Hello,
I think that the concept that using the same code, that is actions, for registration
purposes in all cases is a good idea. I also think that having registration logic in the
flows rather than as required actions at the end is the way to go.
Marek’s example
I'm thinking something along the lines of:
| - Authenticate with MFA [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ]
Conditional [ ] Disabled
| - OTP [x] Alternative [ ] Required
[ ] Disabled
| - WebAuthn [x] Alternative [ ] Required
[ ] Disabled
| - Hardware Token [x] Alternative [ ] Required
[ ] Disabled
| - Register MFA [x] Alternative [ ] Required
[ ] Disabled
Is actually the same sort of concept that the one that Romain posted and that we’ve been
playing with, except that in our case it doesn’t trigger actions, which lead us to
duplicate code. However, after having discussed the situation with Romain, we think that
maybe the existing methods that lead to the flows may not be enough. For example, we would
like to send a email to a user that leads him to a “registration” flow for a 2nd factor,
but someone who attempts to simply log in without a 2nd factor and though the normal login
procedure would be barred from login (that is, that user would not see the registration).
Currently, I think that the most that you can do with an email is set a required action
for a user. I think that this is what led Johannes to suggest the required action into
flow concept. But I think that it may be better to send a user directly into a flow,
rather than marking a persistent state on a user with the required action.
For our specific case, being able to send to a user an entry point to a flow, rather than
an action, would do the trick. For the email example, the administrator could select
either an action or a flow to send to the user.
Alistair
From: Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com>
Sent: vendredi, 22 novembre 2019 11:15
To: stian(a)redhat.com
Cc: Poiffaut Romain <romain.poiffaut(a)elca.ch>; keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org; Pages
Laurent <laurent.pages(a)elca.ch>; Doswald Alistair <alistair.doswald(a)elca.ch>
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Authentication flows - follow-up tasks and usability
improvements
On 22. 11. 19 10:45, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
I agree that it is cleaner to do it during the authentication stage as long as it
delegates to actions to do the actual registration.
I can see cases where a user should only be allowed to login if they already have MFA
registered, as well as cases when they are allow to login after they have registered an
MFA.
Yes, so with this configuration and with assuming that user doesn't yet have any
credential configured, he will be able to choose the credential to register from those 4
possibilities. Otherwise if he already has some credential configured (EG. OTP), he will
need to provide this OTP during authentication.
BTV. One thing, which we didn't yet talked much about is the ability to reset the
credential. For example if user above losts his phone, then he should be somehow able to
restart OTP or even choose different mechanism to register for 2-factor authentication.
Currently it is possible to reset OTP, but you need to use "reset-credential"
flow for it. This flow requires user to reset all his credentials, not just one of them,
which is usually requested IMO.
Also it is currently triggered by click to link "Forget password" . Which is far
from obvious that this can be used to reset OTP credential (together with required reset
of password credential). JIRA exists to improve on this:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11919 . I am not sure about priority, but it
affects end user experience and hence probably could be considered. However it may turn
into some non-trivial amount of work to do it a bit more properly...
Marek
I'm thinking something along the lines of:
| - Authenticate with MFA [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
| - OTP [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - WebAuthn [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Hardware Token [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Register MFA [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 21:21, Marek Posolda
<mposolda@redhat.com<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
IMO when 2-factor authentication is required for the flow, it may be better if we do
"Register 2nd factor credential" *during* authentication, rather than through
the action *after* authentication as it is now.
One reason is that it will be easier to implement with less potential corner-cases. The
orchestration of "register 2nd factor credentials" is just easier when
authentication flows can be used instead of bit
limited required actions.
