On Apr 5, 2019, at 1:57 PM, keycloak-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org wrote: Send keycloak-dev mailing list submissions to keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to keycloak-dev-request(a)lists.jboss.org You can reach the person managing the list at keycloak-dev-owner(a)lists.jboss.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of keycloak-dev digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Proposal: Improvements to IdpUsernamePasswordForm (Dmitry Telegin) 2. Re: Proposal: Improvements to IdpUsernamePasswordForm (Marek Posolda) 3. Few Admin events not getting raised (Shiva Prasad Thagadur Prakash) 4. Few Admin events not getting raised (Shiva Prasad Thagadur Prakash) 5. Proposal: Approvals System (V?clav Muzik??) 6. Re: Few Admin events not getting raised (Marek Posolda) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:59:55 +0300 From: Dmitry Telegin <demetrio(a)carretti.pro&gt; Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Proposal: Improvements to IdpUsernamePasswordForm To: Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt;, keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <1554415195.6328.1.camel(a)carretti.pro&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Marek, > On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:14 +0200, Marek Posolda wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > >> On 04/04/2019 00:45, Dmitry Telegin wrote: >> Hi Marek, >> >> You absolutely right, UsernamePasswordForm does the trick. However, the login screen rendered by?UsernamePasswordForm is different from that of IdpUsernamePasswordForm in the following aspects: >> - IdpUsernamePasswordForm doesn't display the block with IdP/social buttons > > You're right. Small addition: The IdpUsernamePasswordForm displays? > social buttons, but just of those identity providers, which are already? > linked to specified user. In other words, if you want to link your? > account to broker-A and your account is already linked to broker-B, then? > broker-B is displayed on the form. This way, you have possibility to? > re-authenticate not just with your password, but alternatively by login? > to already linked broker-B, which is already linked to your account and? > hence "trusted" to be used for prove your identity. > > It seems that with your proposal in case that username is unknown, we? > won't display any brokers on the screen and hence it will be mandatory? > to do re-authentication by username+password? Yes, that's correct. > >> - IdpUsernamePasswordForm renders the message relevant to IdP-linking-by-reauthentication, which is this: >> >> federatedIdentityConfirmReauthenticateMessage=Authenticate as {0} to link your account with {1} >> >> So, my requirement is to implement the appearance of IdpUsernamePasswordForm + behavior of UsernamePasswordForm. I think this could be done either by augmenting the former, or by merging the two authenticators into a unified one, that would exhibit different behavior depending on the context (normal login vs. reauthentication for IdP linking). > > I suggest to update IdpUsernamePasswordForm authenticator. In case that? > EXISTING_USER_INFO is not there, we can do the behaviour like: > > - User will need to provide both username+password. Hence username field? > will need to be enabled > - Social buttons won't be displayed on the login screen > - Message will be bit different. For example just: Authenticate to link? > your account with {1} > > For the case when EXISTING_USER_INFO is available, I would like to keep? > the same behaviour as currently is. > > WDYT? This is exactly how I was planning to do it myself :) so if you greenlight this, I'll proceed with JIRA/PR. Just FYI, I'm also planning to publish a "standalone" version of the authenticator to be used with Keycloak <= 5.0.0. Dmitry > > Marek > >> >> Please let me know which way seems better for you, with the idea in mind of having this contributed to upstream. >> >> Thanks! >> Dmitry >> >>> On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 15:21 +0200, Marek Posolda wrote: >>>> On 28/03/2019 17:06, Dmitry Telegin wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm currently working to implement the following requirements: >>>> - users are managed externally via LDAP, self-registrations disabled; >>>> - there is an external IdP; >>>> - generally, there is no way to automatically match IdP identity with Keycloak's one, so IdP linking will always be performed by the user manually; >>>> - in order to do that, the user should click the IdP icon in the login screen, authenticate with the IdP, get back to Keycloak and "claim" his/her Keycloak account by entering correct username and password. >>>> >>>> Currently, the closest thing in Keycloak is o.k.authentication.authenticators.broker.IdpUsernamePasswordForm (aka "idp-username-password-form", aka "Username Password Form for identity provider reauthentication"). >>>> However, it 1) prefills username field and makes it non-editable, 2) depends on the preceding IdpCreateUserIfUniqueAuthenticator execution to provide existing user model (EXISTING_USER_INFO auth note). >>>> >>>> My proposal is to improve IdpUsernamePasswordForm by allowing its execution even without the preceding IdpCreateUserIfUniqueAuthenticator. In the absence of EXISTING_USER_INFO, IdpUsernamePasswordForm should allow the user to manually enter username. >>> >>> I wonder if you can't already achieve something like this with the OOTB >>> authenticator implementations, but just correctly configure them? For >>> example in the "First Broker Login" flow used for your identity >>> provider, you can just directly use the default browser-based >>> authenticator ( UsernamePasswordForm ) instead of the >>> IdpUsernamePasswordForm. That way, the username+password form will be >>> always shown for "First Broker Login" and once user authenticates, his >>> account will be linked with IdP account. >>> >>> Marek >>> >>>> Please let me know if you think it's worth having this in Keycloak. Regards, >>>> Dmitry >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> keycloak-dev mailing list >>>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 08:07:14 +0200 From: Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Proposal: Improvements to IdpUsernamePasswordForm To: Dmitry Telegin <demetrio(a)carretti.pro&gt;, keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <2567518c-b341-27c9-b30d-8dd5fd5757a1(a)redhat.