Yes, if you configure Kerberos authenticator as "ALTERNATIVE" in the
Authentication tab in admin console, then SPNEGO login is done
automatically just if user has kerberos ticket. Otherwise he will be
switched to next authenticator in the chain (by default it's form, so
showing classic username/password form).
Marek
On 04/05/16 06:32, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
If Kerberos ticket is unavailable the username/password login form
should be displayed. If you have LDAP configured username/password
should be checked against this. That's the default behavior AFAIK.
On 3 May 2016 at 20:52, Josh Cain <josh.cain(a)redhat.com
<mailto:josh.cain@redhat.com>> wrote:
How does something a little more common like a Kerberos/LDAP
failover work. I.E. if users have their kerberos ticket
sometimes, but not all the time, how would we configure KC to use
the kerb ticket when available and otherwise LDAP?
Josh Cain | Software Applications Engineer
/Identity and Access Management/
*Red Hat*
+1 843-737-1735 <tel:%2B1%20843-737-1735>
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Stian Thorgersen
<sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
Makes more sense now. In theory it should be relatively easy
to add something like that, as you're just saying if this
provider is unavailable use this other one and you're
guaranteeing that the users will be the same. As you say
though I'm not sure that's a very common use-case and
supporting failover through a single provider would be more
common.
On 3 May 2016 at 19:58, Josh Cain <josh.cain(a)redhat.com
<mailto:josh.cain@redhat.com>> wrote:
Long story short, it's the same user base, but exposed in
a completely different way (as opposed to exactly the same
services set in something like different data centers).
As such, we thought two separate Federation Providers were
appropriate, but now have realized that the failover case
described above isn't covered.
I know this is a pretty non-standard use. We're in the
middle of a migration of our services layer, so we're kind
of an outlier when it comes to typical usage patterns.
We've talked through simply handling this failover
manually using a single provider, and we can by with that
for now, but we're looking ahead at some similar use cases
that might experience the same problem.
@Bill I think some kind of stackable configuration like
the authenticators have could be really useful for us. If
we could mark providers as 'alternative' or 'optional' in
the same way it would give us what we need. Anyway, just
an idea. At the end of the day I think we're after a way
to customize the way in which federation providers
interact with one another (or don't), whatever that looks
like.
Josh Cain | Software Applications Engineer
/Identity and Access Management/
*Red Hat*
+1 843-737-1735 <tel:%2B1%20843-737-1735>
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Stian Thorgersen
<sthorger(a)redhat.com <mailto:sthorger@redhat.com>> wrote:
With the current user federation strategy we have
wouldn't this type of failover be implemented in the
user federation provider itself? You're not actually
"falling" back to another provider, it's the same
provider, but the slave replica right?
On 3 May 2016 at 18:29, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com
<mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> wrote:
We don't have anything like that. Keycloak assumes
that username is unique in a federation. Before
validating credentials it goes through federation
list. The first provider that finds a user of
that username will have credentials validated
against it.
So, no failover. I'm not sure i that's something
Keycloak should be responsible for. I'm open to
adding it though.
On 5/3/2016 12:19 PM, Josh Cain wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We're attempting to stack a number of
> FederationProviders, and I was wondering if
> Keycloak currently does, or plans to support
> falling back to a secondary provider *after*
> another provider has already been used.
>
> For example, consider a realm with two providers
> configured:
>
> 1. ProviderA, Priority 0
> 2. ProviderB, Priority1
>
> Where ProviderB is a fall-back mechanism
> containing the same logical userbase as ProviderA.
>
> If /user1/ logs into Keycloak and is associated
> with ProviderA, then ProviderA goes down, we'd
> ideally like for ProviderB to be able to
> authenticate the user. Right now, all our
> Keycloak instance does is attempt to authenticate
> /user1/ with ProviderA, then fails if the
> provider is unsuccessful. Is there a way to
> failover to ProviderB should ProviderA become
> unavailable?
>
> Josh Cain | Software Applications Engineer
> /Identity and Access Management/
> *Red Hat*
> +1 843-737-1735 <tel:%2B1%20843-737-1735>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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