Another reason is, that it is more proper IMO. For example let's assume that I have
"3-factor" authentication enabled. In other words, I have some additional FORM
authenticator triggered after 2nd-factor
authentication. So the flow looks something like this:
Auth type | Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cookie [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Kerberos [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Identity Provider Redirector [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Authenticate with Keycloak [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
| - Username Password Form [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - 2nd factor [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
| - OTP [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Some cool 3rd factor form [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
In case that user doesn't yet have the 2-nd factor credential registered, then what
currently happens is:
- User authenticates with username/password
- Then during OTP, the "Register OTP" requiredAction is silently added to his
account
- Then he see the "Some cool 3rd factor form" and needs to authenticate with
him
- Finally the authentication finished and user is now required to register 2nd factor
(OTP)
IMO the issue is, that user should ideally first register 2nd factor before he is even
able to see the "Some cool 3rd factor form" and authenticate with it.
Regarding implementation, I can think that Authenticator interface possibly won't call
the method "setRequiredActions" as it is now, but instead particular
Authenticator will "delegate" the registration of
credential to corresponding RequiredActionProvider directly during authentication. So
administrator will be still able to add required actions like "Setup TOTP" or
"Setup WebAuthn" to the user and users will
be able to register concrete 2nd factor through new account console with AIA. This will be
still possible.
The configuration of the flow mentioned by Romain, which requires 2nd-factor and allows
user to choose from 3 alternatives will be simplified like this:
Auth type | Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cookie [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Kerberos [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Identity Provider Redirector [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Authenticate with Keycloak [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
| - Username Password Form [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Authenticate with MFA [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
| - OTP [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - WebAuthn [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Hardware Token [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
No separate subflow for "Register MFA" will be needed. Also no conditions will
be involved. The 2nd-factor is required by admin in this case, so after username/password
form, user will see the screen where he can
choose between 3 alternative 2nd-factor credentials to register. This will be triggered
during authentication and orchestrated by authentication flow.
WDYT?
Marek
On 20. 11. 19 12:55, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
An action doesn't just have to be a required action set on the user anymore. We have
support for AIA (application initiated actions, where an application can request the user
to complete an action) as well as actions themselves can encode logic on when they should
execute.
The above doesn't help with the case you are mentioning though with allowing a user to
select between different actions where they are required to enable two-factor
authentication, but have options on what to implement. That is something we have to figure
out pretty soon. My 2 cents on it is that we need an action that can list the options to
the user. Not sure how exactly that should look like though and how it should be wired in
with the code.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 10:46, Poiffaut Romain
<romain.poiffaut@elca.ch<mailto:romain.poiffaut@elca.ch>> wrote:
Hello,
We were also using required actions at the beginning but due to some limitations of
required actions we also had to implement some authenticators to circumvent them.
The main limitation that we have identified is linked to the purpose itself of required
actions, which persists the added action onto the user. In my view, in some cases it may
not be the appropriate tool:
Consider a scenario of a company which enforces 2FA only for external access.
If a user never uses the extranet, he may live without the 2FA.
Let's imagine this user once tries to connect from external premises, a required
action will be automatically added to the user. For some reasons, user changes its mind
and cancels the process. Then he resumes working from the internal network, and does not
need the 2FA. However, the user will still have to register 2FA anyway, since the required
action is still attached to this user
Moreover, the authentication flows are highly customizable, especially with the new
conditional flows. So it sounds an interesting feature to be able to redirect a user to a
flow. That way we would have the benefit of the two mechanisms (high customization of flow
and email sending or AIA).
As an example, we have implemented the multi-factor registration with credential
registration authenticator. With the following flow, the user decides which kind of
credential he want to register among the configured alternatives.
Auth type | Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cookie [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Kerberos [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Identity Provider Redirector [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Authenticate with Keycloak [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
| - Username Password Form [ ] Alternative [x] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Authenticate with MFA [ ] Alternative [ ] Required [x] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
| - Condition User Configured [x] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - OTP [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - WebAuthn [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Hardware Token [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Register MFA [ ] Alternative [ ] Required [x] Conditional [ ]
Disabled
| - Condition User not Configured [x] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - OTP Registration [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - WebAuthn Registration [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
| - Hardware Token Registr. [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
Disabled
Romain
-----Original Message-----
From:
keycloak-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org>
<keycloak-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev-bounces@lists.jboss.org>>
On Behalf Of Stian Thorgersen
Sent: mercredi, 20 novembre 2019 08:43
To: Marek Posolda <mposolda@redhat.com<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>>
Cc: keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Authentication flows - follow-up tasks and usability
improvements
A multi-step action is something completely different to supporting custom flows per
action though.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 16:09, Marek Posolda
<mposolda@redhat.com<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
I guess it could be the case when some "action" requires
multiple screens?
