[keycloak-user] Inject (Keycloak)Principal

Fri Mar 28 11:57:29 EDT 2014

The KeycloakSecurityContext has access to the IDToken which can contain 
information like name, email, address, etc... Depending on how you 
configure your realm.  Maybe IDToken should be added to the 
KeycloakPrincipal?

On 3/28/2014 11:47 AM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> Yes that is expected behaviour. The ID of the user is the unique reference to a user within Keycloak, and is what we recommend you use to refer to the user within your application when possible. The reason being is that there are reasons why a username/email may not refer to the same user over time. For example we will allow users to change their username (a feature you'll be able to disable), a user may be deleted, and another user re-created with the same username.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Nils Preusker" <n.preusker at gmail.com>
>> To: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Friday, 28 March, 2014 3:17:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Inject (Keycloak)Principal
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm also looking into this right now and got it to work. However, I tried to
>> retrieve the username from the HttpServletRequest with
>> "servletRequest.getRemoteUser()" but instead of the name or e-mail I'm
>> getting the actual ID from the database
>> (62ccf5fd-949b-413d-977b-6f8bc29f94bf).
>>
>> Is this the expected/ intended behavior?
>>
>> Also, @Dirk: let me know if you need any help getting the injection of the
>> roles and user id to work.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nils
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Juraci Paixão Kröhling < juraci at kroehling.de
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> Dirk,
>>
>> It seems it's missing the @SecurityDomain("keycloak") in your service,
>> at the type level. If that's not the case, I can update the
>> "sample-ejb-roles" quickstart, adapted to use Keycloak, so you can
>> compare and check what's missing.
>>
>> Just to confirm: have you also added the security-domain to the
>> standalone.xml? The instructions are at the end of section 6.2.1 from
>> the user guide:
>>
>> http://docs.jboss.org/keycloak/docs/1.0-alpha-3/userguide/html_single/index.html#d4e485
>>
>> Juca.
>>
>> On 03/28/2014 01:31 AM, Dirk Franssen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was playing around with the examples, more specifically with the
>>> customer-portal-js which is accessing the database resource. In
>>> that CustomerService I was trying to get access to the Principal
>>> and trying to extend to return in addition the username of the
>>> logged-in user:
>>>
>>> @Path("customers") public class CustomerService {
>>>
>>> @Inject Principal principal;
>>>
>>> //@Context //SecurityContext sc; //Principal principal =
>>> sc.getUserPrincipal();
>>>
>>> //@Context //ContainerRequestContext request; //SecurityContext sc
>>> = request.getSecurityContext(); //Principal principal =
>>> sc.getUserPrincipal();
>>>
>>> @GET @Produces("application/json") @NoCache public List<String>
>>> getCustomers() { ArrayList<String> rtn = new ArrayList<String>();
>>> rtn.add("Bill Burke"); rtn.add("Stian Thorgersen"); rtn.add("Stan
>>> Silvert"); rtn.add("Gabriel Cardoso"); rtn.add("Viliam Rockai");
>>> rtn.add("Marek Posolda"); rtn.add("Boleslaw Dawidowicz");
>>> rtn.add(principal.getName()); //<--- add username to the list
>>> return rtn; } }
>>>
>>> But this throws a npe as the principal is always null. I noticed
>>> that the JaxrsBearerTokenFilter is adding to the
>>> ContainerRequestContext a new SecurityContex, of which the
>>> getUserPrincipal method returns the KeycloakPrincipal. But I can't
>>> figure out how to get access to this from the CustomerService.
>>>
>>> My intention is to verify if the logged-in user is accessing his
>>> own resources, and e.g. is not trying to update data of somebody
>>> else. E.g. the id should match principal.getName() in following:
>>>
>>> @POST @Path("/users/{id}/friends") public void
>>> addFriend(@PathParam("id") String userId, Friend friend) { ... }
>>>
>>> Any suggestions? It would be nice if, beside the KeycloakPrincipal
>>> is injectable, to be able to define something like @IsOwner:
>>>
>>> public void addFriend(@PathParam("id") @IsOwner String userId,
>>> Friend friend)
>>>
>>> or even more concise:
>>>
>>> public void addFriend(@IsOwner("id") String userId, Friend friend)
