We should provide this level of fine-grained permissions only to admins
within the realm. That will simplify both the model as well as the UI for
it. Admins in the master realm should be considered "super users" and as
such there is no need to be able to finely control what they can access.
I still want to see the master realm eventually going away and instead
levering identity brokering as a way to allow admins from one realm to
admin other realms. Not sure that's something we can introduce in a minor
update of RH-SSO though and that would probably have to wait for RH-SSO 8.
Benefits here is that permissions are managed within a single realm and
there is no restriction that both the master realm and the other realm has
to be on the same server. With some automatic "linking" of realms and a bit
of clever UI work we should be able to make it as easy to use as todays
master realm.
Within a realm it should be possible to define a subset of the users,
clients and roles that a specific admin can view and/or manage. It should
leverage the authorization services. Would be great if it's done in such a
way that it would be possible to customize it with your own policies.
On 11 March 2017 at 14:18, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I'm looking into how we could implement fine-grain admin
permissions
with Pedro's Authz service, i.e. fix our long standing bug that
manage-users allows people to grant themselves admin roles. I want to
do an exercise of how certain things can be modeled, specific user role
mappings.
Some things we want to be able to do
* admin can only assign specific roles to users
* admin can only assign specific roles to users of a specific group
The entire realm would be a Authz resource server. There's already a
client (resource server) for the realm "realm-management".
- A Scope of "user-role-mapping" would be defined.
These resources would be defined and would have the "user-role-mapping"
scope attached to them.
* "Users" resource. This resource represents all users in the system
* A resource is created per role
* A resource is created per group
Now, when managing roles for a user, we need to ask two questions:
1. Can the admin manage role mappings for this user?
2. Can the admin manage role mappings for this role?
For the first question, let's map the current behavior of Keycloak onto
the Authz service.
* A scoped-base permission would be created for the "Users" resource
with a scope of "user-role-mapping" and a role policy of role
"manage-users".
When role mapping happens, the operation would make an entitlement
request for "Users" with a scope of "user-role-mapping". This would
pass by default because of the default permission defined above. Now
what about the case where we only want an admin to be able to manage
roles for a specific group? In this case we define a resource for the
Group Foo. The Group Foo would be attached to the "user-role-mapping"
scope. Then the realm admin would define a scope-based permission for
the Group Foo resource and "user-role-mapping". For example, there
might be a "foo-admin" role. The scope permission could grant the
permission if the admin has the "foo-admin" role.
So, if the "Users"->"user-role-mapping" evaluation fails, the
role
mapping operation would then cycle through each Group of the user being
managed and see if "Group Foo"->"user-role-mapping" evaluates
correctly.
That's only half of a solution to our problem. We also want to control
what roles an admin is allowed to manage. In this case we would have a
resource defined for each role in the system. A scoped-based permission
would be created for the role's resource and the "user-role-mapping"
scope. For example, let's say we wanted to say that only admins with
the "admin-role-mapper" role can assign admin roles like
"manage-users"
or "manage-realm". For the "manage-realm" role resource, we would
define a scoped-based permission for "user-role-mapping" with a role
policy of "admin-role-mapper".
So, let's put this all together. The role mapping operation would do
these steps:
1. Can the admin manage role mappings for this user?
1.1 Evaluate that admin can access "user-role-mapping" scope for
"Users"
resource. If success, goto 2.
1.2 For each group of the user being managed, evaluate that the admin
can access "user-role-mapping" scope for that Group. If success goto 2
1.3 Fail the role mapping operation
2. Is the admin allowed to assign the specific role?
2.1 Evaluate that the admin can access the "user-role-mapping" scope for
the role's resource.
_______________________________________________
keycloak-dev mailing list
keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev