On 24 June 2016 at 16:02, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger@redhat.com> wrote:

On 24 June 2016 at 16:00, John Dennis <jdennis@redhat.com> wrote:
On 06/24/2016 09:52 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:

On 24 June 2016 at 15:07, Bruno Oliveira <bruno@abstractj.org
<mailto:bruno@abstractj.org>> wrote:

On 2016-06-23, Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> On 6/23/16 2:56 PM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> > On 2016-06-23, Bill Burke wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/23/16 12:25 PM, John Dennis wrote:
> > > > On 06/23/2016 10:00 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> > > > > Good morning,
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the use case scenarios described for FreeIPA, is
the integration via PAM
> > > > > and SSSD, which "automagically" handles the authentication
against the IdM.
> > > > >
> > > > > This first step requires pretty much an IPA setup, but
> > > > > works with libpam4j[1]. Now, thinking about Keycloak, I
> > > > > would like to have an Authenticator for PAM[2], which is
pretty much our
> > > > > UsernamePasswordForm + PAM. Does it make sense?
> > > > >
> > > > > Current flow:
> > > > >
> > > > > * User logs into Web application with username/password
> > > > > * PAM authenticator collects data and authenticate against PAM
> > > > > * SSSD authenticates against IdM
> > > > > * Authentication is complete
> > > > >
> > > > > After the last step, should we propagate that user to our
database?
> > > > > Maybe, like Marek already mentioned, have a
SSSDFederationProvider?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] -
> > > > >
http://search.maven.org/#artifactdetails%7Corg.abstractj%7Clibpam4j%7C1.9.0%7Cjar
> > > > > [2] -
https://keycloak.gitbooks.io/server-developer-guide/content/topics/auth-spi.html
> > > >
> > > > Simo brought up a concern after forwarding this to our
internal identity
> > > > team list. His comment is:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Current flow:
> > > > >
> > > > > * User logs into Web application with username/password
> > > > > * PAM authenticator collects data and authenticate
against PAM
> > > >
> > > > I am worried about how these 2 steps are expressed, it seem
to imply PAM
> > > > is used only as a username/password verifier.
> > > > There is no mention/awarness of PAM conversations where we
can prompt
> > > > for things like second factors or password changes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok, I've spent maybe 20 seconds googling into what PAM
conversations are
> > > "PAM example conversation code". You'll have to explain to
me why PAM
> > > conversations have any relevance to web login. Just looking
at this
> > > example:
> > >
> > >
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/pam/pam-sample-conv.html
> > >
> > > It looks as if PAM conversations are targeted to simple text
logins
> > > (i.e. SSH, telnet, etc.). Pushing and pulling text to and
from stdin
> > > and stdout. What does that have to do with web login?
> >
> > Your question is totally fair. And the reason why we have to
integrate
> > with PAM is pretty much because there's no DBus interface for SSSD
> > to provide username/password. Otherwise we would just communicate
> > directly with DBus and call it a day.
> >
>
> This is solely to allow keycloak to update passwords? Not really
> understanding here.

Not really Bill, to give you more context. Login through PAM is just one
of the scenarios described by Dmitri at slide #19[1].

* User starts browser and connects to a resource
* Resource redirects to Keycloak
* User is presented with a login form
* User fills username and password
* User data is collected and passed to SSSD over D-Bus

Here, we can't provide username/password to SSSD, because we don't have
a DBus interface for it. So instead, we make use of PAM to make it
happen.

Isn't the flow actually:

* User starts browser and connects to a resource
* Resource redirects to Keycloak
* User is presented with a login form
* User fills username and password
* Username and password is verified through PAM (in the future SSSD once
that becomes available) - this should be a custom authenticator
* User profile is retrieved from SSSD over D-Bus - this should be a
custom user federation provider
* Done

Yes, this is a good summary Stian and clearly articulates the immediate first implementation.

I think the only additional thing is sometime down the road it might not just be one login form, you might be prompted for additional information. But that is *not* part of the requirements for the first implementation as I understand it. Just don't box yourself into a corner by prohibiting it down the road.

We can support authentication over multiple steps as we already do that for OTP. However, the problem will be with regards to the conversation as this would require sticky sessions if clustered to make sure the second step is sent to the same node. Can't PAM verify the two independently? First password, then separately OTP? That would make it much simpler and stateless.

* SSSD authenticates against AD
* Authentication complete (against FreeIPA)

This is where I need some help to define what would be the best next
step for us.

* Assertion/token is issued
* User is redirected to the resource

In this scenario nothing is stored/updated on Keycloak.

>
> > The goal is pretty much to be used for Basic Authentication.
> >
> > >
> > > As for PAM itself, it looks like it is a library. (again a 20 second
> >
> > It's pretty much a low level authentication module to support multiple
> > schemes like: login, ftp, ssh, telnet...(you certainly found it already)
> >
> > > Google search). What I don't know is where PAM ends and SSSD takes
> > > over. So its hard to give you advice.
> >
> > This is how it happens from my understanding:
> >
> > 1. We start the PAM conversation from our client application (a IPA client machine),
> > pam_sss is contacted (SSSD)
> > 2. SSSD's PAM responder receives the authentication request and forwards
> > it to FreeIPA server
> > 3. FreeIPA server process the request and returns the result back to PAM
> > responder.
> >
> > The data flow is better described here (https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/InternalsDocs#a3.2.2.2.DataFlowPAMResponder).
> >
>
> It looks like a conversation requires some sort of session object or session
> connection. Remember, a web login can span multiple requests and could
> possibly be serviced on different machines. Sounds like any integration
> with PAM is going to be quite limited. Maybe that's what you are getting
> at?

I fully understand that, certainly something that requires more testing
to see how SSSD will behave with PAM.

>
> Or are you just talking about writing a client adapter and this has nothing
> to do with the Keycloak auth server?

Good question. My initial naive idea was to have an authenticator SPI
for PAM and benefit from the work already done by Marek with LDAP and
Kerberos. Plus, have a federation SPI to retrieve user's data from SSSD
and propagate it to Keycloak.

>
> Also, where does the identity data come into play (aka LDAP info)? Is this
> also a part of the PAM/SSSD flow?

At the flow described here#17[2]:

* User starts browser and connects to a resource
* Resource redirects to Keycloak
* User is presented with a login form
* User fills username and password
* User data is collected and passed to SSSD over D-Bus
* SSSD authenticates against LDAP server
* Authentication complete
* Assertion/token is issued
* User is redirected to the resource

>
> Bill

[1] -
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-WvQTQ1M0Q9kfRl3d7FVWFn9GLL7vn8sAQmXGv0SVcs/edit#slide=id.g113bf6b186_1_130
[2] -
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-WvQTQ1M0Q9kfRl3d7FVWFn9GLL7vn8sAQmXGv0SVcs/edit#slide=id.g113bf6b186_1_107
--

abstractj
PGP: 0x84DC9914
_______________________________________________
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
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev

--
John