On 01/04/16 02:21, Anthony Fryer wrote:

Hi,

Up until recently I automatically selected to use implicit grant flow from SPAs, but lately I’ve been re-assessing this since the keycloak javascript adapter provides standard flow out of the box and makes that a viable option. I also note that the keycloak admin console is a HTML5/javascript/angular js app that uses the keycloak js adapter and uses the standard flow. As a side note I find the client defaults interesting in that Implicit flow is disabled, but direct access grants are enabled (I’m coming from a mitreid connect implementation where direct access grants where disabled by default and implicit flow was enabled, so just wonder what the thinking is behind this since direct access grants are discouraged).

Direct grants is enabled mostly for backwards compatibility and for having slightly easier some admin tasks. For example because direct grant is enabled, you have possibility to invoke admin REST endpoints once you start Keycloak, which is widely used in tests. Without direct grants enabled, you would first need to manually go to admin console and enable it for admin console client, but that's not easily just with admin REST endpoints (outside admin console UI) if it is disabled - in other words it's classic chicken-egg problem.

The direct grants is discouraged mainly because it requires users to enter their password in your app instead of Keycloak server. However:
- If your app is web-based and doesn't require direct grants, you just won't ask users to enter their password into your app
- If your app is not web-based and requires direct grants, you would still need to enable direct grant and ask people to enter their password into your application. If they don't trust it, they just reject to enter password to your app.

So from security and end-users perspective, there is not much difference between the case when direct access grant is enabled or disabled by default IMO.

I’m really wondering why are you pushing standard flow from the keycloak javascript adapter instead of implicit? What are the benefits that make standard flow better in this case? One thing I have seen mentioned is refresh tokens obtained in standard flow make it easy to get a new access token, but I thought you could get refresh tokens from the implicit flow anyway, and even if not, if a user logs in with “remember me”, then getting a new access token doesn’t require re-entering credentials by the user. I want to make sure that when implementing keycloak in our SPA we choose the best flow and want to know if there’s some reason standard flow is best.

Yes, the refreshing tokens is not allowed in implicit flow per OIDC specification. Also there are accessToken and idToken sent in the URI fragment in implicit flow, which can in theory have some security implications.

So with implicit flow, you have to redirect to login screen (as you mentioned above) instead of just simply refreshing tokens. Redirecting to login screen is usually worse for performance-wise than refreshing tokens and also requires some change in logic of your javascript app, but it's doable (For example you can implement callback keycloak.onTokenExpired or you can always manually check the expiration on accessToken before sending refresh request to 3rd party service). Logic for refreshing token in javascript app is quite simple, you just need to wrap the REST call with keycloak.update to ensure the accessToken is automatically refreshed by adapter in case that it's expired (or going to be expired).

Marek

Regards,

$Description: Description: C:\Users\jayt\Desktop\tonyjay_sig_files\virginaustralia.gif$

Anthony Fryer | Solution Architect & Designer

Mb: 0438 781 745

Email: anthony.fryer@virginaustralia.com

Virgin Australia group of airlines including Virgin Australia,
V Australia, Pacific Blue and Polynesian Blue

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

The content of this e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential communication between Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd (Virgin Australia) or its related entities (or the sender if this email is a private communication) and the intended addressee and is for the sole use of that intended addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorized and prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and then delete the message and any attachment(s). There is no warranty that this email is error, virus or defect free. This email is also subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If this is a private communication it does not represent the views of Virgin Australia or its related entities. Please be aware that the contents of any emails sent to or from Virgin Australia or its related entities may be periodically monitored and reviewed. Virgin Australia and its related entities respect your privacy. Our privacy policy can be accessed from our website: www.virginaustralia.com
_______________________________________________
keycloak-user mailing list
keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user