Also make sure that your client id matches the one configured for the
client in the admin console. That might be the problem too.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Enable standard flow for the client. Its a switch in admin console
client config.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Christian Beikov
<christian.beikov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't get SAML to work. Everytime I try to access a protected page, I
> get the error "Client is not allowed to initiate browser login with
> given response_type. Standard flow is disabled for the client".
>
> In the logs I see "type=LOGIN_ERROR, realmId=LOCAL, clientId=null,
> userId=null, ipAddress=10.0.0.1, error=not_allowed"
>
> Is there anything I can do to further debug this? I'm using 3.3.0.Final
> and configured SAML via keycloak-saml.xml having roughly the following
> content
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <keycloak-saml-adapter xmlns="urn:keycloak:saml:adapter"
>
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
> xsi:schemaLocation="urn:keycloak:saml:adapter
>
http://www.keycloak.org/schema/keycloak_saml_adapter_1_7.xsd">
> <SP entityID="myapp"
> sslPolicy="EXTERNAL"
> nameIDPolicyFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified"
> logoutPage="/logout"
> forceAuthentication="false"
> isPassive="false"
> turnOffChangeSessionIdOnLogin="false">
> <IDP entityID="idp"
> signaturesRequired="false">
> <SingleSignOnService requestBinding="POST"
> bindingUrl="http://auth.company.com:8081/auth/realms/LOCAL/protocol/saml"
> />
>
> <SingleLogoutService
> requestBinding="POST"
> responseBinding="POST"
>
postBindingUrl="http://auth.company.com:8081/auth/realms/LOCAL/protocol/saml"
>
redirectBindingUrl="http://auth.company.com:8081/auth/realms/LOCAL/protocol/saml"
> />
> </IDP>
> </SP>
> </keycloak-saml-adapter>
>
> Am I missing something or is having a SAML endpoint on Keycloak along
> with a SAML client not a supported scenario configuration?
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Christian Beikov*
> Am 26.04.2018 um 16:50 schrieb Bill Burke:
>> SAML would definitely work for your case so long as you don't need a
>> token to make other REST invocations.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Christian Beikov
>> <christian.beikov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the hints. I'll try to see if I can get SAML to work and let
>>> you know of the result. Anyway, the POST response_mode sounds promising
>>> and would definitely work in our case. When I put the URL hash I got
>>> while testing into the query part of the URL, the authentication worked
>>> properly. So doing a form encoded POST would probably work as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Christian Beikov*
>>> Am 26.04.2018 um 15:06 schrieb Marek Posolda:
>>>> I think it works, but didn't tested that combination. And POST is
not
>>>> supported by any of our adapters ATM, just by server. I know that some
>>>> of our users use Form POST with 3rd party adapters, but likely the
>>>> combination of FormPOST with standard flow.
>>>>
>>>> On 26/04/18 14:38, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>> Cool, so POST mode works with Implicit?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Marek Posolda
<mposolda(a)redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> We support response_mode parameter and we also support HTML POST
mode
>>>>>> already on server side. But we specifically disallow
"query"
>>>>>> response_mode
>>>>>> with implicit flow [1] . This is required per specification and
OIDC
>>>>>> certification had a test exactly for this AFAIR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/services/src/main/java/o...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marek
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/04/18 23:20, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>>>> We should probably support response_mode parameter [1] and
allow
>>>>>>> "query" mode for implicit invocations. IMO, the
HTML POST mode [2]
>>>>>>> (like SAML does) would be better as with implicit mode, the
access
>>>>>>> token is leaked to browser history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
https://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0.html
>>>>>>> [2]
http://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-form-post-response-mode-1_0.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Christian Beikov
>>>>>>> <christian.beikov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we reached a point where we are not sure how to proceed
with the PR
>>>>>>>>
https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/pull/5167 for
>>>>>>>>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-7195
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We added a client adapter configuration for the flow and
that part
>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>> so far, but we noticed that when the Keycloak server
encounters a
>>>>>>>> request for authetication via the implicit flow, it puts
the token
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> the query fragment part which isn't sent to the
application. This
>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>> point where it becomes obvious this mechanism is intended
for the JS
>>>>>>>> adapter :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To resolve the problem and make the flow usable for the
Java
>>>>>>>> adapter as
>>>>>>>> well, we'd need some way to configure the response
mode in the
>>>>>>>> OIDCLoginProtocol. My question is, how you think this
should be done.
>>>>>>>> I was thinking of either allowing a query parameter to
specify the
>>>>>>>> response mode or a configuration switch in the UI for the
client.
>>>>>>>> I kind
>>>>>>>> of prefer the query parameter solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this even a change/feature you would be interested in?
