6:43 p.m.
Looking at the keycloak source code to see how NameID value is set in the
SAML response, we came across SamlProtocol class that has the following
method:
protected String getNameId(String nameIdFormat, ClientSessionModel
clientSession, UserSessionModel userSession) {
if (nameIdFormat.equals(JBossSAMLURIConstants.NAMEID_FORMAT_EMAIL.get()))
{
return userSession.getUser().getEmail();
} else if
(nameIdFormat.equals(JBossSAMLURIConstants.NAMEID_FORMAT_TRANSIENT.get()))
{
// "G-" stands for "generated" Add this for the slight
possibility of collisions.
return "G-" + UUID.randomUUID().toString();
} else if
(nameIdFormat.equals(JBossSAMLURIConstants.NAMEID_FORMAT_PERSISTENT.get()))
{
return getPersistentNameId(clientSession, userSession);
} else if
(nameIdFormat.equals(JBossSAMLURIConstants.NAMEID_FORMAT_UNSPECIFIED.get()))
{
// TODO: Support for persistent NameID (pseudo-random
identifier persisted in user object)
return userSession.getUser().getUsername();
} else {
return userSession.getUser().getUsername();
}
}
which is just returning either email or username because of which we are
restricted in the value that can be set for the NameID. We are not able to
set NameID to any value other than this. With our customers, we have seen
lot of cases where users have different IDs across SPs. With the current
implementation in KeyCloak, it seems we can only return Name or Email as
NameID. Ideally in case of “Unspecified” format, we should have a mechanism
to map Name ID to any of user property/attribute. Do you have any plans to
add support for this use case?
With regard to solving this problem, one option could be to implement a
protocol mapper that can be used to map any user property/attribute to
NameID. Currently protocol mapper can only be used to return
saml:Attribute, so writing a new protocol mapper specifically for
requesting NameID would be useful. Is this feasible? And, do you have any
plans to add support for this usecase?
If you are not planning to implement this, are there any design or
implementation level inputs/help you can provide on this? And if we
implement this protocol mapper from our side, would it be possible to merge
it back to the master branch?