Re: [keycloak-dev] Keycloak session limiting (KEYCLOAK-849) (BA-93)

Ok, I'm missing some fundamental understanding here. Please help :) In case of the browser flow, the authentication flow is executed upon loading a page using the browser. At this time checks are being performed to see if the user is already logged on. If this is the case, no authentication has to be performed and the user is presented the requested page. But if the user is not yet logged on, the cookie authenticator can't do anything usefull resulting in the next authenticator to trigger. Eventually the 'browser forms' authenticator presents a login screen. Given the fact that we need to deny the user access in case a session already exists for his/her account on another machine, we need to know who this user is. How can we know which user we are dealing with at the start of the flow? I can see this working for limiting the number of sessions for each realm, but not for limiting sessions bound to individual user accounts. On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 09:19, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > The authenticator should be added after the cookie authenticator, not at > the end. That will make it take affect for IdP logins as well. So it's a > matter of configuring it in two flows browser and direct grant. > > I appreciate it may not be the best usability, but I don't want to > introduce something special/hard-coded for this feature. A later > improvement could be to improve on the authentication flows. To have > different elements in a flow and not just executions as well as potentially > having some pre-flow checks that are done in all flows. I'd say this > approach is good enough though at least for now. > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 09:00, Mauro de Wit <maurodewit(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> That is indeed one of the downsides of this approach. >> But can a misconfiguration of this functionality do any harm, besides >> some inconsistent behavior between authentication methods? >> >> @stian(a)redhat.com <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; any thoughts? >> >> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 15:23, Jared Blashka <jblashka(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> If this is done via an authenticator wouldn't you have to make sure >>> that this authenticator is present (and all the same settings are >>> maintained) in the browser flow as well as the direct access flow as well >>> as the login flows for all configured identity providers? It seems like it >>> would be quite easy to make a mistake in that process and misconfigure >>> something somewhere. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:41 AM Mauro de Wit <maurodewit(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I've started to create a simple proof of concept and want to check if I >>>> have my facts straight. >>>> As previously discussed this functionality should be provided by a >>>> custom >>>> Authenticator that is configured in an authentication flow. >>>> >>>> What I've done so far is: >>>> - Created implementations for both the Authenticator and >>>> AuthenticatorFactory interfaces. >>>> - Added a set of ProviderConfigProperty instances that allow the >>>> desired >>>> configuration. >>>> - Perform the check if any session limits are exceeded inside the >>>> authenticate() method of the Authenticator class. (Any session >>>> invalidation >>>> will be performed here as well) >>>> >>>> Now, in order to use session limiting for regular username/password >>>> form >>>> logins, I have created a copy of the 'browser flow' and added this >>>> Authenticator as a 'required' execution at the end of the flow. >>>> In our case we allow IDP logins as well. And to use this functionality >>>> for >>>> these logins, I've created a new authentication flow containing just >>>> this >>>> Authenticator. Finally this flow is selected in the 'Post login flow' >>>> of >>>> the IDP configuration. >>>> For both scenarios the Authenticator seems to be triggered at the right >>>> time and I should be able to apply the session limiting rules. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts or comments so far? >>>> >>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 14:53, Mauro de Wit <maurodewit(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Ok, thanks for the clarification. >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:39, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> It should be a pluggable part of the authentication flow and not a >>>> >> hardcoded element. There is no other way to plug in to the >>>> authentication >>>> >> flow other than creating an authenticator. An authenticator doesn't >>>> need to >>>> >> provide a challenge though so it can be used in this instance. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 10:57, Mauro de Wit <maurodewit(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Hello, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I am sending this e-mail because I have some questions regarding >>>> the >>>> >>> enhancement request that enables configurable session limiting in >>>> >>> Keycloak >>>> >>> as discussed here: >>>> >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-849 (The developer that >>>> Marc >>>> >>> Wijma >>>> >>> referred to in his comment as being available for this task is me >>>> btw :)) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> In the comments a solution is proposed that makes use of a custom >>>> >>> Authenticator that is dropped into the authentication flow where >>>> it can >>>> >>> be >>>> >>> configured. While I can see the benefit of leveraging the existing >>>> >>> components as much as possible (including the configuration >>>> options in >>>> >>> that >>>> >>> flow), I am wondering if this is the best solution. As far as I >>>> can tell, >>>> >>> this component is not performing any authentication at all. >>>> Moreover this >>>> >>> functionality operates 'above' the authentication mechanisms and >>>> should >>>> >>> apply to all of them. >>>> >>> So is an Authenticator really the desired place to implement this? >>>> Or is >>>> >>> this just the quickest route, while not being the most desirable >>>> option >>>> >>> for >>>> >>> the long term? What would be an alternative approach be? That >>>> would place >>>> >>> this implementation and configuration in the existing Session >>>> >>> configuration >>>> >>> code for instance. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I just now started investigating this task and looking into the >>>> options >>>> >>> that would meet our requirements. Hope to hear from you. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Regards >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Mauro >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>