Re: [keycloak-user] Inject (Keycloak)Principal

Hi, I was playing around with the examples, more specifically with the customer-portal-js which is accessing the database resource. In that CustomerService I was trying to get access to the Principal and trying to extend to return in addition the username of the logged-in user: @Path("customers") public class CustomerService { @Inject Principal principal; //@Context //SecurityContext sc; //Principal principal = sc.getUserPrincipal(); //@Context //ContainerRequestContext request; //SecurityContext sc = request.getSecurityContext(); //Principal principal = sc.getUserPrincipal(); @GET @Produces("application/json") @NoCache public List<String> getCustomers() { ArrayList<String> rtn = new ArrayList<String>(); rtn.add("Bill Burke"); rtn.add("Stian Thorgersen"); rtn.add("Stan Silvert"); rtn.add("Gabriel Cardoso"); rtn.add("Viliam Rockai"); rtn.add("Marek Posolda"); rtn.add("Boleslaw Dawidowicz"); rtn.add(principal.getName()); //<--- add username to the list return rtn; } } But this throws a npe as the principal is always null. I noticed that the JaxrsBearerTokenFilter is adding to the ContainerRequestContext a new SecurityContex, of which the getUserPrincipal method returns the KeycloakPrincipal. But I can't figure out how to get access to this from the CustomerService. My intention is to verify if the logged-in user is accessing his own resources, and e.g. is not trying to update data of somebody else. E.g. the id should match principal.getName() in following: @POST @Path("/users/{id}/friends") public void addFriend(@PathParam("id") String userId, Friend friend) { ... } Any suggestions? It would be nice if, beside the KeycloakPrincipal is injectable, to be able to define something like @IsOwner: public void addFriend(@PathParam("id") @IsOwner String userId, Friend friend) or even more concise: public void addFriend(@IsOwner("id") String userId, Friend friend) Kind regards, Dirk Franssen On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:29 PM, <keycloak-user-request(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user-request@lists.jboss.org>> wrote: Send keycloak-user mailing list submissions to keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to keycloak-user-request(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user-request@lists.jboss.org> You can reach the person managing the list at keycloak-user-owner(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user-owner@lists.jboss.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of keycloak-user digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Keycloak and AngularJS (Bill Burke) 2. Re: Keycloak and AngularJS (Stian Thorgersen) 3. Re: Keycloak and AngularJS (Nils Preusker) 4. Re: Keycloak and AngularJS (Bill Burke) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:39:07 -0400 From: Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS To: keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> Message-ID: <5334461B.8040202(a)redhat.com <mailto:5334461B.8040202@redhat.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed What I like about the current admin console approach is that there is no book keeping required by the browser. The Angular app has really no knowledge of how it is being secured as its all driven by the server. Also, you need to remember that the admin console was designed to be run in a non-Java EE, non-servlet environment. While this is a requirement for Keycloak, it may not be for your application. So, what I'm saying is that for your angular application, you could rely on the servlet container and keycloak adapter to maintain a session cookie and identity. What I like about the keycloak.js approach is that there is no server-side adapter required for the UI. The UI could be hosted off any number of static web sites and use CORS invocations to any number of Restful services. There's also the debate of public vs. confidential clients. The keycloak.js approach requires a public client. My understanding was that confidential clients exist so that only an authenticated client (client *NOT* user) is able to obtain an access token. I'm not exactly sure what additional security benefits are obtained here beyond this. I've been trying to ask this very question on OAuth mail lists but have been unable to get a response so far. On 3/27/2014 10:41 AM, Nils Preusker wrote: > Hi Stian and Bill, > > I've posted some questions regarding this topic before but I thought I'd > start a new thread to keep things focused: > > I'm writing an AngularJS application with Java EE 6/7 REST > (JAX-RS) backend modules. To add authentication and authorization > to this application, I'd like to use keycloak > > * as a user and role management front-end * to provide a > customizable login page (works very well by the way ;) * as an > OAuth 2.0 token provider * to add user and role information to > the HTTPRequests in my REST/ backend modules > > To do this, I'm currently looking at keycloak.js and the customer-app-js > example. However, I'm wondering whether this is really the best > way to go. In a reply to an earlier post of mine you mentioned > that the keycloak admin console is written in AngularJS and that > you are using HTTP-only cookies there. > > However, in keycloak.js and the customer-app-js example you are > retrieving the token in the JS app and adding an authorization > header with a bearer token to the HTTP requests. > > So