[keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
Stian Thorgersen
stian at redhat.com
Fri Dec 5 09:23:53 EST 2014
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 3:15:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 12:07:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 2:57:46 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication Broker
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 11:43:32 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > Broker
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 2:36:14 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > > Broker
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:59:08 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > > > Broker
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another related thing. We've had a few people ask to be able to
> > > > > > login
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > Keycloak on mobiles using the native social login mechanism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the best way to do that is to use the direct grant api and
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > possible to call that endpoint passing a IdP id and a token instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > username and password.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > The broker endpoint expects the idp id in order to start the
> > > > > authentication
> > > > > process. Today, the endpoint also expects KCs authorization code in
> > > > > order
> > > > > to
> > > > > validate requests from clients and use it as a state to validate
> > > > > responses
> > > > > from the trusted idps.
> > > > >
> > > > > This authorization code is a blocker for this use case, given that
> > > > > mobile
> > > > > don't have this code and just want to start the authentication.
> > > > >
> > > > > A possible solution would be to change the broker to also accept a
> > > > > client_id
> > > > > to reference the mobile app and perform some validations based on
> > > > > that.
> > > > > Something like that:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Mobile displays a Facebook button
> > > > > 2) User clicks the button and mobile sends a request to KC Broker
> > > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > idp id and his client_id.
> > > > > 3) KC Broker checks if the client_id is valid and creates a temporary
> > > > > authorization code.
> > > > > 4) KC Broker redirect mobile to the chosen IdP to perform
> > > > > authentication.
> > > > > 5) KC Broker receives a response from the IdP, generate its own token
> > > > > and
> > > > > send it back to mobile
> > > > >
> > > > > Makes sense ?
> > > >
> > > > No that's not the flow I had in mind. Basically the mobile app
> > > > authenticates
> > > > with Facebook through the native mechanisms. The app then has an access
> > > > token, which it would send to Keycloak on the direct grant api to
> > > > obtain
> > > > a
> > > > Keycloak token.
> > >
> > > Ahh, now I get what you mean :)
> > >
> > > Yes, what you said is enough. Then we just need to validate the access
> > > token
> > > (eg.: using a tokeninfo endpoint).
> > >
> > > But I think we can also consider that use case I mentioned. You may want
> > > to
> > > login without forcing the user to redirect to KC login page.
> >
> > We could just add a query param to the login url that lets you pick the IdP
> > to use by alias?
> >
> > For example auth/.../login?client_id=...&auth_method=google
>
> Yes, just like my previously example, we need the client_id. The idp id/alias
> is already there.
Sure, was just saying it should be the same URL as the regular login page, but with one extra param to specify the IdP.
>
> Btw, regarding SAML. SAML does not provide a "validation" endpoint like
> oAuth2/OpenID providers usually provide. AFAIK, there is nothing on the
> specs for that. What can be done here is validate SAML assertions against a
> WS-Trust STS. Or just trust the assertion based on the signature and others
> standards info along it.
>
> We can also take a closer look at the oAuth2 SAML bearer token profile and
> see if it helps.
If we could have it for social and OpenID Connect providers for now that'd be good.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Same for other identity providers, the assumption is the app has an out
> > > > of
> > > > bounds mechanism to obtain an access token, which is then sent to
> > > > Keycloak
> > > > over the direct grant api.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 1:45:24 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and Authentication
> > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 10:22:10 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looks good. I reckon we can combine the two pages. What about
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > 'Add
> > > > > > > > provider' drop-down is:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OpenID
> > > > > > > > SAML
> > > > > > > > ------
> > > > > > > > Google
> > > > > > > > GitHub
> > > > > > > > Facebook
> > > > > > > > Twitter
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's drop social on/off and instead have a enable/disable
> > > > > > > > button
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > provider.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, would be nice if users could set a name or alias for a
> > > > > > > > provider
> > > > > > > > instance. This would make the callback url easier to use
> > > > > > > > (instead
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > callback/<UUID> it's callback/<alias>). The user federation
> > > > > > > > providers
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One of my first tries was using an alias, just like that. But I
> > > > > > > preferred
> > > > > > > using the UUID and make the configuration more easier. Beside
> > > > > > > that,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > callback url is just a copy and paste, so I think an alias would
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > bring
> > > > > > > so much usability, but add one more step when configuring
> > > > > > > providers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, if this is an usability requirement for KC I can change
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 1:08:53 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In one of our last discussions, you suggested to leave Social
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is.