We need the
>>>>>>>> implicit flow because the Keycloak server is in a private
network
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> is separate from the application. Maybe there are other
people out
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> that have similar needs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Christian Beikov*
>>>>>>>> Am 20.04.2018 um 09:15 schrieb Niels Bertram:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> can't say for sure but the server side adapters
always use standard
>>>>>>>>> authorization flow, which requires your Java app to
connect via a
>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>> channel to (A) exchange code grant for access tokens
and (B) to
>>>>>>>>> lookup
>>>>>>>>> jwks for token validation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The OpenID Connect specification does provide a pure
browser based
>>>>>>>>> flow calledimplicit flow
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
<
http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ImplicitFlowAuth>but
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that one has a few drawbacks such as auth tokens
delivered in the
>>>>>>>>> redirect URL and no refresh token capability. Using
this flow could
>>>>>>>>> solve your problem (A) to shift login flow to the
frontend but still
>>>>>>>>> poses the challenge for (B) validating the tokens at
the backend.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could not find a way to configure the Java adapter
to work in pure
>>>>>>>>> offline validation mode. We had a similar requirement
some time ago
>>>>>>>>> and had to code our own auth module to validate
incoming tokens
>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>> pre-configured public key. The other common problem
we ran into is
>>>>>>>>> wanting to validate tokens from different (including
non-keycloak)
>>>>>>>>> issuers on the same backend. The Keycloak Java
adapters do not
>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>> this use case either. We originally looked at the
Spring JWT adapter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
<
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-security-oauth/tree/master/spri...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as an alternative but this project is not properly
patched and
>>>>>>>>> configuration is a wonderful garden of mystery like
everything in
>>>>>>>>> Spring.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very curious though to see what others are doing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Niels
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Christian Beikov
>>>>>>>>> <christian.beikov(a)gmail.com
<mailto:christian.beikov@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As far as I see in the code, the Java Adapters
always use the
>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>> flow i.e. response_type=code
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please tell me this observation is wrong and
there is an
>>>>>>>>> undocumented
>>>>>>>>> setting I just didn't see that I can use
to tell the
>>>>>>>>> adapter to
>>>>>>>>> use the
>>>>>>>>> implicit flow instead :|
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If this is really missing, where would you
suggest this
>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>> configured? I'd expect the setting to be
in
>>>>>>>>> KeycloakDeployment and
>>>>>>>>> OAuthRequestAuthenticator#loginRedirect would
then use the
>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>> of always using the "code" value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Christian Beikov*
>>>>>>>>> Am 18.04.2018 um 17:35 schrieb Christian
Beikov:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Is there any way to avoid the access code
to access token
>>>>>>>>> exchange?
>>>>>>>>> > Since the Keycloak server is not
accessible, I'm getting
>>>>>>>>> an error
>>>>>>>>> > during authentication:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > ERROR
[org.keycloak.adapters.OAuthRequestAuthenticator]
>>>>>>>>> (default
>>>>>>>>> > task-54) failed to turn code into token:
>>>>>>>>> > java.net.UnknownHostException:
blabla.local: unknown error
>>>>>>>>> > ...
>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
org.keycloak.adapters.ServerRequest.invokeAccessCodeToToken(ServerRequest.java:111)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
org.keycloak.adapters.OAuthRequestAuthenticator.resolveCode(OAuthRequestAuthenticator.java:330)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
org.keycloak.adapters.OAuthRequestAuthenticator.authenticate(OAuthRequestAuthenticator.java:275)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
org.keycloak.adapters.RequestAuthenticator.authenticate(RequestAuthenticator.java:139)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
org.keycloak.adapters.undertow.AbstractUndertowKeycloakAuthMech.keycloakAuthenticate(AbstractUndertowKeycloakAuthMech.java:110)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
org.keycloak.adapters.undertow.ServletKeycloakAuthMech.authenticate(ServletKeycloakAuthMech.java:92)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > ...
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > *Christian Beikov*
>>>>>>>>> > Am 18.04.2018 um 14:48 schrieb Thomas
Darimont:
>>>>>>>>> >> Hello Christian,
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> your application server needs to
communicate with the
>>>>>>>>> Keycloak
>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>> >> to retrieve the realm public key
referenced in the token to
>>>>>>>>> verify
>>>>>>>>> >> the token signature.
>>>>>>>>> >> The current implementation in
Keycloak fetches & caches
>>>>>>>>> unknown
>>>>>>>>> >> public keys automatically.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> You could also use a fixed realm
public key on the
>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>> >> side but it would not support key
rotation anymore.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> >> Thomas
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> 2018-04-18 13:45 GMT+02:00 Christian
Beikov
>>>>>>>>> >> <christian.beikov(a)gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:christian.beikov@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:christian.beikov@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>
<mailto:christian.beikov@gmail.com>>>:
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> is it necessary that an
application secured by
>>>>>>>>> Keycloak can
>>>>>>>>> >> access the
>>>>>>>>> >> Keycloak server? Or is it enough
if the Browser can
>>>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> >> Keycloak
>>>>>>>>> >> server?
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> --
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> *Christian Beikov*
>>>>>>>>> >>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> >> keycloak-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> >> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>>
<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
>>>>>>>>> >>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>>>>>>>>
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev>
>>>>>>>>> >>
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>>>>>>>>
<
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
>>>>>>>>>
<
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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
--
Bill Burke
Red Hat