[keycloak-dev] Additional things to consider for 1.0.final

[Stian Thorgersen]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marek Posolda" <mposolda at redhat.com>
> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> Cc: "keycloak dev" <keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Sent: Friday, 18 July, 2014 10:03:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Additional things to consider for 1.0.final
> 
> On 18.7.2014 10:25, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> > Last we didn't do it because of the potential headache for admins to deal
> > with it, especially in a cloud environment.
> >
> > I wonder if it would make sense to always encrypt in the database with a
> > master key for the server. The master key could then be specified in
> > keycloak-server.json. If users need the additional security they could
> > make sure keycloak-server.json (as well as standalone.xml which has the
> > ssl certificate keys) are stored on an encrypted drive. If not stored in
> > keycloak-server.json the user would have to specify it when starting the
> > server, which would have to be done by a prompt I think. Specifying it as
> > an environment variable or system properties is not very safe as that can
> > just as easily be read by an intruder as a file. This would make life a
> > bit harder in a cluster though.
> Not sure about prompt, but master key in keycloak-server.json should
> work well and won't be a pain in cluster as long as all cluster nodes
> have same value in keycloak-server.json? Only thing is that if we add
> some default value into keycloak-server.json, then probably 99% of
> people won't change it:-)

We'd have to generate it on the first startup. I guess in a cluster people would have to sync keycloak-server.json between all nodes in either case. 

> 
> But it's better than nothing IMO as people at least have possibility to
> change the master key if they want better security .
> 
> Maybe best is to have SPI with encrypt/decrypt methods, which adds best
> flexibility for people (default implementation will just encrypt/decrypt
> with master key from keycloak-server.json)?

Yep, we may even want to support hardware security modules, which would require some form of an SPI for encryption/decryption. IMO that's not for this round though.

> 
> Marek
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Marek Posolda" <mposolda at redhat.com>
> >> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>, "keycloak dev"
> >> <keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> >> Sent: Thursday, 17 July, 2014 6:42:13 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Additional things to consider for 1.0.final
> >>
> >> One thing, which we discussed before was encoding of privateKey before
> >> saving to DB? As currently if someone "steal" database record with
> >> privateKey, he is able to create encoded accessTokens and send requests
> >> to bearer-only applications.
> >>
> >> Or is this still planned for August?
> >>
> >> Marek
> >>
> >> On 17.7.2014 14:55, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >>> As we didn't have enough things to do last minute I come up with more
> >>> things which I think we should do for 1.0.final:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Configure JPA through keycloak-server.json instead of persistence.xml
> >>>
> >>> This would be super simple to do, and would let us have a single
> >>> persistence.xml for everything (testsuite, server, project-integrations).
> >>> Everything worthy of configuring in persistence.xml (including
> >>> datasource)
> >>> can be passed in the Map overrides when creating the
> >>> EntityManagerFactory.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2. Introduce server-dependencies-min and server-dependencies-all poms
> >>>
> >>> We have a few places that includes all the dependencies required (server,
> >>> testsuite/integration and testsuite/) as well as other project such as
> >>> AeroGear and LiveOak. Instead of everyone having to list all the
> >>> dependencies they could have a single dependency on either
> >>> server-dependencies-min or server-dependencies-all. Min would exclude
> >>> most
> >>> if not all provider implementations (such as PicketLink/LDAP, social
> >>> providers, etc).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 3. TOTP SPI
> >>>
> >>> At the moment we only support Google Authenticator, I don't think that's
> >>> sufficient. We should at the very least add support for one more, and
> >>> have
> >>> an SPI so users can add their own. I think this would be related to the
> >>> UserProvider sync work, as some UserProvider implementations may require
> >>> both a password and totp to verify a users credentials, while others
> >>> would
> >>> only be able to verify the password and then have Keycloak verify the
> >>> totp.
> >>>
> >>> Also, do we need to support users with more than one totp? Personally I
> >>> have two for work (one I use daily and another for backup).
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> keycloak-dev mailing list
> >>> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> >>
> 
>