Thank you for your comments. We've found that the custom protocol implementation is not appropriate by considering security aspect. Also, based on your advice, we've decided to implement on our existing authentication server minimum OIDC OP functionalities for Identity Brokering using keycloak's core libraries. Regards Takashi Norimatsu --- From: Stian Thorgersen [mailto:sthorger@redhat.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 3:54 PM To: 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [!]Re: Re: Re: [keycloak-dev] Proposal of using existing authentication and authorization server on behalf of keycloak browser-based authentication OK, I finally understand exactly what you want to contribute, but afraid we'll have to reject it. We can not accept and maintain a custom protocol for many reasons, including: * It's a lot of work to maintain * It needs documenting and understanding by users * It's just a slightly different way to doing things than OIDC. In fact for Identity Brokering there's not that much you need to implement the OIDC part in the IdP * It could contain security vulnerabilities On 17 August 2017 at 08:47, 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI <takashi.norimatsu.ws(a)hitachi.com&gt; wrote: Hello. Yes, but much easier for people than using OIDC/SAML. If OIDC is used for the existing authentication server, following OIDC OP functions would have to be implemented.   - Authz Code Flow (at least)   - Authz Code management   - ID Token/Access Token management   - JWT   - JWS   - key management for JWT Instead, if supporting the simplified protocol such the one I have proposed, only following would have to be implemented   - Issue temporal opaque ticket   - Send authenticated user info in return to this ticket Regards Takashi Norimatsu -----Original Message----- From: 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 11:24 AM To: &#39;stian(a)redhat.com&#39; Cc: &#39;keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&#39; Subject: RE: [!]Re: Re: [keycloak-dev] Proposal of using existing authentication and authorization server on behalf of keycloak browser-based authentication We do NOT intend to propose a "custom"(customer specific) brokering protocol, are proposing a simplified brokering procedure for an external authentication server without implementing OIDC/SAML. This is useful for users who have their existing authentication server. They had to implement OIDC/SAML(very hard) or had to design and implement another procedure(is also not easy). By the proposal, they can integrate their authentication server easily. For example, UMA standard for authorization service is proposed, but seems to be complicated, so keycloak has simplified procedure(entitlement API). Feature is different but situation is the same (simplified OIDC/SAML). ---------- From: Stian Thorgersen [mailto:sthorger@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:49 PM To: 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [!]Re: Re: [keycloak-dev] Proposal of using existing authentication and authorization server on behalf of keycloak browser-based authentication Afraid I still don't understand what you are trying to contribute to Keycloak. As I said we already allow creating custom identity providers using whatever protocol you want. We can't accept contribution of a custom identity provider which is seems is what you are trying to contribute. On 15 August 2017 at 08:58, 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI <takashi.norimatsu.ws(a)hitachi.com&gt; wrote: Thank you for comment. This contribution to keycloak is that to enhance competitiveness with proprietary products. In some market, customers have highly customized Web UI for authentication. (e.g. soft keyboard, responsive web design, very sophisticated look and feel). They want to use Authorization server product (such as keycloak) implementing OpenID Connect for securing the customer's API. They want to use existing highly customized authentication server, but do not want to implement OpenID Connect on this authentication server (too much complex and difficult to implement). To meet such needs, proprietary products have the following solution. Proprietary authorization server products have their own procedure (much simpler than OpenID Connect and SAMLv2) to communicate with existing authentication server as below: https://communities.ca.com/blogs/oauth/2016/10/04/howto-integrating-otk-w... https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSMNED_5.0.0/com.ibm.apic.... In customer's existing authentication server, customers only have to implement communication with the authorization server according to the procedure prepared by the authorization server product (It is much easier than implementing OpenID Connect or SAMLv2). Customers do not have to implement anything in authorization server side. On the other hand, if keycloak is used, customers have to do following: a) In authorization server (RH SSO), simple procedure to communicate with external authentication server have to be designed and implemented using SPI. b) In customer's existing authentication server, implement procedure prepared by a). -> In proprietary products, a) is prepared, but keycloak is not. Our proposed patch is intended to complement a). --- From: Stian Thorgersen [mailto:sthorger@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 7:57 PM To: 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [!]Re: [keycloak-dev] Proposal of using existing authentication and authorization server on behalf of keycloak browser-based authentication I'm not really following what you are proposing to contribute to Keycloak. We already have the SPI that allows adding a custom provider if your IdP doesn't support SAML or OpenID Connect. On 31 July 2017 at 06:09, 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI <takashi.norimatsu.ws(a)hitachi.com&gt; wrote: Hello. Previously, I had proposed the feature and its implementation of delegating authentication and authorization to an external existing server on behalf of keycloak's browser-based authentication mechanism, and had gotten advices that it is appropriate to use Identity Brokering for such the feature. I've re-implemented this feature again by Identity Brokering. The description and implementation of this feature is mentioned below. https://github.com/Hitachi/PoV-keycloak-delegate-authn-consent https://github.com/Hitachi/PoV-keycloak-delegate-authn-consent/tree/maste... It can delegate not only authentication but authorization(consent). Kindly review it and provide us some comment and advices. We would like to contribute this feature onto keycloak. Best Regards Takashi Norimatsu Hitachi, Ltd. --- From: Stian Thorgersen [mailto:sthorger@redhat.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:23 PM To: 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [!]Re: [keycloak-dev] Proposal of using existing authentication server on behalf of keycloak browser-based authentication There's an SPI to implement your own custom identity brokering provider [1]. [1] https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/server-spi-private/sr... On 29 June 2017 at 10:51, 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI <takashi.norimatsu.ws(a)hitachi.com&gt; wrote: I need to use the authentication server without OIDC/OAuth2/SAMLv2 implementation as an external IdP, in order to integrate existing authentication system. (some commercial products supports such the case) I consulted identity broker's section in keycloak's manual below and found that if I use this feature the external IdP must support OIDC or SAMLv2. https://keycloak.gitbooks.io/documentation/server_admin/topics/identity-b... Therefore, I realized it by using redirect based authentication flows. Can identity Brokering can support such the case? Aside from this, I'd like to contribute it to Community extensions and examples. Best Regards Takashi Norimatsu Hitachi, Ltd. --- From: Stian Thorgersen [mailto:sthorger@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 5:52 PM To: 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI Cc: keycloak-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Subject: [!]Re: [keycloak-dev] Proposal of using existing authentication server on behalf of keycloak browser-based authentication I'm not in favour of adding this. If it's using redirect based authentication flows it should be done through identity brokering, not authentication flows. It's also a very complex example that we don't want to maintain. We've also in the process of moving all examples away from the main Keycloak repository into a separate quickstart repository. On 27 June 2017 at 08:54, 乗松隆志 / NORIMATSU，TAKASHI <takashi.norimatsu.ws(a)hitachi.com&gt; wrote: Hello. Previously, I had proposed the feature of delegating authentication to an external authentication server on behalf of keycloak's browser-based authentication mechanism. I've integrated this feature to keycloak's "examples" packages and send PR (https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/pull/4260). Hope this PR is reviewed and merged as an example for combining some providers to customize keycloak. Detailed description of this feature is mentioned below. https://github.com/Hitachi/PoV-keycloak-authentication-delegation I am now engaging in integrating this feature to keycloak as product-base default providers, but encounter technical problems about writing arquillian. Would someone tell me how to resolve this problem? [Problem] - I could not find how to run an external authentication server(application running on wildfly 10) during each arquillian test cases. After resolving this problem and writing and running arquillian test cases, I'll send PR for this feature as product-base default providers. Best Regards Takashi Norimatsu Hitachi, Ltd. _______________________________________________ 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