in UMA is about asking the
user
> for additional
> >>>>>> claims. AIA can be used as a poor-mans
workaround
> to lack of claims
> >>>>>> gathering, but end of the day it's
completely
> different. AIA will
> >> allow an
> >>>>>> app to invoke the action update_DOB, while
claims
> gaterhing will
> >> allow the
> >>>>>> application to request the claim DOB.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Not sure, if the difference is due to updating a
> piece of info, both
> >>>>> flows request the user for the info. Is just a
> matter of updating or
> >> not
> >>>>> updating the info.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see what additional things we need
to
> consider for something
> >>>>>> that is in the end very simple and can be
> implemented in a couple
> >> hours
> >>>>>> including tests if we don't try to make it
more
> complicated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at
16:19, Stian Thorgersen <
> >> sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019
at 13:39, Pedro Igor Silva <
> >> psilva(a)redhat.com <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 6,
2019 at 3:45 PM Stian
> Thorgersen <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sthorger(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6
Mar 2019 at 17:39, Pedro Igor
> Silva <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
psilva(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed,
Mar 6, 2019 at 1:30 PM Stian
> Thorgersen <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sthorger(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
do you think
> authentication/authorization is required?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
user will be prompted before making
> an action and it's
> >> an action they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
against RH-SSO and not automatically
> visible/exposed to
> >> the client.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
client is making the request and
> even though the user is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the
Keycloak server to perform the
> action, admins may
> >> want to restrict
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
clients are allowed to perform
> such actions. That is
> >> what I mean by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
level of authorization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
could even consider not
> authenticating the client at
> >> all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
still allow admins to enforce which
> clients should be
> >> allowed to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiate
actions on the server.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't
see how enforcing which clients
> is allowed to
> >> initiate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actions will
work without authenticating
> the client.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the word
authenticate seems too much
> to what we are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing. This
is more a validation of
> the client making
> >> the request.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Considering
that, I'm saying that you
> could just rely on
> >> client_id and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirect uris
(the client is already
> authenticated and if
> >> doing browser
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> authentication
the cookie is already
> present) and possibly
> >> add some level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of authorization
to enforce which clients
> can perform actions
> >> (instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just relying on
the authenticated
> session). Redirect uris are
> >> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> important
because you want to make sure
> the redirect uri is
> >> valid before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> redirecting the
user.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The plan is to use
the auth endpoint, so
> client_id and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> redirect_uris are
already being checked.
> It's just a standard
> >> OAuth flow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO that's fine
as long as there's no need
> to limit what
> >> clients
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can initiate
actions. If that's needed then
> we need something
> >> more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated that
properly authenticates the
> client, as anyone
> >> could just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> use the client_id
and redirect_uri from a
> different
> >> application to get the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> action initiated
(although wouldn't then
> have the user
> >> redirected back to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the app of course).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 14:31, Pedro Igor
> Silva <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
psilva(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One way is to follow authorization
> code constraints like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
checking the client_id and
> redirect_uri (assuming the
> >> user will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
redirected back after the action
> completes). But still,
> >> we could also add
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
some level authorization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
authorization code constraints doesn't
> work as anyone can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
use the client_id and redirect_uri
> from a different
> >> client.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may be
missing the whole flow. I would
> ask then what
> >> happens
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
the user performs an action. Is
> he/her redirected
> >> back to the client
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? If so,
client_id + redirect_uri do
> work to make sure that
> >> the client is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known
and that the user will be
> redirected back to a valid
> >> URI.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's
just a standard OAuth flow, so app
> would get new tokens.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Say the user
hasn't entered a DOB in the
> profile and the
> >> client wants that,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then they
can request the user to enter a
> DOB, which would
> >> then result in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DOB
being available in the token.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This flow seems
very closely related with
> the Claims Gathering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flow from UMA
specs. We could probably
> review what is there
> >> and see if it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can help to
solve this problem of app
> initiated actions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go for it ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only
viable option I can think of is to
> add an endpoint
> >> where
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
application can request a token to
> initate an action.