For example "passport validation" would consider of 4 separate
steps/forms and each of them needs to be properly filled by the user.
I can see it can be useful that action points to the custom flow, but
also not sure how common this use-case is...
Marek
On 19. 11. 19 15:33, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
I agree it would be good to be able to configure actions. I guess
that's the main reason you're using an authenticator and not an
action? I think using an action instead would be simpler in your case than an
authenticator.
One way you could configure the action until we have support for
configurable actions would be to just use some custom realm attributes.
To be honest I don't fully understand why you need a custom flow. As
it seems you just have an action for the user to validate their
identity, which based on some condition should be triggered during login.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 13:02, Johannes Knutsen
<johannes@kodet.no<mailto:johannes@kodet.no>> wrote:
> Hard to tell how wide the usage is/would be and it probably varies a
> lot between business sectors. I will be happy to present our use
> cases in more details if you are interested.
>
> Your proposed solution is basically the way we solved it, but the
> required actions are hard to make generic to be used in different
> realms because the don't have any configuration per realm. So at
> least have them configurable per realm would help a lot.
> The basic terms and condition is quite simple and in our case the
> code because quite complex when we must design the flow in code.
> In some cases we have also used a custom authenticator in the
> registration flow, but it seems like executors marked as Required in
> the registration flow can be bypassed by registering the user and
> then go to reset password and trigger the reset password flow. This
> case is solved by adding the same authenticator to the reset password
> flow, but then we end up with duplicate configuration. Is this by
> design or is it a bug or unwanted side effect of how this is designed?
>
I'd say it seems like it's valid behavior and the unwanted side
effects is probably more down to the fact that you are trying to write
an action as an authenticator.
If a user completes the registration form, but then abandons the flow,
they are free to continue from any other flow. To prevent that you'd
have to make sure your custom registration flow doesn't have a valid
user until after it has gone through all the steps required. Not sure
how easy that would be, but again it feels like it's down to using the
wrong tool for the job (authenticator vs action).
>
> If anyone else in the community have made custom required actions, it
> would be nice to hear about it. I like the concept they represent and
> to have them a little more flexible would make some authentication
> flows simpler in our cases.
>
Perhaps it would be best to start a new thread around this as it's
buried within a different topic at the moment.
>
> - Johannes
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:18 PM Stian Thorgersen
> <sthorger@redhat.com<mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > It makes sense, but not convinced about the approach with custom
> > flows
> for required actions. I think that would be quite a lot of effort and
> at the same time not have a wide use.
> >
> > Actions can already have logic within the action itself on whether
> > or
> not it should be triggered during a login. It seems in your use-case
> that would be sufficient. One way you could do that is to add a
> custom attribute to the user "identity.verified", when you want the
> action to trigger you set the attribute to "not-verified" then the
> action would set it to "verified" when user has verified their
> identity. Would be similar to terms and condition.
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 10:16, Johannes Knutsen
<johannes@kodet.no<mailto:johannes@kodet.no>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> One specific use-case is identity verification of users using
> >> passport or other types of identity papers. Such a process is
> >> typically a default required action which is required before the
> >> user is allowed to login. But there are also cases where a user
> >> must be identified at a later point of time. This could be
> >> triggered by some external system which would add the required action to the
user entity in Keycloak.
> >> For example an external fraud system could flag the user as a
> >> suspect and add the required action to the user. Scheduling of
> >> required action would also be an interesting model, where you
> >> could configure Keycloak to run a required action every x days.
> >>
> >> The process of identification is typically a complete flow which
> >> could involve several required steps and must be configurable. The
> >> current required actions does not seem to have any way of adding
> >> configuration properties? And it would be nice if we could model
> >> this flow as a flow in Keycloak the same way we model
> >> authentication and registration browser flow.
> >> Currently, the best way we have found is to create a custom
> >> authenticator which is added to registration, password reset, and
> >> authentication flows. But this requires us to configure the
> >> authenticators multiple times with the possibility of
> >> inconsistencies between the configuration.
> >>
> >> Another example is the current required action "UpdateProfile",
> >> which does all the verification logic itself. But instead, the
> >> UpdateProfile action could have been an UpateProfile flow which
> >> defined several required or alternative actions which defined the
> >> process of UpdateProfile. The required action would then just point to that
flow.
> >>
> >> Does this make sense?
> >>
> >> - Johannes
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 9:25 PM Marek Posolda
> >> <mposolda@redhat.com<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the feedback. But I am not 100% sure I understand
> >> > your
> use-case.
> >> >
> >> > If I understand correctly, at some point, you want the user to
> >> > do something - for example confirm his contact details. Is this
> something,
> >> > which administrator should specify (EG. administrator will need
> >> > to
> add
> >> > requiredAction to the user in admin console) or is it something
> >> > requested by some applications?
> >> >
> >> > Maybe AIA and step-up authentication is solution for your
> >> > use-case,
> but
> >> > will be good to clarify exactly how your ideal use-case looks like.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Marek
> >> >
> >> > On 15. 11. 19 21:24, Johannes Knutsen wrote:
> >> > > Sorry if you find this a little off topic, but I found this
> discussion
> >> > > interesting.
> >> > > Regarding RequiredActions, we have some use cases where we
> >> > > would
> like
> >> > > to build custom required flows. For example for user
> >> > > identification (think scanning of passports), regular
> >> > > confirmation of contact
> details
> >> > > and so on.
> >> > > From our point of view, a required action where you could
> >> > > specify
> a
> >> > > custom authentication flow the same way you select a flow for
> >> > > IdP First/Post login flow, would be really nice. This way you
> >> > > could
> mostly
> >> > > reuse existing logic and flexibility.
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you have any thoughts on how much changes this would
> >> > > require? Do you have other more specific thoughts on how
> >> > > required actions
> could be
> >> > > more flexible. Currently, I find them a little useless since
> >> > > they
> are
> >> > > not configurable as regular authenticators.
> >> > >
> >> > > Johannes
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:27 AM Marek Posolda <
> mposolda@redhat.com<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >> > >> On 13. 11. 19 12:52, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 22:00, Marek Posolda
> >> > >>> <mposolda@redhat.com<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>
<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com<mailto:mposolda@redhat.com>>> wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Based on the discussion within Keycloak team and
with
> CloudTrust team
> >> > >>> and also based on the other facts, there are still
> >> > >>> quite a
> few
> >> > >>> follow-up
> >> > >>> tasks regarding usability and further improvements.
It
> >> > >>> will
> be
> >> > >>> good to
> >> > >>> clarify the priorities of the follow-up tasks and
also
> >> > >>> how
> exactly to
> >> > >>> address them. Regarding usability, it will be nice
to
> receive
> >> > >>> feedback,
> >> > >>> so we're on the same page how screens should look
like.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> 1) Improvement for end-user during authentication
in
> regards to
> >> > >>> select
> >> > >>> alternative credential for authentication. This is
> something,
> >> > >>> which we
> >> > >>> discussed within the Keycloak team. The idea is to
> >> > >>> provide
> users the
> >> > >>> same/similar screens like Google does. We are a bit
more
> >> > >>> constrained as
> >> > >>> Google doesn't allow administrators to have
custom
> authentication
> >> > >>> flows
> >> > >>> and hence doesn't need to care too much about
various corner
> >> > >>> cases. So
> >> > >>> not sure if we can achieve same usability for all
the
> possible
> >> > >>> authentication flow configurations. But we probably
> >> > >>> have a
> space for
> >> > >>> improvement here.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I've created google docs
> >> > >>>
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13PpcT26WPTC7v34hS6rj8U63xyZx4
> lZrPdeHF7qLkdU/edit?usp=sharing
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> with some example scenarios how could authentication
of
> >> > >>> end
> user
> >> > >>> looks
> >> > >>> like for particular authentication flow
configuration
> >> > >>> and
> for
> >> > >>> particular
> >> > >>> set of credentials available to target user.