here are my questions: > > * Is there a reason you are using two different approaches in > the admin > console and the official demo app? * which one of the two > approaches (bearer tokens vs. HTTP-only cookie) will you support/ > will be the officially recommended one for HTML5/ client side > JavaScript applications in keycloak? * am I right in assuming > that you haven't quite decided yet which approach to use and that > you are still discussing this in the keycloak team? > > Looking forwards to your reply! Cheers, Nils > > > _______________________________________________ keycloak-user > mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user > -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:18:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Stian Thorgersen <stian(a)redhat.com <mailto:stian@redhat.com>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS To: Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> Cc: keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> Message-ID: <884719116.3009607.1395937081146.JavaMail.zimbra(a)redhat.com <mailto:884719116.3009607.1395937081146.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>>

Personally, I think that in most cases for a client-side web app the best approach is to let the client-side do the oauth flow (the approach we're currently taking in keycloak.js). It does depend on your application though, and if you're application has a strict one html5 app calls one REST service then http-only cookies are an option. I don't see any real benefits of it though, and I believe it significantly complicates things. Have a look at http://blog.auth0.com/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs...,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com > <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> To: keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> > Sent: Thursday, 27 March, 2014 3:39:07 PM Subject: Re: > [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS > > What I like about the current admin console approach is that > there is no > book keeping required by the browser. The Angular app has really > no knowledge of how it is being secured as its all driven by the > server. Also, you need to remember that the admin console was > designed to be run > in a non-Java EE, non-servlet environment. While this is a requirement > for Keycloak, it may not be for your application. So, what I'm > saying is that for your angular application, you could rely on > the servlet container and keycloak adapter to maintain a session > cookie and identity. > > What I like about the keycloak.js approach is that there is no > server-side adapter required for the UI. The UI could be hosted off any > number of static web sites and use CORS invocations to any number > of Restful services. > > There's also the debate of public vs. confidential clients. The > keycloak.js approach requires a public client. My understanding > was that confidential clients exist so that only an authenticated > client (client *NOT* user) is able to obtain an access token. > I'm not exactly > sure what additional security benefits are obtained here beyond > this. I've been trying to ask this very question on OAuth mail > lists but have > been unable to get a response so far. > > > > On 3/27/2014 10:41 AM, Nils Preusker wrote: >> Hi Stian and Bill, >> >> I've posted some questions regarding this topic before but I thought I'd >> start a new thread to keep things focused: >> >> I'm writing an AngularJS application with Java EE 6/7 REST >> (JAX-RS) backend modules. To add authentication and >> authorization to this application, I'd like to use keycloak >> >> * as a user and role management front-end * to provide a >> customizable login page (works very well by the way ;) >> * as an OAuth 2.0 token provider * to add user and role >> information to the HTTPRequests in my REST/ backend modules >> >> To do this, I'm currently looking at keycloak.js and the customer-app-js >> example. However, I'm wondering whether this is really the >> best way to >> go. In a reply to an earlier post of mine you mentioned that >> the keycloak admin console is written in AngularJS and that you >> are using >> HTTP-only cookies there. >> >> However, in keycloak.js and the customer-app-js example you >> are retrieving the token in the JS app and adding an >> authorization header >> with a bearer token to the HTTP requests. >> >> So here are my questions: >> >> * Is there a reason you are using two different approaches in the admin >> console and the official demo app? * which one of the two >> approaches (bearer tokens vs. HTTP-only cookie) >> will you support/ will be the officially recommended one for >> HTML5/ client side JavaScript applications in keycloak? * am I >> right in assuming that you haven't quite decided yet which >> approach to use and that you are still discussing this in the keycloak >> team? >> >> Looking forwards to your reply! Cheers, Nils >> >> >> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user >> mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org >> <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user >> > > -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat > http://bill.burkecentral.com > _______________________________________________ keycloak-user > mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:24:06 +0100 From: Nils Preusker <n.preusker(a)gmail.com <mailto:n.preusker@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS To: keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> Message-ID: <CA+HCLu_XG0xu+KUALgxoDuAMftA=rBgV-eFhwbDvaxq48NiOwQ(a)mail.gmail.com

