[keycloak-dev] Authentication flows - follow-up tasks and usability improvements
Stian Thorgersen
sthorger at redhat.com
Wed Nov 20 06:55:02 EST 2019
An action doesn't just have to be a required action set on the user
anymore. We have support for AIA (application initiated actions, where an
application can request the user to complete an action) as well as actions
themselves can encode logic on when they should execute.
The above doesn't help with the case you are mentioning though with
allowing a user to select between different actions where they are required
to enable two-factor authentication, but have options on what to implement.
That is something we have to figure out pretty soon. My 2 cents on it is
that we need an action that can list the options to the user. Not sure how
exactly that should look like though and how it should be wired in with the
code.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 10:46, Poiffaut Romain <romain.poiffaut at elca.ch>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We were also using required actions at the beginning but due to some
> limitations of required actions we also had to implement some
> authenticators to circumvent them.
> The main limitation that we have identified is linked to the purpose
> itself of required actions, which persists the added action onto the user.
> In my view, in some cases it may not be the appropriate tool:
> Consider a scenario of a company which enforces 2FA only for external
> access.
> If a user never uses the extranet, he may live without the 2FA.
> Let's imagine this user once tries to connect from external premises, a
> required action will be automatically added to the user. For some reasons,
> user changes its mind and cancels the process. Then he resumes working from
> the internal network, and does not need the 2FA. However, the user will
> still have to register 2FA anyway, since the required action is still
> attached to this user
>
> Moreover, the authentication flows are highly customizable, especially
> with the new conditional flows. So it sounds an interesting feature to be
> able to redirect a user to a flow. That way we would have the benefit of
> the two mechanisms (high customization of flow and email sending or AIA).
>
> As an example, we have implemented the multi-factor registration with
> credential registration authenticator. With the following flow, the user
> decides which kind of credential he want to register among the configured
> alternatives.
>
> Auth type | Requirement
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cookie [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> Kerberos [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> Identity Provider Redirector [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> Authenticate with Keycloak [x] Alternative [ ] Required [ ]
> Conditional [ ] Disabled
> | - Username Password Form [ ] Alternative [x] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> | - Authenticate with MFA [ ] Alternative [ ] Required [x]
> Conditional [ ] Disabled
> | - Condition User Configured [x] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> | - OTP [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> | - WebAuthn [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> | - Hardware Token [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> | - Register MFA [ ] Alternative [ ] Required [x]
> Conditional [ ] Disabled
> | - Condition User not Configured [x] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> | - OTP Registration [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> | - WebAuthn Registration [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
> | - Hardware Token Registr. [x] Alternative [ ] Required
> [ ] Disabled
>
> Romain
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: keycloak-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org <
> keycloak-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org> On Behalf Of Stian Thorgersen
> Sent: mercredi, 20 novembre 2019 08:43
> To: Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com>
> Cc: keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-dev] Authentication flows - follow-up tasks and
> usability improvements
>
> A multi-step action is something completely different to supporting custom
> flows per action though.
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 16:09, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I guess it could be the case when some "action" requires multiple
> screens?
> > For example "passport validation" would consider of 4 separate
> > steps/forms and each of them needs to be properly filled by the user.
> >
> > I can see it can be useful that action points to the custom flow, but
> > also not sure how common this use-case is...
> >
> > Marek
> >
> > On 19. 11. 19 15:33, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >
> > I agree it would be good to be able to configure actions. I guess
> > that's the main reason you're using an authenticator and not an
> > action? I think using an action instead would be simpler in your case
> than an authenticator.
> >
> > One way you could configure the action until we have support for
> > configurable actions would be to just use some custom realm attributes.
> >
> > To be honest I don't fully understand why you need a custom flow. As
> > it seems you just have an action for the user to validate their
> > identity, which based on some condition should be triggered during login.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 13:02, Johannes Knutsen <johannes at kodet.no>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hard to tell how wide the usage is/would be and it probably varies a
> >> lot between business sectors. I will be happy to present our use
> >> cases in more details if you are interested.