Comments
> should be
> >> > >>> allowed
> >> > >>> to anyone, so feel free to comment here or in the
docs.
> Also if
> >> > >>> you have
> >> > >>> idea for some more use-cases to cover, feel free to
> >> > >>> write
> here.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> IMO this looks like quite a priority as it affects
end-users
> >> > >>> usability
> >> > >>> and hence will be nice to have this before
February?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Added some comments, but would be good to go through this
in
> person.
> >> > >>> Can we have a chat sometime early next week?
> >> > >> Sure, I will try to schedule something. Replied to some of
> >> > >> your
> comments.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> 2) More flexibility around conditional
authenticators
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Some basic ideas, which we discussed within
Keycloak
> >> > >>> team
> around
> >> > >>> conditional authenticators are:
> >> > >>> - Ability that each condition is able to
"vote" rather
> >> > >>> than
> have
> >> > >>> requirements on conditional executions. It could be
> something
> >> > >>> similar to
> >> > >>> authorization policies available in Keycloak
> >> > >>> authorization
> services.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> - Ability to compound conditions based on
"AND" / "OR"
> logical
> >> > >>> conditions. For example allow easily to configure
that
> particular
> >> > >>> subflow will be triggered if (condition1 == true ||
> (condition2 ==
> >> > >>> true
> >> > >>> && condition3 == true)
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> - Ability to configure conditions. For example
ability
> >> > >>> to
> have
> >> > >>> positive/negative logic for RoleCondition similarly
like
> >> > >>> RolePolicy in
> >> > >>> authorization services has.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> - Ability to integrate with the 3rd party engine
for
> adaptive
> >> > >>> authentication
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> - Ability for administrators to clearly see how
> >> > >>> conditions
> are
> >> > >>> evaluated. Ideally have same/similar level of
> >> > >>> flexibility
> like
> >> > >>> Authorization policies have
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I can try to do some more concrete proposal with
> >> > >>> example of
> screens,
> >> > >>> hopefully later this week. If anyone wants to start
on
> >> > >>> some
> proposal
> >> > >>> around this before, feel free to go. IMO this is
> >> > >>> something,
> which
> >> > >>> doesn't have so big priority like (1) as it
doesn't
> >> > >>> affect
> end users.
> >> > >>> The question is, whether to postpone improvements
around
> >> > >>> conditions to
> >> > >>> later next year when we start on step-up
authentication
> (which will
> >> > >>> require good flexibility around conditions and
hence
> >> > >>> should
> help to
> >> > >>> naturally address this)
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I found the ability to configure requirement on a
condition
> strange
> >> > >>> and confusing. Perhaps we should enable/disable
conditions
> >> > >>> for
> now,
> >> > >>> then consider something more powerful next year. We can
chat
> about
> >> > >>> this as well on GMeet next week.
> >> > >> Yes, so probably have just something like ENABLED/DISABLED
on
> >> > >> the conditions for now? Or don't have any checkbox/switch
and
> automatically
> >> > >> assume that condition, which is in the authentication flow
is
> enabled.
> >> > >> Then admin can remove the condition if he wants to
"disable"
> >> > >> it. I probably vote for that option.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> 3) Usability improvements in the admin console in
the
> "Authentication
> >> > >>> flows" screen. The plan is to rewrite admin
console in
> >> > >>> the
> future and
> >> > >>> improve on various screens, however until that is
done,
> >> > >>> we
> can
> >> > >>> probably
> >> > >>> improve usability a bit even in the current admin
> >> > >>> console
> to make the
> >> > >>> things slightly more friendly for the administrators.
