Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker

From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 1:13:08 PM Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker I'll go for it then. Will remove the icon url from the model and leave that for users if they want to provide icons for their identity providers. My point is that icons can be usually served by the same server/application or proxy, so download images are not such a big deal. Also, the icon url is part of the freemarker model and people can do what ever they want with it. What I think will also help in your future plans.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:04:33 AM Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:55:21 PM > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker > > Users can now specify a Icon Url to be rendered on the login page when > social > or any other identity provider is configured. So we just load the image the > url entered by the user. > > Are you saying that users should change the theme or customize css if they > only want to change an icon for a provider ? Yes, there's many issues with having a icon url: * Won't work for internationalization - we don't have this now, but we will * Image is not a good button - CSS is much better * Doesn't support themes - we allow users to switch l&f by switching themes, but that won't work for a icon url. In the future we may also support multiple themes per-realm, for example to depending on the devices (one theme for mobiles, one for desktops, etc) * Requires the URL to be hosted somewhere - why require a separate call to download an image (to a separate server maybe) if it can simply be defined in a single CSS file? Rather than add additional places to define look and feel components we should in the future make it easier to add/customize themes. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 9:42:15 AM > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker > > All look and feel related things including images and stylesheets should be > part of themes. This is to allow customizing them in the theme. Also, an > image is not the correct way to render a button, it should be defined in > CSS. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:34:45 PM > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker > > > > You shouldn't have icon images for social providers. They should be > > specified > > as part of the theme in CSS as is now. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:22:21 PM > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication > > > Broker > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Anyone know where I can get the icons images for social providers ? > > > It > > > seems zocial defines them encoded in some way in CSS. I need that > > > to > > > provide default images if user does not specify their own. > > > > > > Or is still possible to use zocial ones ? > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:01:38 PM > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication > > > Broker > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > I've done some initial work covering both persistence and brokering. > > > No > > > UI, yet. I'm focused on the model, rest api and brokering > > > functionality > > > for now. > > > > > > What I have is enough to decide if we are aligned about this > > > functionality. So you can understand how the model (and > > > persistence), > > > rest api and brokering functionality looks like. Can we schedule a > > > meeting ? > > > > > > Btw, my branch is here [1]. > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/pedroigor/keycloak/tree/authentication-broker2 > > > > > > Regards. > > > Pedro Igor > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:48:49 PM > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication > > > Broker > > > > > > Currently adapters can only make authz decisions (@RolesAllowed) based > > > on either realm roles or the roles of one specific application. This > > > is > > > related to 1) too. > > > > > > On 11/20/2014 11:40 AM, Bolesław Dawidowicz wrote: > > > > 1) Sounds like something definitely worth aiming for. > > > > > > > > On 11/20/2014 09:55 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > > > >> I just wanted to quickly list the additional work we discussed so > > > >> everyone > > > >> can think about it (in no particular order): > > > >> > > > >> 1) Mapping of tokens - how do we deal with mapping of an external > > > >> token > > > >> to > > > >> a KC token? For example an external token with attribute 'group' > > > >> that > > > >> contains 'sales' and 'manager' could be mapped to 'manager' role for > > > >> 'sales app in a KC token. Could we use Drools? This could also be > > > >> used > > > >> in > > > >> user federation to allow more complex mapping of roles/groups than a > > > >> simple 1-1 > > > >> 2) Retrieving tokens - if an application wants to retrieve the > > > >> external > > > >> token (for example to view Facebook friends if user logged in with > > > >> Facebook) > > > >> 3) Configure scope - currently for social we only request a very > > > >> limited > > > >> scope (basic profile and email), to for example view Facebook > > > >> friends > > > >> we'd need to ask for that as well > > > >> 4) Selecting provider - currently in social (and for first pass of > > > >> brokering) we have