> > > > > > > > > Although IMO I think we can have a single place to manage
> > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > social
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > user-defined identity providers. Social ones are just OOTB
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > pre-configured identity providers now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That said, today I'm using separated tabs for social and
> > > > > > > > > user-defined.
> > > > > > > > > Please, take a look at [1] for more details on how the UI
> > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > like.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've changed social UI a bit in order to provide a specific
> > > > > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > create/update. I've also added a "Show Secret" link to
> > > > > > > > > display
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > client_secret in clear text if user wants to.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Beside the enable/disable button, I think another good thing
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > specify
> > > > > > > > > a default role(s) for each provider. That can be useful if
> > > > > > > > > applications
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > to perform any kind of authorization based on the identity
> > > > > > > > > provider
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > authentication method used to authenticate an user (eg.:
> > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > adaptative or multi-level access control). We can also use
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > "amr"
> > > > > > > > > claim
> > > > > > > > > in the ID Token, which seems KC is not considering at all.
> > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > important thing to think of, regardless this broker work I'm
> > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwjsrPoH8khWMFBvNUcwYWVHRUU/view?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 6:15:15 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having a separate enable/disable for each provider would be
> > > > > > > > > good.
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > you're
> > > > > > > > > leaving the social tab as is and adding a separate tab for
> > > > > > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > brokered idp's then we should leave the social enable/disable
> > > > > > > > > button,
> > > > > > > > > otherwise it depends how it'll look like in the end.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 5 December, 2014 2:29:37 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Social has a button to enable/disable it. I'm wondering
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the brokered identity providers. Shall we add a similar
> > > > > > > > > > flag
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I was also wondering if the best would be a flag in a
> > > > > > > > > > per
> > > > > > > > > > provider
> > > > > > > > > > basis.
> > > > > > > > > > So we can disable/enable a specific provider (social or
> > > > > > > > > > brokered),
> > > > > > > > > > instead of doing that for all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > Pedro Igor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:42:11 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:23:24 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 1:13:08 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll go for it then. Will remove the icon url from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > leave
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > for users if they want to provide icons for their
> > > > > > > > > > > > identity
> > > > > > > > > > > > providers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My point is that icons can be usually served by the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > server/application
> > > > > > > > > > > > or proxy, so download images are not such a big deal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > icon
> > > > > > > > > > > > url
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > part of the freemarker model and people can do what
> > > > > > > > > > > > ever
> > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > What I think will also help in your future plans.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not following. Are you saying that if a named image
> > > > > > > > > > > 'my-provider.png'
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > loaded from a theme, then you can override it in another
> > > > > > > > > > > theme?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If so, that's basically the same as having a css class
> > > > > > > > > > > 'my-provider'
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > theme. With the exception that with an image you end up
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > require a image per provider per theme per language,
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > images for a single provider. Also, buttons for
> > > > > > > > > > > accessibility
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > defined with text and css, not images that can't be
> > > > > > > > > > > interpreted.
> > > > > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > still need to modify the theme, so I don't see any
> > > > > > > > > > > benefits.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You are right. Having a icon url per provider does not
> > > > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > are requirements to change images accordingly to a theme or
> > > > > > > > > > language.
