[keycloak-user] Different URLs for front-end redirect and back-channel
Hi,
we're having a scenario with a Keycloak (OIDC) protected classic web
application (no SPA) which has the
restriction that it is not allowed to do any internet requests from its
server within the DMZ it is located.
Due to this restriction it cannot execute any back-channel requests
(e.g. /token, /userinfo) to Keycloak
because the configured "auth-server-url" is the front-end URL which is
only visible through internet and
actually points to Firewall/Loadbalancer component.
Now the question:
What do you think about an enhancement request for Keycloak (server and
OIDC adapter) to allow different URLs
for front-end (browser redirect) and back-channel URLs?
That would imply several changes:
1. The server side endpoint implementations (UserInfoEndpoint,
TokenIntrospectionEndpoint) are using TokenVerifier
which by default checks the token issuer.
This check will fail because the realmUrl of the back-channel
request will be unequal to the token's issuer URL,
which comes from the session created at login with the front-end URL.
There are several variants to handle this:
a) There is already a boolean varibale "checkRealmUrl" in
TokenVerifier to disable this check, but no way to set it to false.
It might be an option to support a switch per client to
disable/enable this check.
b) Instead of deriving the issuer name from the current request URL
it might be possible to (optionally) provide
an explicit issuer name field per realm. That would allow
setting issuer names that are completely independent
of any network infrastructure.
c) When issuing a token through TokenEndpoint, set the issuer to the
current /token request URI rather than using
the one from the associated session.
see TokenManager.initToken():
token.issuer(clientSession.getNote(OIDCLoginProtocol.ISSUER));
2. The OIDC adapters must support a new (optional) configuration
parameter (e.g. "auth-server-redirect-url") to
allow setting a separate front-end URL.
Do you see any security issue with such an enhancement?
Cheers,
Manfred