> >>
> >> Your proposed solution is basically the way we solved it, but the
> >> required actions are hard to make generic to be used in different
> >> realms because the don't have any configuration per realm. So at
> >> least have them configurable per realm would help a lot.
> >> The basic terms and condition is quite simple and in our case the
> >> code because quite complex when we must design the flow in code.
> >
> >
> >> In some cases we have also used a custom authenticator in the
> >> registration flow, but it seems like executors marked as Required in
> >> the registration flow can be bypassed by registering the user and
> >> then go to reset password and trigger the reset password flow. This
> >> case is solved by adding the same authenticator to the reset password
> >> flow, but then we end up with duplicate configuration. Is this by
> >> design or is it a bug or unwanted side effect of how this is designed?
> >>
> >
> > I'd say it seems like it's valid behavior and the unwanted side
> > effects is probably more down to the fact that you are trying to write
> > an action as an authenticator.
> >
> > If a user completes the registration form, but then abandons the flow,
> > they are free to continue from any other flow. To prevent that you'd
> > have to make sure your custom registration flow doesn't have a valid
> > user until after it has gone through all the steps required. Not sure
> > how easy that would be, but again it feels like it's down to using the
> > wrong tool for the job (authenticator vs action).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> If anyone else in the community have made custom required actions, it
> >> would be nice to hear about it. I like the concept they represent and
> >> to have them a little more flexible would make some authentication
> >> flows simpler in our cases.
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps it would be best to start a new thread around this as it's
> > buried within a different topic at the moment.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> - Johannes
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:18 PM Stian Thorgersen
> >> <sthorger at redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It makes sense, but not convinced about the approach with custom
> >> > flows
> >> for required actions. I think that would be quite a lot of effort and
> >> at the same time not have a wide use.
> >> >
> >> > Actions can already have logic within the action itself on whether
> >> > or
> >> not it should be triggered during a login. It seems in your use-case
> >> that would be sufficient. One way you could do that is to add a
> >> custom attribute to the user "identity.verified", when you want the
> >> action to trigger you set the attribute to "not-verified" then the
> >> action would set it to "verified" when user has verified their
> >> identity. Would be similar to terms and condition.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 10:16, Johannes Knutsen <johannes at kodet.no>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> One specific use-case is identity verification of users using
> >> >> passport or other types of identity papers. Such a process is
> >> >> typically a default required action which is required before the
> >> >> user is allowed to login. But there are also cases where a user
> >> >> must be identified at a later point of time. This could be
> >> >> triggered by some external system which would add the required
> action to the user entity in Keycloak.
> >> >> For example an external fraud system could flag the user as a
> >> >> suspect and add the required action to the user. Scheduling of
> >> >> required action would also be an interesting model, where you
> >> >> could configure Keycloak to run a required action every x days.
> >> >>
> >> >> The process of identification is typically a complete flow which
> >> >> could involve several required steps and must be configurable. The
> >> >> current required actions does not seem to have any way of adding
> >> >> configuration properties? And it would be nice if we could model
> >> >> this flow as a flow in Keycloak the same way we model
> >> >> authentication and registration browser flow.
> >> >> Currently, the best way we have found is to create a custom
> >> >> authenticator which is added to registration, password reset, and
> >> >> authentication flows. But this requires us to configure the
> >> >> authenticators multiple times with the possibility of
> >> >> inconsistencies between the configuration.
> >> >>
> >> >> Another example is the current required action "UpdateProfile",
> >> >> which does all the verification logic itself. But instead, the
> >> >> UpdateProfile action could have been an UpateProfile flow which
> >> >> defined several required or alternative actions which defined the
> >> >> process of UpdateProfile. The required action would then just point
> to that flow.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does this make sense?
> >> >>
> >> >> - Johannes
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 9:25 PM Marek Posolda
> >> >> <mposolda at redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for the feedback. But I am not 100% sure I understand
> >> >> > your
> >> use-case.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If I understand correctly, at some point, you want the user to
> >> >> > do something - for example confirm his contact details. Is this
> >> something,
> >> >> > which administrator should specify (EG. administrator will need
> >> >> > to
> >> add
> >> >> > requiredAction to the user in admin console) or is it something
> >> >> > requested by some applications?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Maybe AIA and step-up authentication is solution for your
> >> >> > use-case,
> >> but
> >> >> > will be good to clarify exactly how your ideal use-case looks like.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Marek
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 15. 11. 19 21:24, Johannes Knutsen wrote:
> >> >> > > Sorry if you find this a little off topic, but I found this
> >> discussion
> >> >> > > interesting.
> >> >> > > Regarding RequiredActions, we have some use cases where we
> >> >> > > would
> >> like
> >> >> > > to build custom required flows. For example for user
> >> >> > > identification (think scanning of passports), regular
> >> >> > > confirmation of contact
> >> details
> >> >> > > and so on.
> >> >> > > From our point of view, a required action where you could
> >> >> > > specify
> >> a
> >> >> > > custom authentication flow the same way you select a flow for
> >> >> > > IdP First/Post login flow, would be really nice. This way you
> >> >> > > could
> >> mostly
> >> >> > > reuse existing logic and flexibility.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Do you have any thoughts on how much changes this would
> >> >> > > require? Do you have other more specific thoughts on how
> >> >> > > required actions
> >> could be
> >> >> > > more flexible. Currently, I find them a little useless since
> >> >> > > they
> >> are
> >> >> > > not configurable as regular authenticators.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Johannes
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:27 AM Marek Posolda <
> >> mposolda at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >> On 13. 11. 19 12:52, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 22:00, Marek Posolda
> >> >> > >>> <mposolda at redhat.com <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Based on the discussion within Keycloak team and with
> >> CloudTrust team
> >> >> > >>> and also based on the other facts, there are still
> >> >> > >>> quite a
> >> few
> >> >> > >>> follow-up
> >> >> > >>> tasks regarding usability and further improvements. It
> >> >> > >>> will
> >> be
> >> >> > >>> good to
> >> >> > >>> clarify the priorities of the follow-up tasks and also
> >> >> > >>> how
> >> exactly to
> >> >> > >>> address them. Regarding usability, it will be nice to
> >> receive
> >> >> > >>> feedback,
> >> >> > >>> so we're on the same page how screens should look like.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> 1) Improvement for end-user during authentication in
> >> regards to
> >> >> > >>> select
> >> >> > >>> alternative credential for authentication. This is
> >> something,
> >> >> > >>> which we
> >> >> > >>> discussed within the Keycloak team. The idea is to
> >> >> > >>> provide
> >> users the
> >> >> > >>> same/similar screens like Google does. We are a bit more
> >> >> > >>> constrained as
> >> >> > >>> Google doesn't allow administrators to have custom
> >> authentication
> >> >> > >>> flows
> >> >> > >>> and hence doesn't need to care too much about various
> corner
> >> >> > >>> cases. So
> >> >> > >>> not sure if we can achieve same usability for all the
> >> possible
> >> >> > >>> authentication flow configurations. But we probably
> >> >> > >>> have a
> >> space for
> >> >> > >>> improvement here.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> I've created google docs
> >> >> > >>>
> >> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13PpcT26WPTC7v34hS6rj8U63xyZx4
> >> lZrPdeHF7qLkdU/edit?usp=sharing
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> with some example scenarios how could authentication of
> >> >> > >>> end
> >> user
> >> >> > >>> looks
> >> >> > >>> like for particular authentication flow configuration
> >> >> > >>> and
> >> for
> >> >> > >>> particular
> >> >> > >>> set of credentials available to target user. Comments
> >> should be
> >> >> > >>> allowed
> >> >> > >>> to anyone, so feel free to comment here or in the docs.
> >> Also if
> >> >> > >>> you have
> >> >> > >>> idea for some more use-cases to cover, feel free to
> >> >> > >>> write
> >> here.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> IMO this looks like quite a priority as it affects
> end-users
> >> >> > >>> usability
> >> >> > >>> and hence will be nice to have this before February?
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Added some comments, but would be good to go through this in
> >> person.
> >> >> > >>> Can we have a chat sometime early next week?
> >> >> > >> Sure, I will try to schedule something. Replied to some of
> >> >> > >> your
> >> comments.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> 2) More flexibility around conditional authenticators
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Some basic ideas, which we discussed within Keycloak
> >> >> > >>> team
> >> around
> >> >> > >>> conditional authenticators are:
> >> >> > >>> - Ability that each condition is able to "vote" rather
> >> >> > >>> than
> >> have
> >> >> > >>> requirements on conditional executions. It could be
> >> something
> >> >> > >>> similar to
> >> >> > >>> authorization policies available in Keycloak
> >> >> > >>> authorization
> >> services.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> - Ability to compound conditions based on "AND" / "OR"
> >> logical
> >> >> > >>> conditions. For example allow easily to configure that
> >> particular
> >> >> > >>> subflow will be triggered if (condition1 == true ||
> >> (condition2 ==
> >> >> > >>> true
> >> >> > >>> && condition3 == true)
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> - Ability to configure conditions. For example ability
> >> >> > >>> to
> >> have
> >> >> > >>> positive/negative logic for RoleCondition similarly like
> >> >> > >>> RolePolicy in
> >> >> > >>> authorization services has.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> - Ability to integrate with the 3rd party engine for
> >> adaptive
> >> >> > >>> authentication
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> - Ability for administrators to clearly see how
> >> >> > >>> conditions
> >> are
> >> >> > >>> evaluated. Ideally have same/similar level of
> >> >> > >>> flexibility
> >> like
> >> >> > >>> Authorization policies have
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> I can try to do some more concrete proposal with
> >> >> > >>> example of
> >> screens,
> >> >> > >>> hopefully later this week. If anyone wants to start on
> >> >> > >>> some
> >> proposal
> >> >> > >>> around this before, feel free to go. IMO this is
> >> >> > >>> something,
> >> which
> >> >> > >>> doesn't have so big priority like (1) as it doesn't
> >> >> > >>> affect
> >> end users.
> >> >> > >>> The question is, whether to postpone improvements around
> >> >> > >>> conditions to
> >> >> > >>> later next year when we start on step-up authentication
> >> (which will
> >> >> > >>> require good flexibility around conditions and hence
> >> >> > >>> should
> >> help to
> >> >> > >>> naturally address this)
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> I found the ability to configure requirement on a condition
> >> strange
> >> >> > >>> and confusing. Perhaps we should enable/disable conditions
> >> >> > >>> for
> >> now,
> >> >> > >>> then consider something more powerful next year. We can chat
> >> about
> >> >> > >>> this as well on GMeet next week.
> >> >> > >> Yes, so probably have just something like ENABLED/DISABLED on
> >> >> > >> the conditions for now? Or don't have any checkbox/switch and
> >> automatically
> >> >> > >> assume that condition, which is in the authentication flow is
> >> enabled.
> >> >> > >> Then admin can remove the condition if he wants to "disable"
> >> >> > >> it. I probably vote for that option.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> 3) Usability improvements in the admin console in the
> >> "Authentication
> >> >> > >>> flows" screen. The plan is to rewrite admin console in
> >> >> > >>> the
> >> future and
> >> >> > >>> improve on various screens, however until that is done,
> >> >> > >>> we
> >> can
> >> >> > >>> probably
> >> >> > >>> improve usability a bit even in the current admin
> >> >> > >>> console
> >> to make the
> >> >> > >>> things slightly more friendly for the administrators. I
> >> consider
> >> >> > >>> those
> >> >> > >>> things a low hanging fruits in comparison to (2) and
> >> >> > >>> hence
> >> hopefully
> >> >> > >>> doable before February.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-12013 Hide the
> >> subflows
> >> >> > >>> if the
> >> >> > >>> parent flow is disabled
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> +1
> >> >> > >> Ok
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Question is, how exactly to hide the authenticators of
> >> >> > >> disabled
> >> subflow,
> >> >> > >> so that UI is nice and clear for the administrators... IMO it
> >> will be
> >> >> > >> nice if it is still somehow visible that there are some
> >> >> > >> hidden authenticators in the disabled subflow. Maybe they can
> >> >> > >> be somehow collapsed and should be some tooltip or something,
> >> >> > >> that those authenticators are disabled.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11968 Ensure
> that
> >> >> > >>> REQUIRED and
> >> >> > >>> ALTERNATIVE executions are not mixed at same level.
> >> ALTERNATIVE
> >> >> > >>> executions are defacto ignored/disabled when they are used
> >> >> > >>> together with
> >> >> > >>> REQUIRED executions, hence it will be nice if admin is
> >> aware of
> >> >> > >>> that and
> >> >> > >>> won't have possibility to configure ALTERNATIVE at same
> >> level as
> >> >> > >>> REQUIRED (or at least is WARNED somehow that this
> >> configuration
> >> >> > >>> doesn't
> >> >> > >>> makes sense and ALTERNATIVES will be ignored).
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Need to see how it behaves after the updates, but I would
> >> >> > >>> think
> >> being
> >> >> > >>> able to set requirement on an authenticator within a
> >> >> > >>> sub-flow
> >> where
> >> >> > >>> they are all alternatives doesn't make sense.
> >> >> > >> Ok
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> The question is again, how to do that in the UI. I can try to
> >> >> > >> do
> >> some
> >> >> > >> screenshots / HTML templates and maybe look at some
> >> >> > >> Patternfly components regarding this.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11824 When
> >> authentication
> >> >> > >>> execution is added, we should make sure that some
> >> REQUIREMENT is
> >> >> > >>> selected by default
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> I would focus on usability improvements on changing the
> >> >> > >>> default
> >> flows
> >> >> > >>> for now, then we can polish custom flows later.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> I was actually thinking that the default flows should not
> >> >> > >>> use
> >> the flow
> >> >> > >>> UI at all, but rather some more high-level options.
> >> >> > >> I am not 100% sure if having 2 different UI is good? What you
> >> describe
> >> >> > >> below can be configured with the current authentication flow UI.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> I can see that having "simple" UI, which will just allow
> >> >> > >> enable
> >> 1st
> >> >> > >> factor and 2nd factor authenticators have some advantages,
> >> >> > >> but it probably have some side-effects too. More work for us,
> >> >> > >> more
> >> potential
> >> >> > >> for bugs. It may be also less clear for administrators how to
> >> configure
> >> >> > >> custom authentication flow as they won't see what happens
> >> >> > >> during
> >> the
> >> >> > >> default flow and hence they can't "inspire" from it.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> Just to illustrate the idea (not sensible options):
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Identity first login: [ON]
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Delegated
> >> >> > >>> -------------
> >> >> > >>> Cookie: [ON]
> >> >> > >>> Kerberos: [configure]
> >> >> > >>> IdP redirect: [configure]
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> First-factor
> >> >> > >>> --------------
> >> >> > >>> Password: [ON]
> >> >> > >>> WebAuthn: [ON]
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> Second-factor
> >> >> > >>> ------------------
> >> >> > >>> OTP: [ON]
> >> >> > >>> WebAuthn: [ON]
> >> >> > >>> Backup Codes: [ON]
> >> >> > >> Few points regarding this:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> - Right now, the default login form in the browser flow is
> >> >> > >> still "Username / password" form. The multi-factor prototype
> >> >> > >> didn't
> >> change
> >> >> > >> this default behaviour. Should we change the default form to
> >> >> > >> be username-only form, so that next form can be adjusted
> >> >> > >> based on
> >> which
> >> >> > >> credentials the particular user has? Basically have something
> >> >> > >> like Google? The side-effect is, that having UsernameForm as
> >> >> > >> default
> >> allows
> >> >> > >> "username enumeration", but that IMO is not big issue for
> >> >> > >> most of
> >> the
> >> >> > >> deployments.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> - I think there will be usually different requirements for
> >> >> > >> the "First-factor WebAuthn" and "second-factor WebAuthn" .
> >> >> > >> For example "First-factor WebAuthn" may require WebAuthn
> >> >> > >> authenticator with
> >> >> > >> "UserRequirement: REQUIRED" when the second-factor just
> >> >> > >> "UserRequirement: PRESENT" . However we still have this
> >> limitation that
> >> >> > >> there is single WebAuthn configuration (WebAuthn policy) per
> >> >> > >> whole realm. Same for OTP. So I think we may need to address
> this first.
> >> >> > >> Perhaps we can have a way, so that administrator can
> >> >> > >> configure
> >> multiple
> >> >> > >> "Credential configuration" instances of same credential type
> >> >> > >> in
> >> the
> >> >> > >> realm. Then he can link the particular "credential
> configuration"
> >> with
> >> >> > >> the Authenticator in the flow. So that the "First-factor
> WebAuthn"
> >> >> > >> authenticator has the configuration with the UserRequirement:
> >> REQUIRED"
> >> >> > >> and the second-factor with PRESENT.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> I think this can be doable before February, we just need to
> >> >> > >> agree
> >> on
> >> >> > >> priorities.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> - We probably need some more flexibility regarding
> >> RequiredActions.
> >> >> > >> Basically have a possibility to have required action like
> >> "Register 2nd
> >> >> > >> factor credential" . So user will be required to register the
> >> >> > >> credential, but he should be able to choose which credential
> >> >> > >> he registers. IMO this is pretty complex thing, which may
> >> >> > >> require
> >> separate
> >> >> > >> design documents. I have some doubts we can do it before
> >> February...
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11969 Hide the
> >> conditional
> >> >> > >>> authenticator if it is configured outside of
> >> >> > >>> conditional
> >> flow.
> >> >> > >>> This JIRA
> >> >> > >>> is related to the conditional executions and hence I am
> >> >> > >>> not
> >> sure
> >> >> > >>> whether
> >> >> > >>> to address it together with other improvements related
> >> >> > >>> to
> >> conditional
> >> >> > >>> authenticators. However it is low hanging fruit in
> >> comparison to
> >> >> > >>> (2), so
> >> >> > >>> probably doable.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> +1 Would also be good to make sure Conditions look different
> >> >> > >>> +to
> >> >> > >>> Authenticators
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> 4) Other usability improvements. Similarly like (3),
> >> >> > >>> those
> >> are low
> >> >> > >>> hanging fruits and likely doable before February.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-12011 Remove
> >> cancel
> >> >> > >>> button from
> >> >> > >>> OTP form. IMO it will be better for usability if "Cancel"
> >> button is
> >> >> > >>> removed from the OTP form. Form already has the "Back"
> >> button, which
> >> >> > >>> provides more flexiblity. This is a bit related to the
> >> topic (1).
> >> >> > >>> WDYT?
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> See my comment on the slides. I don't think we should have
> >> cancel or
> >> >> > >>> back buttons. We should have:
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> * Something that displays the select user, with an option to
> >> start
> >> >> > >>> from scratch to select another user.
> >> >> > >>> * "Try another way" to select a different credential for the
> >> >> > >>> corresponding step.
> >> >> > >> Ok, so cancel button should be removed. Regarding "Back"
> >> >> > >> button, I replied on the slides.
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-11922 Apply
> >> password history
> >> >> > >>> policy when password reset by admin. After applying
> >> multi-factor
> >> >> > >>> prototype, the password history policy is not applied
> >> >> > >>> when
> >> password
> >> >> > >>> reset by admin. It is applied just in case when it is
> >> >> > >>> reset
> >> by user
> >> >> > >>> himself. IMO this behaviour is fine and can even have
> >> better security
> >> >> > >>> (The case when admin randomly guess the password of
> >> >> > >>> some
> >> user can
> >> >> > >>> cause
> >> >> > >>> admin to be tempted to try this password against some
> >> >> > >>> other
> >> web
> >> >> > >>> application and authenticate as that user). Any
> >> >> > >>> preference
> >> on the
> >> >> > >>> behaviour?
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >>> I don't think we should change the behavior from what it was
> >> previously.
> >> >> > >> Ok
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> Marek
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >>> Thanks for the feedback,
> >> >> > >>> 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
> >> >> > >>>
> >> >> > >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> > >> 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
>
>
More information about the keycloak-dev
mailing list