[keycloak-dev] Keycloak session limiting (KEYCLOAK-849) (BA-93)
Marek Posolda
mposolda at redhat.com
Mon Apr 1 07:22:44 EDT 2019
Maybe easiest is to login and then call :
driver.manage().deleteAllCookies();
This will delete all cookies, so you can login again within same browser (web driver) and the previous session is still valid (cookies were manually removed from browser, but session is still alive on
server-side as you did not logout). See for example LoginTest.loginExpiredCodeAndExpiredCookies() for some inspiration.
Marek
On 01/04/2019 11:59, Mauro de Wit wrote:
> Ok, I've found some time to continue on the session limiting task.
> I've created a fork of the Keycloak repository from which I eventually
> will make a PR. But first I need to finalize my work (Still need to
> add event logging).
> Currently I am in the process of creating Integration tests for this
> mechanism and have it partly working.
>
> But I'm having trouble creating multiple sessions from a single test.
> Browsing through the existing tests I've not found any example how
> this is done.
> Can anyone point me to an existing example or provide me with
> information howto initiate multiple sessions?
>
> Here are the tests I've written:
> https://github.com/mfdewit/keycloak/tree/KEYCLOAK-849-configurable-session-limits/testsuite/integration-arquillian/tests/base/src/test/java/org/keycloak/testsuite/sessionlimits
>
> Specifically, the UserSessionLimitsTest is requiring me to login
> multiple times. The RealmSessionTest is already working correctly as
> far as I can tell.
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 15:00, Mauro de Wit <maurodewit at gmail.com
> <mailto:maurodewit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Makes sense. Thanks for the input guys.
> I'm on the right track then :)
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 14:59, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com
> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 20/03/2019 12:50, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>> I wasn't even aware we had the 'Post Login Flow'.
>>
>> From the description I would think that Post Login Flow is
>> being executed before the user session is created, while
>> there's an authentication session. So should be fine.
>>
>> Marek - can you confirm?
>
> Yes, exactly. User session doesn't yet exists when "Post Login
> Flow" is executed. This flow exists exactly because of
> use-cases like this - having the ability to execute the hooks
> after broker authentication. For example some people wanted to
> execute TOTP after the authentication with "facebook" broker etc.
>
> Marek
>
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 12:38, Mauro de Wit
>> <maurodewit at gmail.com <mailto:maurodewit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Isn't the 'Post login flow' in the IDP configuration the
>> place for this? Or do we want to avoid this since this is
>> triggered after authentication is complete and the
>> session in created.
>> If this is the case, can you point me in the right
>> direction to create a hook into the redirect from the
>> external broker?
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:59, Stian Thorgersen
>> <sthorger at redhat.com <mailto:sthorger at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> You're right. In fact this should probably be split
>> into two separate authenticators. For realm limits it
>> should be checked as a first part (otherwise you have
>> users authenticating and expensive password hashing
>> when it's already known the session won't be permitted).
>>
>> For regular sessions authenticator works well, but to
>> be honest I completely forgot about brokering. For
>> realm limits it's fine as that authenticator can
>> happen prior to the redirect, but for users there's
>> no hook after the redirected back from the external
>> broker today. There's the first login flow, but that
>> only happens on the first time.
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 10:59, Mauro de Wit
>> <maurodewit at gmail.com <mailto:maurodewit at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I'm missing some fundamental understanding
>> here. Please help :)
>>
>> In case of the browser flow, the authentication
>> flow is executed upon loading a page using the
>> browser. At this time checks are being performed
>> to see if the user is already logged on. If this
>> is the case, no authentication has to be
>> performed and the user is presented the requested
>> page.
>> But if the user is not yet logged on, the cookie
>> authenticator can't do anything usefull resulting
>> in the next authenticator to trigger. Eventually
>> the 'browser forms' authenticator presents a
>> login screen.
>>
>> Given the fact that we need to deny the user
>> access in case a session already exists for
>> his/her account on another machine, we need to
>> know who this user is. How can we know which user
>> we are dealing with at the start of the flow?
>> I can see this working for limiting the number of
>> sessions for each realm, but not for limiting
>> sessions bound to individual user accounts.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 09:19, Stian Thorgersen
>> <sthorger at redhat.com
>> <mailto:sthorger at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The authenticator should be added after the
>> cookie authenticator, not at the end. That
>> will make it take affect for IdP logins as
>> well. So it's a matter of configuring it in
>> two flows browser and direct grant.
>>
>> I appreciate it may not be the best
>> usability, but I don't want to introduce
>> something special/hard-coded for this
>> feature. A later improvement could be to
>> improve on the authentication flows. To have
>> different elements in a flow and not just
>> executions as well as potentially having some
>> pre-flow checks that are done in all flows.
>> I'd say this approach is good enough though
>> at least for now.
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 09:00, Mauro de Wit
>> <maurodewit at gmail.com
>> <mailto:maurodewit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> That is indeed one of the downsides of
>> this approach.
>> But can a misconfiguration of this
>> functionality do any harm, besides some
>> inconsistent behavior between
>> authentication methods?
>>
>> @stian at redhat.com
>> <mailto:stian at redhat.com> any thoughts?
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 15:23, Jared
>> Blashka <jblashka at redhat.com
>> <mailto:jblashka at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> If this is done via an authenticator
>> wouldn't you have to make sure that
>> this authenticator is present (and
>> all the same settings are maintained)
>> in the browser flow as well as the
>> direct access flow as well as the
>> login flows for all configured
>> identity providers? It seems like it
>> would be quite easy to make a mistake
>> in that process and misconfigure
>> something somewhere.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:41 AM Mauro
>> de Wit <maurodewit at gmail.com
>> <mailto:maurodewit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I've started to create a simple
>> proof of concept and want to
>> check if I
>> have my facts straight.
>> As previously discussed this
>> functionality should be provided
>> by a custom
>> Authenticator that is configured
>> in an authentication flow.
>>
>> What I've done so far is:
>> - Created implementations for
>> both the Authenticator and
>> AuthenticatorFactory interfaces.
>> - Added a set of
>> ProviderConfigProperty instances
>> that allow the desired
>> configuration.
>> - Perform the check if any
>> session limits are exceeded
>> inside the
>> authenticate() method of the
>> Authenticator class. (Any session
>> invalidation
>> will be performed here as well)
>>
>> Now, in order to use session
>> limiting for regular
>> username/password form
>> logins, I have created a copy of
>> the 'browser flow' and added this
>> Authenticator as a 'required'
>> execution at the end of the flow.
>> In our case we allow IDP logins
>> as well. And to use this
>> functionality for
>> these logins, I've created a new
>> authentication flow containing
>> just this
>> Authenticator. Finally this flow
>> is selected in the 'Post login
>> flow' of
>> the IDP configuration.
>> For both scenarios the
>> Authenticator seems to be
>> triggered at the right
>> time and I should be able to
>> apply the session limiting rules.
>>
>> Any thoughts or comments so far?
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 14:53,
>> Mauro de Wit
>> <maurodewit at gmail.com
>> <mailto:maurodewit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, thanks for the clarification.
>> >
>> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:39,
>> Stian Thorgersen
>> <sthorger at redhat.com
>> <mailto:sthorger at redhat.com>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> It should be a pluggable part
>> of the authentication flow and not a
>> >> hardcoded element. There is no
>> other way to plug in to the
>> authentication
>> >> flow other than creating an
>> authenticator. An authenticator
>> doesn't need to
>> >> provide a challenge though so
>> it can be used in this instance.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 10:57,
>> Mauro de Wit
>> <maurodewit at gmail.com
>> <mailto:maurodewit at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hello,
>> >>>
>> >>> I am sending this e-mail
>> because I have some questions
>> regarding the
>> >>> enhancement request that
>> enables configurable session
>> limiting in
>> >>> Keycloak
>> >>> as discussed here:
>> >>>
>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-849
>> (The developer that Marc
>> >>> Wijma
>> >>> referred to in his comment as
>> being available for this task is
>> me btw :))
>> >>>
>> >>> In the comments a solution is
>> proposed that makes use of a custom
>> >>> Authenticator that is dropped
>> into the authentication flow
>> where it can
>> >>> be
>> >>> configured. While I can see
>> the benefit of leveraging the
>> existing
>> >>> components as much as
>> possible (including the
>> configuration options in
>> >>> that
>> >>> flow), I am wondering if this
>> is the best solution. As far as I
>> can tell,
>> >>> this component is not
>> performing any authentication at
>> all. Moreover this
>> >>> functionality operates
>> 'above' the authentication
>> mechanisms and should
>> >>> apply to all of them.
>> >>> So is an Authenticator really
>> the desired place to implement
>> this? Or is
>> >>> this just the quickest route,
>> while not being the most
>> desirable option
>> >>> for
>> >>> the long term? What would be
>> an alternative approach be? That
>> would place
>> >>> this implementation and
>> configuration in the existing Session
>> >>> configuration
>> >>> code for instance.
>> >>>
>> >>> I just now started
>> investigating this task and
>> looking into the options
>> >>> that would meet our
>> requirements. Hope to hear from you.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>>
>> >>> Mauro
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>>
>
More information about the keycloak-dev
mailing list