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > On 04/04/2019 23:59, Dmitry Telegin wrote: > Hi Marek, > >> On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:14 +0200, Marek Posolda wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, >> >>> On 04/04/2019 00:45, Dmitry Telegin wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> You absolutely right, UsernamePasswordForm does the trick. However, the login screen rendered by?UsernamePasswordForm is different from that of IdpUsernamePasswordForm in the following aspects: >>> - IdpUsernamePasswordForm doesn't display the block with IdP/social buttons >> You're right. Small addition: The IdpUsernamePasswordForm displays >> social buttons, but just of those identity providers, which are already >> linked to specified user. In other words, if you want to link your >> account to broker-A and your account is already linked to broker-B, then >> broker-B is displayed on the form. This way, you have possibility to >> re-authenticate not just with your password, but alternatively by login >> to already linked broker-B, which is already linked to your account and >> hence "trusted" to be used for prove your identity. >> >> It seems that with your proposal in case that username is unknown, we >> won't display any brokers on the screen and hence it will be mandatory >> to do re-authentication by username+password? > Yes, that's correct. > >>> - IdpUsernamePasswordForm renders the message relevant to IdP-linking-by-reauthentication, which is this: >>> >>> federatedIdentityConfirmReauthenticateMessage=Authenticate as {0} to link your account with {1} >>> >>> So, my requirement is to implement the appearance of IdpUsernamePasswordForm + behavior of UsernamePasswordForm. I think this could be done either by augmenting the former, or by merging the two authenticators into a unified one, that would exhibit different behavior depending on the context (normal login vs. reauthentication for IdP linking). >> I suggest to update IdpUsernamePasswordForm authenticator. In case that >> EXISTING_USER_INFO is not there, we can do the behaviour like: >> >> - User will need to provide both username+password. Hence username field >> will need to be enabled >> - Social buttons won't be displayed on the login screen >> - Message will be bit different. For example just: Authenticate to link >> your account with {1} >> >> For the case when EXISTING_USER_INFO is available, I would like to keep >> the same behaviour as currently is. >> >> WDYT? > This is exactly how I was planning to do it myself :) so if you greenlight this, I'll proceed with JIRA/PR. +1 Marek > > Just FYI, I'm also planning to publish a "standalone" version of the authenticator to be used with Keycloak <= 5.0.0. > > Dmitry > >> Marek >> >>> Please let me know which way seems better for you, with the idea in mind of having this contributed to upstream. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Dmitry >>> >>>> On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 15:21 +0200, Marek Posolda wrote: >>>>> On 28/03/2019 17:06, Dmitry Telegin wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm currently working to implement the following requirements: >>>>> - users are managed externally via LDAP, self-registrations disabled; >>>>> - there is an external IdP; >>>>> - generally, there is no way to automatically match IdP identity with Keycloak's one, so IdP linking will always be performed by the user manually; >>>>> - in order to do that, the user should click the IdP icon in the login screen, authenticate with the IdP, get back to Keycloak and "claim" his/her Keycloak account by entering correct username and password. >>>>> >>>>> Currently, the closest thing in Keycloak is o.k.authentication.authenticators.broker.IdpUsernamePasswordForm (aka "idp-username-password-form", aka "Username Password Form for identity provider reauthentication"). >>>>> However, it 1) prefills username field and makes it non-editable, 2) depends on the preceding IdpCreateUserIfUniqueAuthenticator execution to provide existing user model (EXISTING_USER_INFO auth note). >>>>> >>>>> My proposal is to improve IdpUsernamePasswordForm by allowing its execution even without the preceding IdpCreateUserIfUniqueAuthenticator. In the absence of EXISTING_USER_INFO, IdpUsernamePasswordForm should allow the user to manually enter username. >>>> I wonder if you can't already achieve something like this with the OOTB >>>> authenticator implementations, but just correctly configure them? For >>>> example in the "First Broker Login" flow used for your identity >>>> provider, you can just directly use the default browser-based >>>> authenticator ( UsernamePasswordForm ) instead of the >>>> IdpUsernamePasswordForm. That way, the username+password form will be >>>> always shown for "First Broker Login" and once user authenticates, his >>>> account will be linked with IdP account. >>>> >>>> Marek >>>> >>>>> Please let me know if you think it's worth having this in Keycloak. Regards, >>>>> Dmitry >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> keycloak-dev mailing list >>>>> keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 08:21:10 +0000 From: Shiva Prasad Thagadur Prakash <shiva.prasad.thagadur.prakash(a)ericsson.com&gt; Subject: [keycloak-dev] Few Admin events not getting raised To: &quot;keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&quot; <keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <1554452469.17045.16.camel(a)ericsson.