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Stian and Bill, thanks for your replies! I'll check out the blog post and try the approach with a web.xml and a keycloak.json in the backend for now. I'll keep you posted on what I end up with on the client side. Cheers, Nils On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Stian Thorgersen <stian(a)redhat.com <mailto:stian@redhat.com>> wrote: > Personally, I think that in most cases for a client-side web app the best > approach is to let the client-side do the oauth flow (the > approach we're > currently taking in keycloak.js). It does depend on your > application though, and if you're application has a strict one > html5 app calls one REST > service then http-only cookies are an option. I don't see any > real benefits > of it though, and I believe it significantly complicates things. > > Have a look at > http://blog.auth0.com/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs..., I think it provides a good summary of the pros of the token approach. > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> To: keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> >> Sent: Thursday, 27 March, 2014 3:39:07 PM Subject: Re: >> [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS >> >> What I like about the current admin console approach is that there is no >> book keeping required by the browser. The Angular app has >> really no knowledge of how it is being secured as its all >> driven by the server. >> Also, you need to remember that the admin console was designed to be run >> in a non-Java EE, non-servlet environment. While this is a requirement >> for Keycloak, it may not be for your application. So, what >> I'm saying >> is that for your angular application, you could rely on the >> servlet container and keycloak adapter to maintain a session >> cookie and identity. >> >> What I like about the keycloak.js approach is that there is no >> server-side adapter required for the UI. The UI could be >> hosted off any >> number of static web sites and use CORS invocations to any >> number of Restful services. >> >> There's also the debate of public vs. confidential clients. >> The keycloak.js approach requires a public client. My >> understanding was that confidential clients exist so that only >> an authenticated client (client *NOT* user) is able to obtain >> an access token. I'm not exactly >> sure what additional security benefits are obtained here >> beyond this. >> I've been trying to ask this very question on OAuth mail lists but have >> been unable to get a response so far. >> >> >> >> On 3/27/2014 10:41 AM, Nils Preusker wrote: >>> Hi Stian and Bill, >>> >>> I've posted some questions regarding this topic before but I thought > I'd >>> start a new thread to keep things focused: >>> >>> I'm writing an AngularJS application with Java EE 6/7 REST (JAX-RS) >>> backend modules. To add authentication and authorization to >>> this application, I'd like to use keycloak >>> >>> * as a user and role management front-end * to provide a >>> customizable login page (works very well by the way ;) >>> * as an OAuth 2.0 token provider * to add user and role >>> information to the HTTPRequests in my REST/ backend modules >>> >>> To do this, I'm currently looking at keycloak.js and the > customer-app-js >>> example. However, I'm wondering whether this is really the best way to >>> go. In a reply to an earlier post of mine you mentioned that >>> the keycloak admin console is written in AngularJS and that >>> you are using >>> HTTP-only cookies there. >>> >>> However, in keycloak.js and the customer-app-js example you >>> are retrieving the token in the JS app and adding an >>> authorization header >>> with a bearer token to the HTTP requests. >>> >>> So here are my questions: >>> >>> * Is there a reason you are using two different approaches >>> in the admin >>> console and the official demo app? * which one of the two >>> approaches (bearer tokens vs. HTTP-only cookie) >>> will you support/ will be the officially recommended one for HTML5/ >>> client side JavaScript applications in keycloak? * am I right >>> in assuming that you haven't quite decided yet which approach >>> to use and that you are still discussing this in the keycloak >>> team? >>> >>> Looking forwards to your reply! Cheers, Nils >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user >>> mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user >>> >> >> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat >> http://bill.burkecentral.com >> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user >> mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org >> <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user >> > _______________________________________________ keycloak-user > mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/attachments/20140327/b8e5e... ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:29:54 -0400 From: Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS To: Stian Thorgersen <stian(a)redhat.com <mailto:stian@redhat.com>> Cc: keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> Message-ID: <53345202.4060105(a)redhat.com <mailto:53345202.4060105@redhat.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed One of the problems with the keycloak.js approach is that we have no way to perform a single log out or to force a logout of a specific user. I think the OpenID Connect spec may have a way with IFrames to do this sort of thing though. I didn't really get it at first glance though. On 3/27/2014 12:18 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote: > Personally, I think that in most cases for a client-side web app the best approach is to let the client-side do the oauth flow (the approach we're currently taking in keycloak.js). It does depend on your application though, and if you're application has a strict one html5 app calls one REST service then http-only cookies are an option. I don't see any real benefits of it though, and I believe it significantly complicates things. > > Have a look at http://blog.auth0.com/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs...,

> > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> To: keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> >> Sent: Thursday, 27 March, 2014 3:39:07 PM Subject: Re: >> [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS >> >> What I like about the current admin console approach is that there is no >> book keeping required by the browser. The Angular app has >> really no knowledge of how it is being secured as its all >> driven by the server. Also, you need to remember that the admin >> console was designed to be run >> in a non-Java EE, non-servlet environment. While this is a requirement >> for Keycloak, it may not be for your application. So, what >> I'm saying >> is that for your angular application, you could rely on the >> servlet container and keycloak adapter to maintain a session >> cookie and identity. >> >> What I like about the keycloak.js approach is that there is no >> server-side adapter required for the UI. The UI could be >> hosted off any >> number of static web sites and use CORS invocations to any >> number of Restful services. >> >> There's also the debate of public vs. confidential clients. >> The keycloak.js approach requires a public client. My >> understanding was that confidential clients exist so that only >> an authenticated client (client *NOT* user) is able to obtain >> an access token. I'm not exactly >> sure what additional security benefits are obtained here beyond >> this. I've been trying to ask this very question on OAuth mail >> lists but have >> been unable to get a response so far. >> >> >> >> On 3/27/2014 10:41 AM, Nils Preusker wrote: >>> Hi Stian and Bill, >>> >>> I've posted some questions regarding this topic before but I thought I'd >>> start a new thread to keep things focused: >>> >>> I'm writing an AngularJS application with Java EE 6/7 REST >>> (JAX-RS) backend modules. To add authentication and >>> authorization to this application, I'd like to use keycloak >>> >>> * as a user and role management front-end * to provide a >>> customizable login page (works very well by the way ;) >>> * as an OAuth 2.0 token provider * to add user and role >>> information to the HTTPRequests in my REST/ backend modules >>> >>> To do this, I'm currently looking at keycloak.js and the customer-app-js >>> example. However, I'm wondering whether this is really the >>> best way to >>> go. In a reply to an earlier post of mine you mentioned that >>> the keycloak admin console is written in AngularJS and that >>> you are using >>> HTTP-only cookies there. >>> >>> However, in keycloak.js and the customer-app-js example you >>> are retrieving the token in the JS app and adding an >>> authorization header >>> with a bearer token to the HTTP requests. >>> >>> So here are my questions: >>> >>> * Is there a reason you are using two different approaches >>> in the admin >>> console and the official demo app? * which one of the two >>> approaches (bearer tokens vs. HTTP-only cookie) >>> will you support/ will be the officially recommended one for >>> HTML5/ client side JavaScript applications in keycloak? * am >>> I right in assuming that you haven't quite decided yet which >>> approach to use and that you are still discussing this in >>> the keycloak >>> team? >>> >>> Looking forwards to your reply! Cheers, Nils >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user >>> mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org >>> <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user >>> >> >> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat >> http://bill.burkecentral.com >> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user >> mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org >> <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user >> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ keycloak-user mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user End of keycloak-user Digest, Vol 3, Issue 14 ******************************************** _______________________________________________ keycloak-user mailing list keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTNSHcAAoJEDnJtskdmzLMHrYH/1D/vMgPxD0WUZ5KdIoD5Cow gb9fa+RZDQrpPxL1qKpqWJX3g1cKt8hQa1Xz7dX64G3/xcLUUkoJKkAtiJPysp75 xbkdWV+RGQXDHuyZcS75xEXQlPaWt2cEVxdSXMalzfQPzVhq00FBbeJLirKLbYsY I2CIjJgCSQhmOrVfP5vUSdrwsLsd+TBXee4779YiOceSW16oG9Nfsa5gF1XJSNhi o2fZCEkoXhbTD7RXuhhrDWlFBCQOIgWf6FUHEAVKnXeIR5oey6U9hv1Z16Kd2Pll Pv8+LWlJjKMfkmrCQrVQvYSI/n64vxjikta2ByBdOPethsebqXO9oknbiPtjq6E= =TiWl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----