6:23 p.m.
Hi and thanks a lot for your feedback.
My answers/questions below ...
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Pedro Igor Silva <psilva(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hence, My question is how can i make my MQTT Broker (.ie : resource
>> server)
>> interact with KC to enforce/evaluate policy ? Is it possible without the
>> user access token ?
>> Hope i made myself clear and thanks in advance for any help ...
>
> Btw, have you considered OAuth2 Device Flow ?
>
Yes, can make sense for some devices (http capable, internet connected ...)
but not for all devices ...
Thanks again for your feedbacks. Greatly appreciated !
Brahim
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Brahim
>
> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-user mailing list
>> keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>
Hi,
Some questions inline ...
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Brahim Ait elhaj <brahima(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Lately i was playing with Keycloak (KC), evaluating it for an IoT project
> and i have a question regarding the authorization services.
>
> One of my use case is : devices that connect to an MQTT Broker using X.509
> client authentication.
> Note : when i talk about device, you must understand KC user (device =
> user).
>
Do clients connect to your MQTT on behalf of an human ?
Once device are provisioned in the platform (done once through an app),
they become autonomous and can start connecting/talking to the MQTT Server
at any moment ...
If a device is actually an user, who are your clients ? The same devices ?
My client is the MQTT Server in this use case (as the *photoz-restful-api*
in the *photoz* example).
I want to protect access to MQTT topics (paths/resources) of this MQTT
server.
I was initially asking myself whereas devices should be « users » or «
clients » but we could end with a lot of clients in the latter scenario ...
also after playing with KC and reading through the mailing list
questions/answers, i think that's a better approach to have devices be
users and not clients.
However, did you have something in mind when asking this question ?
>
> For several reasons/constraints that i won't explain here, i can't have my
> devices connect first to Keycloak to obtain a token (using their X.509
> certificates as KC supports it) and then connect to the MQTT Broker
> passing
> this token. They connect directly to the MQTT Broker, each device
> presenting its X.509 certificate to the Broker. After connection, the
> Broker doesn't know client private key.
Now I'm curious :)
Ok, the main reason is that the one thing that can be guaranteed about
devices is that they have a certificate to authenticate themselves. They're
not necessarily http or even mqtt capable. They can be able to communicate
only via a low power wide area network (Lora / Sigfox ... ie. not connected
to internet directly)
So we know how to deal with a user (be it a human or a device) that can
authenticate and get an access token.
My concern here is how to deal with a user (device) that can not.
>
> My need is to have my MQTT Broker (ideally through KC) authorize/reject
> MQTT client to publish/subscribe to specific topic.
> MQTT Topic being some kind of uri/path, i already have an idea of how to
> configure KC (client, resource, policy, permission ...) to
> authorize/reject
> these access.
> However, as i understand it, the starting point for all the «
> authorization
> services » (Authorization API, Entitlement API ... ) is a « user Access
> Token ».
> In my case, i don't have a user access token ... so i'm kind of stuck to
> use any of the K.C API (unless i missed something).
>
Considering your devices are actually users in your realm, you should be
able to obtain access tokens from Keycloak. With this access token you can
then use Entitlement API, for instance to obtain a RPT that you can finally
send to your MQTT broker. But I think you have constraints that block this
approach ...
The point here is that our APIs need to identify the identity
associated
with a permission request somehow, hence the need for an access token when
using any of our APIs to obtain the RPT.
Exactly, i technically can have some devices (http capable) connect to KC,
get a token et connect to the MQTT Broker ... but some devices cannot so i
need to support this use case.
If I understood your use correctly, the only thing you have that
identifies the user/device is a certificate. But we only support access
tokens previously issued by Keycloak to your clients/users.
Right !
However, I think we could support your use case with UMA 2.0 changes we
are planning. In the new version of the specs, the client don't actually
need an access token in order to obtain RPTs from AS. There is a specific
OAuth2 Grant Type, which you can use just like any other grant type. The
tricky here is that instead of using an OAuth2 Access Token to gain access
to our APIs, you basically authenticate the client using whatever client
authentication method we support. For instance, id/secret, jwt or even
using a bearer token (as it stands today). In addition to that, you are
allowed to send tokens with claims associated with a requesting party
(e.g.: your devices). That would allow you to send your devices
certificates.
In a nutshell, in a single request to the server you would provide your
client credentials + device certificate. And we would need to support
extracting requesting party information (the user) from certificates.
Yes, it seems really interesting and corresponding to what i'd like to
achieve. Since you talk about UMA, i understand this is the « Authorization
API » that is involved here.
Also, you said « *In the new version of the specs, the client don't
actually need an access token in order to obtain RPTs from AS* », can you
please point me to the specs that talk about this specific part (if
possible) ? I quickly went through the v2.0 without being able to clearly
identity this specific part ...
Do you have something (beta ...) that i can start playing with ? Is it
already in the roadmap (maybe you have a specific ticket number in mind) ?
Depending on the estimated « landing » date, i can contribute in many ways.
So, What's the next step :-)