Re: [keycloak-dev] user groups vs. client groups

We're only providing parts of RBAC now. The complete picture is what Pedro is working on with his AuthZ service.

From the definitions above we're actually only providing S and R. SE is not a group as a group doesn't provide any permissions.

I'm not 100% sure what the group would be in the above, but I would think it's just part of S. A group is simply a means of assigning a role to a group of users. On 5 November 2015 at 20:24, Stan Silvert <ssilvert(a)redhat.com <mailto:ssilvert@redhat.com>> wrote: We could do a lot worse than just following the basic RBAC design described on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-based_access_control Right now we're arguing over both definitions AND implementations. It's impossible to design this over email if we can't even settle on definitions. Therefore, I propose we just use the definitions in wikipedia. At least it's neutral. * S = Subject = A person or automated agent * R = Role = Job function or title which defines an authority level * P = Permissions = An approval of a mode of access to a resource * SE = Session = A mapping involving S, R and/or P * SA = Subject Assignment * PA = Permission Assignment * RH = Partially ordered Role Hierarchy. RH can also be written: ≥ (The notation: x ≥ y means that x inherits the permissions of y.) o A subject can have multiple roles. o A role can have multiple subjects. o A role can have many permissions. o A permission can be assigned to many roles. o An operation can be assigned many permissions. o A permission can be assigned to many operations. Note: In my mind, S = keycloak user, and SE = keycloak group. But whatever, as long as we agree on definitions we can then decide what flavor of RBAC to implement. On 11/5/2015 1:44 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > > > On 5 November 2015 at 15:01, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com > <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > On 11/5/2015 6:23 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > > > > On 3 November 2015 at 22:20, Bill Burke > <bburke(a)redhat.com <mailto:bburke@redhat.com> > <mailto:bburke@redhat.com <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>>> wrote: > > In my previous email I talked about combining Groups > and Role > Namespaces. Now I want to talk about User Groups vs. > Client Groups. > > User Groups would manage a set of users. Members > would automatically > inherit a set of "permissions": a set of roles. User > Groups would also > provide a set of attributes that the user inherits. > > > Permission != role > > > I'd like to introduce the concept of a Client Group. > Client Group would > have: > > * Roles - basically a role namespace > > > -1 Having roles tied to a client or client group is > exactly what we > should go away from. IMO role namespaces should be a > completely separate > thing. > > > I don't agree at all. If User Groups and Client Groups > exist, there is no need for role namespaces. It is stupid to > have to create another concept (role namespace) to define the > roles one specific client or a group of clients expects. > > > I've never the concept of realm and client roles. It's been > difficult to explain and strange to use. I've always just used > realm roles. It's a strange and limiting concept. Introducing > client groups with further places to define roles just makes > matters even worse. Now users have two go 3 different places to > define roles: > > * Realm > * Client Groups > * Clients > > What happens if a client group and a client both have the same > role by the way? > > It's a strange limitation. At least personally if I was using > Keycloak I would simply use realm roles alone and define my own > hierarchy with a delimiter. > > It's much better to have a single place to define roles, under > the roles tab. Then allow users can define the > namespaces/hierarchy they want. > > Role namespaces are easier to deal with and at the same time more > flexible. > > I just don't see any reason why we would have roles specific to a > client or client group. > > > If you combine Role namespace and Groups you can define > things like a group admin role. Roles that mean something to > the group. > > > Each Client Group would have some default roles > defined. i.e. roles > that allow a user to edit any client in the client group. > > > I don't understand this > > > A Client Group could have a "client group admin" role. If a > user has that role it can manage clients in the group. > Another role might be "client membership admin". This role > allows a user to add or remove clients from the group. > > Conversely, user groups could have a "user group admin". > When granted, this role allows a user to manage users in the > group. YOu can also do things like define a "Manager" role > for the group. This "Manager" would be granted "user group > admin" privileges and also granted access to other systems > like "HR", "Attendence", "Benefits", etc. > > I think this permission concept should be built into Keycloak > as it is a core feature. I'll write u a separate email about > this. > > > This is another reason why we need role namespaces. With a role > namespace we can define internal roles that then don't end up > conflicting with users own roles. For example as we have a role > admin atm users can't define their own admin role and will have > to name it differently. > > I think the fact that we have internal abstract clients to be > able to create a namespace for internal admin roles speaks for > itself. > > > > > > Each Client would have the same configuration > options. They would be > able to have an additional set of roles, permissions, > scope, and > overridable Protocol Policies. > > > Same comment as above - why would a client have > roles/permissions? I > assume we where moving away from that with role namespaces > > > Again, I think role namespaces are redundant. > > A client can define a set of roles that it offers. A service > account (the client) can have roles associated with it so it > can do certain actions. > > > Some will want to have roles associated with a client > (email-user), but others have organizational wide roles (manager, > sales-guy, etc..). Role namespaces can deal with both, but client > roles can't. > > > > > > -- > Bill Burke > JBoss, a division of Red Hat > http://bill.burkecentral.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > keycloak-dev mailing list > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-dev@lists.jboss.org> > 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