[keycloak-dev] Application and server in separate networks
Bill Burke
bburke at redhat.com
Sat Apr 28 12:33:20 EDT 2018
Also make sure that your client id matches the one configured for the
client in the admin console. That might be the problem too.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com> wrote:
> Enable standard flow for the client. Its a switch in admin console
> client config.
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Christian Beikov
> <christian.beikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can't get SAML to work. Everytime I try to access a protected page, I
>> get the error "Client is not allowed to initiate browser login with
>> given response_type. Standard flow is disabled for the client".
>>
>> In the logs I see "type=LOGIN_ERROR, realmId=LOCAL, clientId=null,
>> userId=null, ipAddress=10.0.0.1, error=not_allowed"
>>
>> Is there anything I can do to further debug this? I'm using 3.3.0.Final
>> and configured SAML via keycloak-saml.xml having roughly the following
>> content
>>
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> <keycloak-saml-adapter xmlns="urn:keycloak:saml:adapter"
>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>> xsi:schemaLocation="urn:keycloak:saml:adapter
>> http://www.keycloak.org/schema/keycloak_saml_adapter_1_7.xsd">
>> <SP entityID="myapp"
>> sslPolicy="EXTERNAL"
>> nameIDPolicyFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified"
>> logoutPage="/logout"
>> forceAuthentication="false"
>> isPassive="false"
>> turnOffChangeSessionIdOnLogin="false">
>> <IDP entityID="idp"
>> signaturesRequired="false">
>> <SingleSignOnService requestBinding="POST"
>> bindingUrl="http://auth.company.com:8081/auth/realms/LOCAL/protocol/saml"
>> />
>>
>> <SingleLogoutService
>> requestBinding="POST"
>> responseBinding="POST"
>> postBindingUrl="http://auth.company.com:8081/auth/realms/LOCAL/protocol/saml"
>> redirectBindingUrl="http://auth.company.com:8081/auth/realms/LOCAL/protocol/saml"
>> />
>> </IDP>
>> </SP>
>> </keycloak-saml-adapter>
>>
>> Am I missing something or is having a SAML endpoint on Keycloak along
>> with a SAML client not a supported scenario configuration?
>>
>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Christian Beikov*
>> Am 26.04.2018 um 16:50 schrieb Bill Burke:
>>> SAML would definitely work for your case so long as you don't need a
>>> token to make other REST invocations.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Christian Beikov
>>> <christian.beikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the hints. I'll try to see if I can get SAML to work and let
>>>> you know of the result. Anyway, the POST response_mode sounds promising
>>>> and would definitely work in our case. When I put the URL hash I got
>>>> while testing into the query part of the URL, the authentication worked
>>>> properly. So doing a form encoded POST would probably work as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *Christian Beikov*
>>>> Am 26.04.2018 um 15:06 schrieb Marek Posolda:
>>>>> I think it works, but didn't tested that combination. And POST is not
>>>>> supported by any of our adapters ATM, just by server. I know that some
>>>>> of our users use Form POST with 3rd party adapters, but likely the
>>>>> combination of FormPOST with standard flow.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/04/18 14:38, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>>> Cool, so POST mode works with Implicit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> We support response_mode parameter and we also support HTML POST mode
>>>>>>> already on server side. But we specifically disallow "query"
>>>>>>> response_mode
>>>>>>> with implicit flow [1] . This is required per specification and OIDC
>>>>>>> certification had a test exactly for this AFAIR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/master/services/src/main/java/org/keycloak/protocol/oidc/endpoints/AuthorizationEndpoint.java#L227
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25/04/18 23:20, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>>>>> We should probably support response_mode parameter [1] and allow
>>>>>>>> "query" mode for implicit invocations. IMO, the HTML POST mode [2]
>>>>>>>> (like SAML does) would be better as with implicit mode, the access
>>>>>>>> token is leaked to browser history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-multiple-response-types-1_0.html
>>>>>>>> [2] http://openid.net/specs/oauth-v2-form-post-response-mode-1_0.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Christian Beikov
>>>>>>>> <christian.beikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we reached a point where we are not sure how to proceed with the PR
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/pull/5167 for
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-7195
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We added a client adapter configuration for the flow and that part
>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>> so far, but we noticed that when the Keycloak server encounters a
>>>>>>>>> request for authetication via the implicit flow, it puts the token
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> the query fragment part which isn't sent to the application. This
>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>> point where it becomes obvious this mechanism is intended for the JS
>>>>>>>>> adapter :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To resolve the problem and make the flow usable for the Java
>>>>>>>>> adapter as
>>>>>>>>> well, we'd need some way to configure the response mode in the
>>>>>>>>> OIDCLoginProtocol. My question is, how you think this should be done.
>>>>>>>>> I was thinking of either allowing a query parameter to specify the
>>>>>>>>> response mode or a configuration switch in the UI for the client.
>>>>>>>>> I kind
>>>>>>>>> of prefer the query parameter solution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this even a change/feature you would be interested in? We need the
>>>>>>>>> implicit flow because the Keycloak server is in a private network
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> is separate from the application. Maybe there are other people out
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> that have similar needs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Christian Beikov*
>>>>>>>>> Am 20.04.2018 um 09:15 schrieb Niels Bertram:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> can't say for sure but the server side adapters always use standard
>>>>>>>>>> authorization flow, which requires your Java app to connect via a
>>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>>> channel to (A) exchange code grant for access tokens and (B) to
>>>>>>>>>> lookup
>>>>>>>>>> jwks for token validation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The OpenID Connect specification does provide a pure browser based
>>>>>>>>>> flow calledimplicit flow
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#ImplicitFlowAuth>but
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that one has a few drawbacks such as auth tokens delivered in the
>>>>>>>>>> redirect URL and no refresh token capability. Using this flow could
>>>>>>>>>> solve your problem (A) to shift login flow to the frontend but still
>>>>>>>>>> poses the challenge for (B) validating the tokens at the backend.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I could not find a way to configure the Java adapter to work in pure
>>>>>>>>>> offline validation mode. We had a similar requirement some time ago
>>>>>>>>>> and had to code our own auth module to validate incoming tokens
>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>> pre-configured public key. The other common problem we ran into is
>>>>>>>>>> wanting to validate tokens from different (including non-keycloak)
>>>>>>>>>> issuers on the same backend. The Keycloak Java adapters do not
>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>> this use case either. We originally looked at the Spring JWT adapter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-security-oauth/tree/master/spring-security-jwt>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> as an alternative but this project is not properly patched and
>>>>>>>>>> configuration is a wonderful garden of mystery like everything in
>>>>>>>>>> Spring.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Very curious though to see what others are doing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Niels
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:16 AM, Christian Beikov
>>>>>>>>>> <christian.beikov at gmail.com <mailto:christian.beikov at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As far as I see in the code, the Java Adapters always use the
>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>> flow i.e. response_type=code
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please tell me this observation is wrong and there is an
>>>>>>>>>> undocumented
>>>>>>>>>> setting I just didn't see that I can use to tell the
>>>>>>>>>> adapter to
>>>>>>>>>> use the
>>>>>>>>>> implicit flow instead :|
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If this is really missing, where would you suggest this
>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>> configured? I'd expect the setting to be in
>>>>>>>>>> KeycloakDeployment and
>>>>>>>>>> OAuthRequestAuthenticator#loginRedirect would then use the
>>>>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>> of always using the "code" value.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Christian Beikov*
>>>>>>>>>> Am 18.04.2018 um 17:35 schrieb Christian Beikov:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Is there any way to avoid the access code to access token
>>>>>>>>>> exchange?
>>>>>>>>>> > Since the Keycloak server is not accessible, I'm getting
>>>>>>>>>> an error
>>>>>>>>>> > during authentication:
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > ERROR [org.keycloak.adapters.OAuthRequestAuthenticator]
>>>>>>>>>> (default
>>>>>>>>>> > task-54) failed to turn code into token:
>>>>>>>>>> > java.net.UnknownHostException: blabla.local: unknown error
>>>>>>>>>> > ...
>>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> org.keycloak.adapters.ServerRequest.invokeAccessCodeToToken(ServerRequest.java:111)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> org.keycloak.adapters.OAuthRequestAuthenticator.resolveCode(OAuthRequestAuthenticator.java:330)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> org.keycloak.adapters.OAuthRequestAuthenticator.authenticate(OAuthRequestAuthenticator.java:275)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> org.keycloak.adapters.RequestAuthenticator.authenticate(RequestAuthenticator.java:139)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> org.keycloak.adapters.undertow.AbstractUndertowKeycloakAuthMech.keycloakAuthenticate(AbstractUndertowKeycloakAuthMech.java:110)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > at
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> org.keycloak.adapters.undertow.ServletKeycloakAuthMech.authenticate(ServletKeycloakAuthMech.java:92)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > ...
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> > Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > *Christian Beikov*
>>>>>>>>>> > Am 18.04.2018 um 14:48 schrieb Thomas Darimont:
>>>>>>>>>> >> Hello Christian,
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> your application server needs to communicate with the
>>>>>>>>>> Keycloak
>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>> >> to retrieve the realm public key referenced in the token to
>>>>>>>>>> verify
>>>>>>>>>> >> the token signature.
>>>>>>>>>> >> The current implementation in Keycloak fetches & caches
>>>>>>>>>> unknown
>>>>>>>>>> >> public keys automatically.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> You could also use a fixed realm public key on the
>>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>>> server
>>>>>>>>>> >> side but it would not support key rotation anymore.
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> >> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> 2018-04-18 13:45 GMT+02:00 Christian Beikov
>>>>>>>>>> >> <christian.beikov at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:christian.beikov at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:christian.beikov at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:christian.beikov at gmail.com>>>:
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> is it necessary that an application secured by
>>>>>>>>>> Keycloak can
>>>>>>>>>> >> access the
>>>>>>>>>> >> Keycloak server? Or is it enough if the Browser can
>>>>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> >> Keycloak
>>>>>>>>>> >> server?
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> --
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> *Christian Beikov*
>>>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> >> keycloak-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> >> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>>>>>>>> >> <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>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
> Red Hat
--
Bill Burke
Red Hat
More information about the keycloak-dev
mailing list