I
> consider
> >> > >>> those
> >> > >>> things a low hanging fruits in comparison to (2)
and
> >> > >>> hence
> hopefully
> >> > >>> doable before February.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-12013 Hide
the
> subflows
> >> > >>> if the
> >> > >>> parent flow is disabled
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> +1
> >> > >> Ok
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Question is, how exactly to hide the authenticators of
> >> > >> disabled
> subflow,
> >> > >> so that UI is nice and clear for the administrators... IMO
it
> will be
> >> > >> nice if it is still somehow visible that there are some
> >> > >> hidden authenticators in the disabled subflow. Maybe they
can
> >> > >> be somehow collapsed and should be some tooltip or
something,
> >> > >> that those authenticators are disabled.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11968 Ensure
that
> >> > >>> REQUIRED and
> >> > >>> ALTERNATIVE executions are not mixed at same level.
> ALTERNATIVE
> >> > >>> executions are defacto ignored/disabled when they are
used
> >> > >>> together with
> >> > >>> REQUIRED executions, hence it will be nice if admin
is
> aware of
> >> > >>> that and
> >> > >>> won't have possibility to configure ALTERNATIVE
at same
> level as
> >> > >>> REQUIRED (or at least is WARNED somehow that this
> configuration
> >> > >>> doesn't
> >> > >>> makes sense and ALTERNATIVES will be ignored).
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Need to see how it behaves after the updates, but I
would
> >> > >>> think
> being
> >> > >>> able to set requirement on an authenticator within a
> >> > >>> sub-flow
> where
> >> > >>> they are all alternatives doesn't make sense.
> >> > >> Ok
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The question is again, how to do that in the UI. I can try
to
> >> > >> do
> some
> >> > >> screenshots / HTML templates and maybe look at some
> >> > >> Patternfly components regarding this.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11824 When
> authentication
> >> > >>> execution is added, we should make sure that some
> REQUIREMENT is
> >> > >>> selected by default
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I would focus on usability improvements on changing the
> >> > >>> default
> flows
> >> > >>> for now, then we can polish custom flows later.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I was actually thinking that the default flows should
not
> >> > >>> use
> the flow
> >> > >>> UI at all, but rather some more high-level options.
> >> > >> I am not 100% sure if having 2 different UI is good? What
you
> describe
> >> > >> below can be configured with the current authentication flow
UI.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I can see that having "simple" UI, which will just
allow
> >> > >> enable
> 1st
> >> > >> factor and 2nd factor authenticators have some advantages,
> >> > >> but it probably have some side-effects too. More work for
us,
> >> > >> more
> potential
> >> > >> for bugs. It may be also less clear for administrators how
to
> configure
> >> > >> custom authentication flow as they won't see what
happens
> >> > >> during
> the
> >> > >> default flow and hence they can't "inspire" from
it.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Just to illustrate the idea (not sensible options):
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Identity first login: [ON]
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Delegated
> >> > >>> -------------
> >> > >>> Cookie: [ON]
> >> > >>> Kerberos: [configure]
> >> > >>> IdP redirect: [configure]
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> First-factor
> >> > >>> --------------
> >> > >>> Password: [ON]
> >> > >>> WebAuthn: [ON]
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Second-factor
> >> > >>> ------------------
> >> > >>> OTP: [ON]
> >> > >>> WebAuthn: [ON]
> >> > >>> Backup Codes: [ON]
> >> > >> Few points regarding this:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> - Right now, the default login form in the browser flow is
> >> > >> still "Username / password" form. The multi-factor
prototype
> >> > >> didn't
> change
> >> > >> this default behaviour. Should we change the default form to
> >> > >> be username-only form, so that next form can be adjusted
> >> > >> based on
> which
> >> > >> credentials the particular user has? Basically have
something
> >> > >> like Google? The side-effect is, that having UsernameForm as
> >> > >> default
> allows
> >> > >> "username enumeration", but that IMO is not big
issue for
> >> > >> most of
> the
> >> > >> deployments.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> - I think there will be usually different requirements for
> >> > >> the "First-factor WebAuthn" and "second-factor
WebAuthn" .
