I'm answering inline...
On 09/18/2017 03:58 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
Reading your email I couldn't figure out how you assign a
policy to a user.
The password policy is just assigned using an attribute in the user
(like firstname or lastname). The only difference is that in option 1 it
is single-valued and in option 2 it is multi-valiued (to test the
merge). You can really play with it if you clone my repos and start the
the server, create another password policy, create a user and assign a
password policy to it (in the details tab).
I think it would be best if there's an ordered/prioritized list
password policies. Each policy would have a set of conditions on
whether or not the policy should be applied to a specific user. Where
conditions should include member/not-member of a specific group,
has/doesn't have a specific role, a specific attribute key/value or if
a user belongs to a specific user fed provider. If none matches the
last in the list should be used. I find having more than one policy
apply to a specific user just confusing so it should be the first
policy that matches for a user that is used.
That is much more complex of what I was thinking and what KEYCLOAK-2209
describes. My idea is much more simple:
* The realm has a default password policy (the current one).
* The user may have assigned a specific password policy.
* Any group may have assigned a specific password policy (this part is
not done in the branches).
* As a user can result with several password policies assigned (because
of the groups):
Option 1: The policy with the highest priority applies.
Option 2: Policies are merged (or all of them applied as the
As you see my implementation is much more modest than your idea. Your
idea can be later achieved with something like dynamic groups (a group
that is automatically assigned because of an attribute in the user,
because those groups can also have a password policy).
Now with regards to implementation it would make sense to convert
password policies to use component storage rather than add additional
tables/attributes for password policies. The single string password
policy was introduced before we had component storage and it is our
plan to eventually convert password policies to use component storage.
Component storage is much more flexible and powerful than what we have
today for password policies. It allows the provider itself to expose
what configuration applies to it.
No idea about what is the component storage but ok, if you want me to
continue with my modest approach I'll take a look to that and I'll move
the password policies to component storage.
On 12 September 2017 at 19:59, Ricardo Martin Camarero
<rmartinc(a)redhat.com <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
I'm forwarding this email to the list following Stian's
I needed to learn more about keycloak (how to manage the maven
how to add a modification, how to test it, and so on and so
forth), so I
decided to start looking the code and try to help when I have some
time. As I filed an internal RFE because one customer wanted a similar
solution than the one specified in KEYCLOAK-2209 I started to
something. Now I have two possible ideas that are not completely
implemented (I haven't done any group use for example). Both ideas
* I have extended the database to include a
table that contains more policies associated to the realm. I thought
about using an attribute but I decided to extend the database because
the current policy attribute is a long string (length 2550). This
the realm (policies page) now you can configure more than one password
policy (default is the current one and you can add new policies
saved in the new table with a name).
* The user has a new attribute that contains the password policy, in
this case I have re-used an attribute (I'm not sure about this
I think using a new column would be better but I needed a multiple
attribute for option 2).
* In both solutions I needed to extend the PasswordPolicyProvider
interface to pass the config to the two validate methods:
PolicyError validate(RealmModel realm, UserModel user, String
password, Object config);
I think there is a bug in this part in current master branch,
regex policy is multiple, and you cannot assign two different regex
providers in the same policy (PasswordPolicy stores the
a Map<String, Object>, so you cannot have two different configurations
for the same type, if you assign two regex providers they are
transformed into one as soon as you save the policy).
Now the two implementations:
1) The first idea let us configure to a user one password policy. My
branch is this one:
In this solution the user has a combo (only one policy can be
to a user) and only one policy is applied to that user. My idea was
extending the idea using groups and priorities. Password policies will
have a priority, and only one policy will apply to a user (from
possible policies the one with the higher priority applies). For the
moment I only modified keycloak to have a different policy in the user
(no priorities or group policies).
2) The second idea follows the description in 2209. The branch is the
Here the user can have multiple password policies. The definitive
policy is a merge between all the policies applied to the user. To do
this I needed to extend the PasswordPolicyProvider interface even
in order to have a compare method that returns which policy is more
restrictive. Extending this idea to groups is just merging more
You can test my ideas (I think both of them are working). If you are
interested please let me know which idea you think is better (I'm not
completely sure, now I think that I prefer option 1, although option 2
is more similar to the RFE description, I think the latter is very
confusing). If you like one of them, I'll try to finish the
implementation (now there are no tests and some decisions I took maybe
are wrong). If you think this is not needed or it's not the time to
implement this RFE don't worry, it's ok, I needed to play with
and that part is done.
keycloak-dev mailing list
Ricardo Martin Camarero
Software Maintenance Engineer