[keycloak-dev] Cross-DC and codeToToken request

[Bill Burke]

We've talked about this earlier in the thread.  The User session is 
needed as brokering or some other component might have stored temporary 
data within the user session that is being mapped to a claim.  This will 
become especially important when we implement no-import brokering.  
Either the code has to contain all claims, or the user session has to be 
available.

IMO, the most viable solution is that the code contains routing 
information and the code-to-token endpoint acts as a proxy if the 
session doesn't exist on that node.


On 5/24/17 12:25 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> I meant if we are planning to change it. I don't see why it would need 
> to contain actual claims, but rather could it not just contain the 
> details to generate the claims?
>
> On 23 May 2017 at 21:43, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com 
> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     Nope, right now OAuth code just references userSession and client.
>     ATM code itself is not JWT.
>
>     Marek
>
>
>     On 23/05/17 14:55, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>     Marek - are we not just storing the details we need to know what
>>     mappers to invoke? There's no actually claims in there right?
>>
>>     On 23 May 2017 at 12:29, Schuster Sebastian (INST/ESY1)
>>     <Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com
>>     <mailto:Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Another argument against providing claims in the code is that
>>         it can be stolen by rogue mobile apps and PKCE does not help
>>         here as it only prevents using stolen codes. Encrypting the
>>         code could help, but this might also have impact on code
>>         size. Maybe it is best to first try the on-demand replication
>>         approach and see if it nails it before introducing another
>>         configuration switch that could be set wrong and the
>>         associated code?
>>
>>         Best regards,
>>         Sebastian
>>
>>         Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
>>
>>          Sebastian Schuster
>>
>>         Engineering and Support (INST/ESY1)
>>         Bosch Software Innovations GmbH | Schöneberger Ufer 89-91 |
>>         10785 Berlin | GERMANY | www.bosch-si.com
>>         <http://www.bosch-si.com>
>>         Tel. +49 30 726112-485 <tel:%2B49%2030%20726112-485> | Fax
>>         +49 30 726112-100 <tel:%2B49%2030%20726112-100> |
>>         Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com
>>         <mailto:Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com>
>>
>>         Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg;
>>         HRB 148411 B
>>         Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Rainer Kallenbach, Michael Hahn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         > -----Original Message-----
>>         > From: keycloak-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org
>>         <mailto:keycloak-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org>
>>         [mailto:keycloak-dev- <mailto:keycloak-dev->
>>         >bounces at lists.jboss.org <mailto:bounces at lists.jboss.org>] On
>>         Behalf Of Marek Posolda
>>         > Sent: Dienstag, 23. Mai 2017 10:41
>>         > To: Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com
>>         <mailto:bburke at redhat.com>>; keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>         <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>         > Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Cross-DC and codeToToken request
>>         >
>>         > On 22/05/17 15:16, Bill Burke wrote:
>>         > >>> 4) Is it ok to have option to relax on code one-time
>>         use? Otherwise
>>         > >>> in cross-DC and without sticky session, the every code
>>         exchange may
>>         > >>> require SYNC request to another DCs to doublecheck code
>>         was not used
>>         > already.
>>         > >>> Not good for performance..
>>         > >>>
>>         > >> Maybe this is OK. Confidential apps needs credentials
>>         and then
>>         > >> there's Proof Key for Code Exchange for public clients.
>>         Although the
>>         > >> latter may be another issue in cross-DC?
>>         > >>
>>         > >>
>>         > >>> For now, I can see some combination of 1,3,4 as a way
>>         to go. WDYT?
>>         > >>> Marek
>>         > > I think 1 and 4 will hobble us for future things we want
>>         to do.
>>         >
>>         > Ok, I understand 1 may be problematic for some scenarios
>>         and won't do it. But
>>         > what exactly is a blocker for relax on code one-time use?
>>         >
>>         > I am thinking that code will be still single-use by default
>>         as it's required per
>>         > OAuth2/OIDC specs. However admins, who prefer performance
>>         over security, may
>>         > choose to relax strict code one-time use. This may be new
>>         option - not sure
>>         > whether configurable per realm or per client. I can see
>>         it's likely ok in some
>>         > environments (private corporate networks
>>         > etc) ?
>>         >
>>         > Marek
>>         >
>>         > _______________________________________________
>>         > keycloak-dev mailing list
>>         > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>         <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>         > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>         <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         keycloak-dev mailing list
>>         keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>         <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>         https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
>>         <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev>
>>
>>
>
>