> >> > >> For example "First-factor WebAuthn" may require
WebAuthn
> >> > >> authenticator with
> >> > >> "UserRequirement: REQUIRED" when the second-factor
just
> >> > >> "UserRequirement: PRESENT" . However we still have
this
> limitation that
> >> > >> there is single WebAuthn configuration (WebAuthn policy) per
> >> > >> whole realm. Same for OTP. So I think we may need to address
this first.
> >> > >> Perhaps we can have a way, so that administrator can
> >> > >> configure
> multiple
> >> > >> "Credential configuration" instances of same
credential type
> >> > >> in
> the
> >> > >> realm. Then he can link the particular "credential
configuration"
> with
> >> > >> the Authenticator in the flow. So that the "First-factor
WebAuthn"
> >> > >> authenticator has the configuration with the
UserRequirement:
> REQUIRED"
> >> > >> and the second-factor with PRESENT.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think this can be doable before February, we just need to
> >> > >> agree
> on
> >> > >> priorities.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> - We probably need some more flexibility regarding
> RequiredActions.
> >> > >> Basically have a possibility to have required action like
> "Register 2nd
> >> > >> factor credential" . So user will be required to register
the
> >> > >> credential, but he should be able to choose which credential
> >> > >> he registers. IMO this is pretty complex thing, which may
> >> > >> require
> separate
> >> > >> design documents. I have some doubts we can do it before
> February...
> >> > >>
> >> > >>>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11969 Hide
the
> conditional
> >> > >>> authenticator if it is configured outside of
> >> > >>> conditional
> flow.
> >> > >>> This JIRA
> >> > >>> is related to the conditional executions and hence I
am
> >> > >>> not
> sure
> >> > >>> whether
> >> > >>> to address it together with other improvements
related
> >> > >>> to
> conditional
> >> > >>> authenticators. However it is low hanging fruit in
> comparison to
> >> > >>> (2), so
> >> > >>> probably doable.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> +1 Would also be good to make sure Conditions look
different
> >> > >>> +to
> >> > >>> Authenticators
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> 4) Other usability improvements. Similarly like
(3),
> >> > >>> those
> are low
> >> > >>> hanging fruits and likely doable before February.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-12011
Remove
> cancel
> >> > >>> button from
> >> > >>> OTP form. IMO it will be better for usability if
"Cancel"
> button is
> >> > >>> removed from the OTP form. Form already has the
"Back"
> button, which
> >> > >>> provides more flexiblity. This is a bit related to
the
> topic (1).
> >> > >>> WDYT?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> See my comment on the slides. I don't think we should
have
> cancel or
> >> > >>> back buttons. We should have:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> * Something that displays the select user, with an option
to
> start
> >> > >>> from scratch to select another user.
> >> > >>> * "Try another way" to select a different
credential for the
> >> > >>> corresponding step.
> >> > >> Ok, so cancel button should be removed. Regarding
"Back"
> >> > >> button, I replied on the slides.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11922
Apply
> password history
> >> > >>> policy when password reset by admin. After applying
> multi-factor
> >> > >>> prototype, the password history policy is not
applied
> >> > >>> when
> password
> >> > >>> reset by admin. It is applied just in case when it
is
> >> > >>> reset
> by user
> >> > >>> himself. IMO this behaviour is fine and can even
have
> better security
> >> > >>> (The case when admin randomly guess the password of
> >> > >>> some
> user can
> >> > >>> cause
> >> > >>> admin to be tempted to try this password against
some
> >> > >>> other
> web
> >> > >>> application and authenticate as that user). Any
> >> > >>> preference
> on the
> >> > >>> behaviour?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I don't think we should change the behavior from what
it was
> previously.
> >> > >> Ok
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Marek
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Thanks for the feedback,
> >> > >>> Marek
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> _______________________________________________
> >> > >>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >> > >>>
keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:
<mailto:%0b>>>
keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> >> > >>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >> > >>>
> >> > >> _______________________________________________
> >> > >> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >> > >>
keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> >> > >>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org<mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev