[keycloak-dev] Client Scope naming

Mon Mar 19 08:33:57 EDT 2018

If you support scopes you definitely need some claims in the token that represent the granted scopes. Otherwise as a resource server you could only do token introspection to retrieve the scopes and having to do this always defeats the purpose of self-contained tokens. The fact that Keycloak supports defining custom mappings of scopes to roles (and now arbitrary claims with token mappers) is just fine, I think.

Btw. access tokens and scopes is not always user consent, see client credentials grant…

Best regards,
Sebastian

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Dr.-Ing. Sebastian Schuster

Engineering and Support (INST/ESY1)
Bosch Software Innovations GmbH | Ullsteinstr. 128 | 12109 Berlin | GERMANY | www.bosch-si.com<http://www.bosch-si.com>
Tel. +49 30 726112-485 | Fax +49 30 726112-100 | Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com<mailto:Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com>

Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Ferber, Michael Hahn

From: Pedro Igor Silva [mailto:psilva at redhat.com]
Sent: Montag, 19. März 2018 13:19
To: Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com>
Cc: Schuster Sebastian (INST/ESY1) <Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com>; keycloak-dev <keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Client Scope naming

OAuth2 does not define any format for access tokens - as you know they are opaque - so you can push whatever you want into it, use it as a reference, etc. But if you look https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7662 you'll see that token introspection response includes a "scope" claim.

The main point I'm trying to make here is that access tokens usually represent user consent. Consent is not the same thing as a role granted to an user. So I may want to build my REST API without any role mapping but based on user consent to specific scopes. Where these scopes grant access to different parts of my API.

But I think that should also be possible with your changes. We would just need to have a mapper that adds to an access token the scopes granted by the user to a client. Or maybe make this information also available via introspection endpoint (which I think we are missing).

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:22 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com<mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
Yes, and this (almost) all should be possible now with new client scopes stuff I did. It won't be a problem to have "device.localization" client scope, which doesn't have any roles or protocolMappers. And require this client scope to be present on consent screen.

Only thing, which is not directly available OOTB from what you mentioned, is the: Check if scope "device.localization" is granted by introspecting the token. For instance, checking a scope claim within a token.

For now, I've just added client scopes to refresh token, but that one is opaque to the adapter. I did not add anything to access token or ID token. The "scope" claim is not defined on OIDC or OAuth2, so we don't have it in our tokens. Do you know if it's defined in some other specification? We can do our extension and add some stuff into access token similarly like we did for roles, but not sure we want that?

Marek

On 16/03/18 14:27, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
We already had discussions a long time ago about it. I do think that scopes are a first class citizen when doing OIDC and OAuth2, not RBAC. We are too role-based ...

Thinking it simple, as an admin user I may want to:

* Create a scope "device.localization" with consent required for a client

As a client:

* Ask for "device.localization" scope when obtaining tokens from AS

As a resource server:

* Check if scope "device.localization" is granted by introspecting the token. For instance, checking a scope claim within a token.

See, no role mapping, no scope -> role mapping, etc. User just consented to grant "device.localization" scope.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com<mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
On 16/03/18 13:24, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
That is what I was thinking. In authz services, scopes are not related with roles or protocol mappers. They are just a string representing something you can perform/access in a protected resource. Use client scopes to represent such concept and remove "authz scopes" tab is a bit overkill, I think.

Currently, if I have a Localization API and a scope that grants access based on a "device.localization"  scope, I would need to create a role/mapper and associate it with a client scope, right ?
You mean that you have support for "device.localization" value of OAuth scope parameter? Yes, you would need to create clientScope and associate role "device.localization" with it. With client scopes support, the scope parameter doesn't reference single role, but single client scope.

Marek

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:46 AM, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com<mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
Scope parameter would reference client scopes. For example scope parameter "openid email profile offline_access" will reference client scopes "email", "profile" and "offline_access" (openid is jsut generic OpenID Connect marker).  And each client scope is set of protocolMappers and/or Role scope mappings.

Marek

On 15/03/18 12:39, Pedro Igor Silva wrote:
How a scope looks like now after your changes ? Are they just strings referencing a set of one or more roles ? Or they are still roles ?

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com<mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
That's good question. As you know, we also have "Scope" tab (used to
specify scope role mappings of client) and "Authorization scope", which
is used when Authorization is enabled :)

Marek

On 14/03/18 14:37, Schuster Sebastian (INST/ESY1) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I saw there are activities to replace client templates with client scopes. UMA 2.0 uses the term “client scope” to determine what the OAuth client wants to do with the granted access (e.g. this could be used to determine the purpose of processing some data for GDPR compliance). Since Keycloak will also support UMA 2.0, I am a little concerned this might lead to some confusion. As you know, there are only two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors. ☺ WDYT?
>
> Best regards,
> Sebastian
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
>
> Dr.-Ing. Sebastian Schuster
>
> Engineering and Support (INST/ESY1)
> Bosch Software Innovations GmbH | Ullsteinstr. 128 | 12109 Berlin | GERMANY<https://maps.google.com/?q=Ullsteinstr.+128+%7C+12109+Berlin+%7C+GERMANY&entry=gmail&source=g> | www.bosch-si.com<http://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><mailto:Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com<mailto:Sebastian.Schuster at bosch-si.com>>
>
> Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B
> Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Ferber, Michael Hahn
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
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