Re: [keycloak-dev] PAM Conversations - Custom login form
The problem here is the fact that not necessarily the
first factor will be a pasword or the second factor an OTP. It
could be a smartcard for example. That's why I think is a better idea to
make it dynamic, because we don't have control over it to tell
if the second factor will be a smartcard or an OTP for example.
Does it make sense?
On 2016-07-19, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
Looks like it's better to keep as is and have user federation
provider
validate otp credentials as well. The current OTP authenticator delegates
to user federation provider, so you'd end up with a separate OTP
authenticator to do it with PAM.
On 19 July 2016 at 00:48, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
>
> Today to authentication against PAM with just simple username/password I
> implemented UserFederationProvider and added the proper PAM login to
> validCredentials[1]. This covers the most basic scenario.
>
> Now I would like to cover a more complex scenario like OTP and change
> the flow a little bit like this:
>
> 1. User providers her username
> 2. The next screen asks to provide how many factor our user has(For
> example: OTP, password). We just don't know, PAM will tell what's next.
> 3. We authenticate against it
>
> To see in practice against FreeIPA server, I just recorded it
> for a practical example[2].
>
> What would be the best approach to implement this flow? I was considering
> to
> move my authentication logic out of SSSD federation provider and create a
> PAM
> authenticator.
>
> Does it make sense?
>
> [1] -
>
http://www.keycloak.org/docs/javadocs/org/keycloak/models/UserFederationP...
>
> [2] - https://asciinema.org/a/atwnfbu0kqfasjl65weyoiz7a
>
>
> --
>
> abstractj
> PGP: 0x84DC9914
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>
--
abstractj
PGP: 0x84DC9914