an icon user has to select, but can we select the > > > >> provider in a different way (for example ask user for email, and > > > >> select > > > >> based on email domain) > > > >> 5) Gateway - don't create a KC token, but just forward the external > > > >> token > > > >> > > > >> IMO 1) is a killer feature, as it would allow companies to add > > > >> external > > > >> users without having to modify their applications. Issue with 5) is > > > >> that > > > >> applications need to understand more than one token, which would > > > >> require > > > >> rewriting applications. > > > >> > > > >> This work is also somewhat related to other authentication > > > >> mechanisms > > > >> (for > > > >> example Kerberos ticket, LDAP and passwordless). > > > >> > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > >>> To: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > >>> Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 November, 2014 8:27:58 PM > > > >>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication > > > >>> Broker > > > >>> > > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > > > >>>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > >>>> To: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:39:52 PM > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication > > > >>>> Broker > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 11/19/2014 1:22 PM, Pedro Igor Silva wrote: > > > >>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Would like to start a discussion about how to enable KC as > > > >>>>> an > > > >>>>> Authentication Broker in order to supported Chained > > > >>>>> Federation > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>> also Identity Federation. First of all, some background > > > >>>>> about > > > >>>>> what > > > >>>>> this is all about. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Currently KeyCloak provides two basic types of > > > >>>>> authentication > > > >>>>> (correct > > > >>>>> me if I'm wrong, please): > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1) Local authentication (based on some credential type > > > >>>>> enabled > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>> a realm) > > > >>>>> 2) Social authentication > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Local authentication is about authenticating the user > > > >>>>> locally > > > >>>>> using > > > >>>>> KC's own identity store. Nothing special here. And Social > > > >>>>> Authentication which allows users to choose the Social IdP > > > >>>>> they > > > >>>>> want > > > >>>>> to authenticate with. In this case, the IdP is always one > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> built-in social providers supported by KC such as > > > >>>>> Facebook, > > > >>>>> Google, > > > >>>>> Twitter, Github and so forth. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> When doing social, the user is automatically provisioned > > > >>>>> in > > > >>>>> KC > > > >>>>> identity store after a successful authentication. The user > > > >>>>> does > > > >>>>> not > > > >>>>> need to fill a registration form and can access the > > > >>>>> application > > > >>>>> very > > > >>>>> quickly. During the provisioning some basic information is > > > >>>>> retrieved > > > >>>>> from the social provider such as email, firstname and so > > > >>>>> forth. > > > >>>>> These > > > >>>>> are very basic information, any other information such as > > > >>>>> those > > > >>>>> related with authorization policies - eg.: roles and > > > >>>>> groups > > > >>>>> - > > > >>>>> must > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>> defined later via KC's admin console. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Another important characteristic of social authentication > > > >>>>> is > > > >>>>> that > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> application receives a KC token and not the token that was > > > >>>>> issued by > > > >>>>> the social IdP during the authentication process. If the > > > >>>>> application > > > >>>>> wants to consume resources from the resource provider he > > > >>>>> was > > > >>>>> authenticated it must obtain the access token(again) by > > > >>>>> itself > > > >>>>> prior > > > >>>>> to invoke the resource provider API. Assuming all those > > > >>>>> social > > > >>>>> providers are based on oAuth 1.0 or 2.0. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> That said, the Authentication Broker functionality aims to > > > >>>>> cover > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> same use cases but with a lot of more flexibility on how > > > >>>>> you > > > >>>>> setup > > > >>>>> identity providers(not only social ones) and the different > > > >>>>> federation > > > >>>>> protocols they may support such as SAML, OpenID, oAuth and > > > >>>>> so > > > >>>>> forth. > > > >>>>> This is useful when an enterprise is providing services to > > > >>>>> different > > > >>>>> customers(IdP) and does not want to manage many to many > > > >>>>> relationships. When using a broker, the authentication > > > >>>>> steps > > > >>>>> are > > > >>>>> pretty much the same when you are using social > > > >>>>> authentication, > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>>> important differences on how you support different > > > >>>>> identity > > > >>>>> providers, different federation protocols, how users are > > > >>>>> provisioned > > > >>>>> and how claims and attributes are resolved. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The brokering functionality can be done in two ways > > > >>>>> depending > > > >>>>> if > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> broker service is acting as a gateway or not. When acting > > > >>>>> as > > > >>>>> a > > > >>>>> gateway, the broker will respond to the application the > > > >>>>> same > > > >>>>> token > > > >>>>> issued by the trusted identity provider. For instance, if > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> user > > > >>>>> selects a SAML IdP to authenticate with, the application > > > >>>>> will > > > >>>>> receive > > > >>>>> a SAML Response. In this case, the application must also > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>> prepared > > > >>>>> to handle a specific federation protocol. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> However, the broker service can also be used to completely > > > >>>>> abstract > > > >>>>> from the application the protocol used to authenticate an > > > >>>>> user. > > > >>>>> In > > > >>>>> this case, the application will just receive an ordinary > > > >>>>> KC > > > >>>>> token > > > >>>>> after a successful authentication. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> In both cases, the broker acts as an intermediary where > > > >>>>> specific > > > >>>>> security policies can be applied when users try to > > > >>>>> authenticate > > > >>>>> themselves against a 3rd party IdP. That brings a lot of > > > >>>>> value > > > >>>>> when > > > >>>>> you think about auditing, authorization and how users are > > > >>>>> provisioned > > > >>>>> when federation of identities is needed. This also allows > > > >>>>> existing > > > >>>>> security infrastructures (eg.: SAML-based infrastructures) > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>> benefit > > > >>>>> from KC's support for cloud, rest and mobile use cases. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I think this is enough to start a discussion. I've an > > > >>>>> initial > > > >>>>> discussion with Stian about all that and we agreed that > > > >>>>> abstract > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> protocol from applications should be prioritized. The main > > > >>>>> reason is > > > >>>>> that it makes life easier for applications so they only > > > >>>>> need > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>> know > > > >>>>> about KC tokens and nothing else. However that brings some > > > >>>>> new > > > >>>>> requirements around user provisioning and claim/attribute > > > >>>>> resolution > > > >>>>> or mapping. But that would be another thread. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Can you elaborate on "abstract the protocol from applications"? > > > >>>> Not > > > >>>> sure what you mean by that. IDP federation should be configured > > > >>>> at > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> realm level and really has nothing to do with applications. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'm really happy that somebody is doing this. We're getting a > > > >>>> real > > > >>>> impressive feature set! > > > >>> > > > >>> Sure. What I meant was that the application only knows about KC > > > >>> tokens > > > >>> nothing else. It will always receive a KC token regardless the > > > >>> protocol > > > >>> used > > > >>> to authenticate the user against a 3rd party IdP (saml, oidc, > > > >>> whatever). > > > >>> The > > > >>> example I gave was about an user trying to authenticate against a > > > >>> SAML > > > >>> IdP. > > > >>> In this case, after a successful authentication on the IdP, the IdP > > > >>> will > > > >>> issue a token to KC. Then KC will validate the token, perform trust > > > >>> and > > > >>> security checks, do user provisioning and attribute/claim > > > >>> resolution > > > >>> to > > > >>> finally issue a KC token and redirect the user to the application. > > > >>> If > > > >>> the > > > >>> app is configured to use openid in KC then it will receive a openid > > > >>> token > > > >>> from KC, not saml ... > > > >>> > > > >>> The other scenario is pretty much the same. The difference is that > > > >>> KC > > > >>> will > > > >>> not issue its own token but just replay the token issued by the 3rd > > > >>> party > > > >>> IdP to the service provider. > > > >>> > > > >>> I agree that this config goes at the realm level. For instance, to > > > >>> create > > > >>> and > > > >>> enable providers for being used. However, I think we would need > > > >>> some > > > >>> specific configuration for applications as well. Specially when > > > >>> defining > > > >>> default roles, mapping attributes. Another example of application > > > >>> config > > > >>> is > > > >>> when using a OIDC/oAuth IdP. You may want to define scopes > > > >>> per-application. > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> Bill Burke > > > >>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat > > > >>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> 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 > > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat > > > http://bill.burkecentral.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > keycloak-dev mailing list > > keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev >