[keycloak-dev] Keycloak session limiting (KEYCLOAK-849) (BA-93)

Tue Apr 2 05:54:53 EDT 2019

Oauth client uses the direct grant flow though. We'll need tests for both
flows. Deleting cookies should work, you may also be able to use a new
webdriver instance with custom/different cookie store to allow controlling
it

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, 10:31 Mauro de Wit, <maurodewit at gmail.com> wrote:

> Using the Oauth client to create mutliple sessions works :)
> based my code on org.keycloak.testsuite.oauth.LogoutTest and this is
> exactly what I need!
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 11:15, Mauro de Wit <maurodewit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately this doesn't work. Deleting the cookies works, but still no
>> new session is created. Had to navigate to the login page again though to
>> delete the cookies, otherwise the URL didn't match and no cookies were
>> deleted.
>> Will give it a try now using the JAX RS or Oauth client now.
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 13:22, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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> 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>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <stian at redhat.com> any thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 15:23, Jared Blashka <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> 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> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ok, thanks for the clarification.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:39, Stian Thorgersen <
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>