> >> So flow would be:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.
App sends POST { action: <action-id>
> } with ID Token as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bearer token in header to a new
> endpoint. This would
> >> return a single use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
token.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.
App can now do the redirect protocol
> as before, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
instead of "?action=<action>" they would do
> >> "?action-token=<action token>"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
the JS adapter we can add a
> action(actionId) function
> >> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
would get the action token before
> redirecting the user.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not
sure what you mean about level
> authorization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:25 AM Stian
> Thorgersen <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sthorger(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue is
more around how to
> authenticate clients and
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also the fact
that clients wanting to
> initiate actions
> >> may be public
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clients. We
also don't want to invent
> a new protocol for
> >> this, but rather
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just rely on
the OIDC flows.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So with those
constraints how would
> you authenticate the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar
2019 at 14:23, Pedro
> Igor Silva <
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
psilva(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:psilva@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, we
should have some level of
> authorization for
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clients
initiating an action. This
> could be as simple
> >> as leveraging authz
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order
to define white/black lists
> of clients.
> >> Similar to what a KC
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extension
does in regards to
> authentication.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue,
Mar 5, 2019 at 3:15 PM Stian
> Thorgersen <
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sthorger(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was
hoping for some more feedback
> from the list on this
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Especially around not having any
> authentication of the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
clients wanting to
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
initiate an action. I feel
> reasonable comfortable about
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
securing it and
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
requiring actions to prompt the
> user before doing
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
anything, but welcome
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
others opinion on it.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 11:07, Peter
> Skopek <
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pskopek(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:pskopek@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since there is no "silent"
> application initiated
> >> action
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(always
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
prompts user) possible and actions
> are predefined at
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
keycloak I see no
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
need for the client/application
> restriction mechanism.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:23 PM
> Stian Thorgersen <
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
sthorger(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keycloak currently has required
> actions that are used
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
prompt the user
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
to
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
perform an action associated with
> their account after
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
authenticating, but
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
prior to being redirected to the
> application.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Examples include: configure OTP,
> update profile,
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
validate email, etc.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One issue here is these actions
> have to be manually
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
registered with the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
users account, but can not be
> initiated by
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
applications themselves. As an
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
example it may not be required by
> all users to verify
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
email, but
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
only
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
when they use specific applications.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keycloak also needs to initiate
> actions from the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
account management
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
console. Examples: updating email
> address should
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
require verifying the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
email, configuring OTP, etc.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With that in mind we are
> proposing to introduce
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Application Initiated
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actions. An Application Initiated
> Action behind the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
scenes is just a
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Required Action, but it is
> initiated by an
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
application and depending on
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
action may be optional for the
> user to complete
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(where the user can
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
select
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cancel which would return the
> user back to the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
application).
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No Application Initiated Actions
> should perform any
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
updates to the users
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
account without prompting the
> user first. For example
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
application
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
initiated action that is used to
> link an existing
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
account to a social
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
provider should ask the user
> first if they want to
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> link
to the provider.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To make it easy for applications
> to integrate these I
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
like to
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
leverage the standard OAuth flows
> that applications
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
to authenticate
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
users. So to initiate
> verify-email action the
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
application would redirect
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
to
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the authentication endpoint and
> add kc_action=<action
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
alias> query
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
parameter.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One open question I have right
> now is. Assuming all
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Application Initiated
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actions always prompt the user
> first do we need to
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add
some mechanism in
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
place to restrict what
> clients/applications are
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
permitted to initiate an
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
action? Requiring that would make
> it harder to use
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
applications.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One thing I would also like to
> add is the ability for
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
Application
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Initiated Action to require the
> user to
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
re-authenticate prior to
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
performing
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the action. For example update
> password should
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
require the user to enter
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the current password, while
> verify email should not
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (as
it simply sends
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
an
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
email with a link to continue).
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>