> > > > > > > > > > CSS
> > > > > > > > > > makes life easier.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Will remove that property from the model.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:04:33 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:55:21 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Users can now specify a Icon Url to be rendered on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > login
> > > > > > > > > > > > > page
> > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or any other identity provider is configured. So we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > load
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > url entered by the user.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that users should change the theme or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > customize
> > > > > > > > > > > > > css
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only want to change an icon for a provider ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, there's many issues with having a icon url:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Won't work for internationalization - we don't have
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > now,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Image is not a good button - CSS is much better
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Doesn't support themes - we allow users to switch l&f
> > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > switching
> > > > > > > > > > > > themes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but that won't work for a icon url. In the future we
> > > > > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > multiple themes per-realm, for example to depending on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > devices
> > > > > > > > > > > > (one
> > > > > > > > > > > > theme for mobiles, one for desktops, etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Requires the URL to be hosted somewhere - why require
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > download an image (to a separate server maybe) if it
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a single CSS file?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rather than add additional places to define look and
> > > > > > > > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > components
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > should in the future make it easier to add/customize
> > > > > > > > > > > > themes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 9:42:15 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > All look and feel related things including images and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stylesheets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > part of themes. This is to allow customizing them in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > theme.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > image is not the correct way to render a button, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CSS.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:34:45 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You shouldn't have icon images for social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > providers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > They
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specified
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as part of the theme in CSS as is now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2014 12:22:21 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone know where I can get the icons images
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > providers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems zocial defines them encoded in some way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CSS.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide default images if user does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specify
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > own.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or is still possible to use zocial ones ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 9:01:38 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've done some initial work covering both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > persistence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brokering.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > UI, yet. I'm focused on the model, rest api
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > brokering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I have is enough to decide if we are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aligned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functionality. So you can understand how the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > model
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > persistence),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rest api and brokering functionality looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schedule
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meeting ?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, my branch is here [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pedroigor/keycloak/tree/authentication-broker2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:48:49 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated Identity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently adapters can only make authz decisions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (@RolesAllowed)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on either realm roles or the roles of one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > application.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > related to 1) too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/20/2014 11:40 AM, Bolesław Dawidowicz
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Sounds like something definitely worth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aiming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/20/2014 09:55 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I just wanted to quickly list the additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discussed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> everyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> can think about it (in no particular order):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1) Mapping of tokens - how do we deal with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> external
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> a KC token? For example an external token with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> attribute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'group'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> contains 'sales' and 'manager' could be mapped
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'manager'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> role
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'sales app in a KC token. Could we use Drools?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> user federation to allow more complex mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> roles/groups
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> simple 1-1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2) Retrieving tokens - if an application wants
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> retrieve
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> external
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> token (for example to view Facebook friends if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> logged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Facebook)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3) Configure scope - currently for social we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> limited
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> scope (basic profile and email), to for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> view
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Facebook
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> friends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we'd need to ask for that as well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 4) Selecting provider - currently in social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> brokering) we have an icon user has to select,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> select
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> provider in a different way (for example ask
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> email,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> select
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> based on email domain)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 5) Gateway - don't create a KC token, but just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> forward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> external
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> IMO 1) is a killer feature, as it would allow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> companies
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> external
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> users without having to modify their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> applications.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 5)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> applications need to understand more than one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> token,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rewriting applications.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This work is also somewhat related to other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> mechanisms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> (for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> example Kerberos ticket, LDAP and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> passwordless).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> From: "Pedro Igor Silva" <psilva at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> To: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 November, 2014 8:27:58 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Identity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: "Bill Burke" <bburke at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 4:39:52
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Federated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Identity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On 11/19/2014 1:22 PM, Pedro Igor Silva
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Would like to start a discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> KC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Authentication Broker in order to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Chained
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Federation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> also Identity Federation. First of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> background
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this is all about.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Currently KeyCloak provides two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> basic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> types
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (correct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> me if I'm wrong, please):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1) Local authentication (based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> credential
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> enabled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a realm)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2) Social authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Local authentication is about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authenticating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> locally
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> KC's own identity store. Nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> special
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Authentication which allows users to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> choose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> IdP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to authenticate with. In this case,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> IdP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> always
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> built-in social providers supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> KC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Facebook,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Google,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Twitter, Github and so forth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> When doing social, the user is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> automatically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> provisioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> KC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> identity store after a successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authentication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> need to fill a registration form and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> access
