IMO Creating keystore files programatically as Peter suggested, looks
better than creating them through maven-antrun-plugin. It seems that
creating with maven will mean lots of the stuff in pom.xml files,
however generating programatically will probably allow some better
reusability (common utility class in the testsuite to easily generate
keystore in various locations). Also programatic generation will work
when running the test from Intellij Idea without previous maven build.
Sebastian, yesterday I didn't mention on the call that we probably don't
test X509 authentication with IBM JDK. I recalled it just now :) The
thing is, that X509 tests are not executed during default build as they
require Wildfly (they don't work on embedded undertow) and also
phantomJS (no other browser is supported). So I am pretty sure they are
not executed during the various matrix jobs for various java versions
(Vasek Muzikar can correct me if I am wrong). Which means they probably
don't work on IBM JDK too.
On 25/07/18 15:50, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
Sounds like this could be a time-consuming task and the tests are
at the moment. So not sure I see a need to start a bulk refactoring here.
The json file you're mentioning has a cert in pem format in the json file
that is then stored in the DB. This doesn't have anything to do with
keystores/truststores. We expect Keycloak to be able to handle a cert
provided in the json file (or through admin endpoints) and store it in the
Now for SSL tests with the server itself I can see the value in what you
are proposing. Keystore/truststore for Keycloak https connections and
truststores for mutual SSL could probably be improved. However, it seems to
be working at the moment, so not sure this is required.
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 15:30, Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi(a)redhat.com>
> Thanks Darran and Peter for the insight!
> I've just noticed that generating JKS files is one thing but we will also
> need to pre-process RealmRepresentation and replace all private/public keys
> (like this one for example ) with values from keystores/truststores.
> At the moment I'm thinking about replacing  with something like this:
> "jwt.credential.certificate" :
> similarly to private keys (if needed):
> "privateKey" :
> Later on, while converting JSON to RealmRepresentation I plan to traverse
> all nodes and replace replace those which start with private-key or
> Let me know if you have a better idea.
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 2:07 PM Peter Skopek <pskopek(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sebastian,
>> I think that generation of Keystore on the fly is the only way to go.
>> You can use Java Keystore API generate it entirely from Java code (no
>> need to run maven).
>> Here  is an example of utility class used in wildfly testsuite to
>> generate Vault (basically just keystore).
>> It will be easy to strip vault related stuff and use it in our testsuite.
>> Note that there is one more drawback of storing generated JKS files,
>> which is that in some cases they are not binary compatible between
>> different JDK (particularly Oracle and IBM).
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:23 PM Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi(a)redhat.com
>>> Together with Sebi we are working on Certificate-based authentication
>>> the clients. Our work will require adding at least 2-3 keystores to the
>>> codebase with different DNs and I think this might be a good
>>> revisit the way we handle JKS files in the tests.
>>> Currently we push JKS files directly into our repo, which has a couple
>>> - it is hard to figure out what's inside the JKS, it requires looking
>>> for password (usually in some JSON configuration file or hardcoded in
>>> test) and using keytool (or some similar one) to explore its content.
>>> - It is not git-friendly. Every time we update JKS content we
>>> store another binary file (git doesn't understand binary file changes
>>> can not diff it).
>>> - we use many different naming and password schemes in our tests.
>>> - it is hard to migrate all keystores to pkcs12 at the same time (JKS
>>> format is deprecated) 
>>> I believe most of the issues could be addressed by generating JKS files
>>> the fly - during the build. In Infinispan we did it with Maven Ant
>>> . I already created a very limited POC for Keycloak and you can
>>> out here . Unfortunately, the process of reverse engineering all
>>> files is quite time-consuming, so I would like to know your opinion
>>> moving on.
>>> Of course, generating JKS files on the fly has some drawbacks:
>>> - It increases build time (~1s per keytool invocation, and we probably
>>> have more than 30 of them).
>>> - it makes testing from IDE a bit harder, you need to run Maven and
>>> test resources before doing anything. A common workaround is to use
>>> clean install -DskipTests` and then opening your IntelliJ.
>>> Please let me know what you think.
>>>  https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/pull/5410
>>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev mailing list