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Guys, We see that few admin events are not getting logged to syslog/logfile. Creating scope, Creating New policy for a client and Creating new permission for a client. COuld anyone please help us? Steps to reproduce: New permisson event ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" ? ? 3. Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Permissions - Scope based ? ? 4. Create New permission Failed Symptoms: No any events generated. ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" ????Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Policies - Create POlicy??-> Role ? ? 3. Create New policy Failed Symptoms: No any events generated. ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" ? ? 3. Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Authorization Scopes ? ? 4. Create New scope event_scope Failed Symptoms:?No any events generated. Thanks & regards, Shiva ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 08:22:39 +0000 From: Shiva Prasad Thagadur Prakash <shiva.prasad.thagadur.prakash(a)ericsson.com&gt; Subject: [keycloak-dev] Few Admin events not getting raised To: &quot;keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&quot; <keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <1554452559.17045.17.camel(a)ericsson.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Guys, We see that few admin events are not getting logged to syslog/logfile. Creating scope, Creating New policy for a client and Creating new permission for a client. COuld anyone please help us? Steps to reproduce: New permisson event ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" ? ? 3. Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Permissions - Scope based ? ? 4. Create New permission Failed Symptoms: No any events generated. ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" ????Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Policies - Create POlicy??-> Role ? ? 3. Create New policy Failed Symptoms: No any events generated. ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" ? ? 3. Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Authorization Scopes ? ? 4. Create New scope event_scope Failed Symptoms:?No any events generated. Thanks & regards, Shiva ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:19:19 +0200 From: V?clav Muzik?? <vmuzikar(a)redhat.com&gt; Subject: [keycloak-dev] Proposal: Approvals System To: keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <CAMQSZygL8LGB80Won27vrGUh8s7MT0JjJWR-dfbjXifsR3mQ=w(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello, I've been working on an Approvals System for Keycloak and I'd like to discuss the design proposal. In short, it's a system that is responsible for audit, interception and approving/rejection of configuration changes in Keycloak. Even though it's designed as general as possible (i.e. able to intercept just about any config change), the initial scope will be probably focused on users operations. It's currently in a PoC state with a formalized design proposal available: https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-community/blob/master/design/approva... Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Regards, V?clav Muzik?? -- V?clav Muzik?? Senior Quality Engineer Keycloak / Red Hat Single Sign-On Red Hat Czech s.r.o. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 15:55:49 +0200 From: Marek Posolda <mposolda(a)redhat.com&gt; Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Few Admin events not getting raised To: Shiva Prasad Thagadur Prakash <shiva.prasad.thagadur.prakash(a)ericsson.com&gt;, &quot;keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&quot; <keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Message-ID: <7745f1a9-cd9c-489d-169b-cfabe5697db4(a)redhat.com&gt; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Looks like a bug. Feel free to create JIRA. If you're able to send PR with the fix, it will be even better and will cause that bug will be fixed faster :) Thanks, Marek > On 05/04/2019 10:22, Shiva Prasad Thagadur Prakash wrote: > Hi Guys, > > We see that few admin events are not getting logged to syslog/logfile. > Creating scope, Creating New policy for a client and Creating new > permission for a client. COuld anyone please help us? > > Steps to reproduce: > New permisson event > ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm > ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" > ? ? 3. Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Permissions - Scope > based > ? ? 4. Create New permission > > Failed Symptoms: No any events generated. > > ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm > ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" > ????Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Policies - Create > POlicy??-> Role > ? ? 3. Create New policy > > Failed Symptoms: No any events generated. > > > ? ? 1. Create new client f.i. in master realm > ? ? 2. Set "Authorization Enabled" > ? ? 3. Go to clients->clientName->Authorization ->Authorization Scopes > ? ? 4. Create New scope event_scope > Failed Symptoms:?No any events generated. > > Thanks & regards, > Shiva > > _______________________________________________ > 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 End of keycloak-dev Digest, Vol 70, Issue 8 *******************************************