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> quickly. During the provisioning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> basic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> retrieved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> from the social provider such as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> email,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> firstname
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> forth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> are very basic information, any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> related with authorization policies
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> eg.:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> roles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> groups
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> must
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> defined later via KC's admin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> console.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Another important characteristic of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> application receives a KC token and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> issued by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the social IdP during the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> process.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> wants to consume resources from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> resource
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> provider
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authenticated it must obtain the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> access
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> token(again)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> itself
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> prior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to invoke the resource provider API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Assuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> providers are based on oAuth 1.0 or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That said, the Authentication Broker
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> functionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> aims
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cover
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same use cases but with a lot of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> setup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> identity providers(not only social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ones)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> federation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> protocols they may support such as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> SAML,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> OpenID,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> oAuth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> forth.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> This is useful when an enterprise is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> providing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> services
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> customers(IdP) and does not want to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> manage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> relationships. When using a broker,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> steps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> pretty much the same when you are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> social
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authentication,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> important differences on how you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> identity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> providers, different federation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> protocols,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> users
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> provisioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and how claims and attributes are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> resolved.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The brokering functionality can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ways
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> depending
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> broker service is acting as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> gateway
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> When
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> acting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> gateway, the broker will respond to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> issued by the trusted identity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> provider.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> instance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> selects a SAML IdP to authenticate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> with,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> receive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a SAML Response. In this case, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> application
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> must
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> prepared
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to handle a specific federation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> protocol.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> However, the broker service can also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> from the application the protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authenticate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> user.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> this case, the application will just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> receive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ordinary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> KC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> after a successful authentication.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> In both cases, the broker acts as an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> intermediary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> security policies can be applied
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> users
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> try
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authenticate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> themselves against a 3rd party IdP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> brings
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> you think about auditing,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> authorization
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> users
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> provisioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> when federation of identities is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> needed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> security infrastructures (eg.:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> SAML-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> infrastructures)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> benefit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> from KC's support for cloud, rest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> mobile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> cases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I think this is enough to start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> initial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> discussion with Stian about all that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> agreed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> abstract
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> protocol from applications should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> prioritized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> reason is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that it makes life easier for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> applications
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> about KC tokens and nothing else.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> However
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> brings
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> requirements around user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> provisioning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> claim/attribute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> resolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> or mapping. But that would be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Can you elaborate on "abstract the protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> applications"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> sure what you mean by that. IDP federation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> configured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> realm level and really has nothing to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> applications.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> I'm really happy that somebody is doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> this.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> We're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> impressive feature set!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Sure. What I meant was that the application
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> KC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> tokens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> nothing else. It will always receive a KC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> regardless
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to authenticate the user against a 3rd party
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> IdP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (saml,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> oidc,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> whatever).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> example I gave was about an user trying to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> authenticate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> SAML
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> IdP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In this case, after a successful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> IdP,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> IdP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> issue a token to KC. Then KC will validate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> token,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> perform
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> trust
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> security checks, do user provisioning and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> attribute/claim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> resolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> finally issue a KC token and redirect the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> application.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> app is configured to use openid in KC then it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> receive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> openid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> from KC, not saml ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> The other scenario is pretty much the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> KC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> not issue its own token but just replay the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> token
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> issued
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 3rd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> party
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> IdP to the service provider.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I agree that this config goes at the realm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> instance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> create
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enable providers for being used. However, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> specific configuration for applications as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Specially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> defining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> default roles, mapping attributes. Another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> application
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> config
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> when using a OIDC/oAuth IdP. You may want to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> define
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> scopes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> per-application.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Bill Burke
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill Burke
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://bill.burkecentral.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > > > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
More information about the keycloak-dev
mailing list