>>>
>>> Kind regards, Dirk Franssen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:29 PM,
>>> < keycloak-user-request at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user-request at lists.jboss.org >> wrote:
>>>
>>> Send keycloak-user mailing list submissions to
>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user or, via
>>> email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> keycloak-user-request at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user-request at lists.jboss.org >
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> keycloak-user-owner at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user-owner at lists.jboss.org >
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
>>> specific than "Re: Contents of keycloak-user digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Re: Keycloak and AngularJS (Bill Burke) 2. Re: Keycloak and
>>> AngularJS (Stian Thorgersen) 3. Re: Keycloak and AngularJS (Nils
>>> Preusker) 4. Re: Keycloak and AngularJS (Bill Burke)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:39:07 -0400 From: Bill Burke
>>> < bburke at redhat.com <mailto: bburke at redhat.com >> Subject: Re:
>>> [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS To:
>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org > Message-ID:
>>> < 5334461B.8040202 at redhat.com <mailto: 5334461B.8040202 at redhat.com >>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>>
>>> What I like about the current admin console approach is that there
>>> is no book keeping required by the browser. The Angular app has
>>> really no knowledge of how it is being secured as its all driven by
>>> the server. Also, you need to remember that the admin console was
>>> designed to be run in a non-Java EE, non-servlet environment.
>>> While this is a requirement for Keycloak, it may not be for your
>>> application. So, what I'm saying is that for your angular
>>> application, you could rely on the servlet container and keycloak
>>> adapter to maintain a session cookie and identity.
>>>
>>> What I like about the keycloak.js approach is that there is no
>>> server-side adapter required for the UI. The UI could be hosted
>>> off any number of static web sites and use CORS invocations to any
>>> number of Restful services.
>>>
>>> There's also the debate of public vs. confidential clients. The
>>> keycloak.js approach requires a public client. My understanding
>>> was that confidential clients exist so that only an authenticated
>>> client (client *NOT* user) is able to obtain an access token. I'm
>>> not exactly sure what additional security benefits are obtained
>>> here beyond this. I've been trying to ask this very question on
>>> OAuth mail lists but have been unable to get a response so far.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/27/2014 10:41 AM, Nils Preusker wrote:
>>>> Hi Stian and Bill,
>>>>
>>>> I've posted some questions regarding this topic before but I
>>> thought I'd
>>>> start a new thread to keep things focused:
>>>>
>>>> I'm writing an AngularJS application with Java EE 6/7 REST
>>>> (JAX-RS) backend modules. To add authentication and authorization
>>>> to this application, I'd like to use keycloak
>>>>
>>>> * as a user and role management front-end * to provide a
>>>> customizable login page (works very well by the way ;) * as an
>>>> OAuth 2.0 token provider * to add user and role information to
>>>> the HTTPRequests in my REST/ backend modules
>>>>
>>>> To do this, I'm currently looking at keycloak.js and the
>>> customer-app-js
>>>> example. However, I'm wondering whether this is really the best
>>>> way to go. In a reply to an earlier post of mine you mentioned
>>>> that the keycloak admin console is written in AngularJS and that
>>>> you are using HTTP-only cookies there.
>>>>
>>>> However, in keycloak.js and the customer-app-js example you are
>>>> retrieving the token in the JS app and adding an authorization
>>>> header with a bearer token to the HTTP requests.
>>>>
>>>> So here are my questions:
>>>>
>>>> * Is there a reason you are using two different approaches in
>>>> the
>>> admin
>>>> console and the official demo app? * which one of the two
>>>> approaches (bearer tokens vs. HTTP-only cookie) will you support/
>>>> will be the officially recommended one for HTML5/ client side
>>>> JavaScript applications in keycloak? * am I right in assuming
>>>> that you haven't quite decided yet which approach to use and that
>>>> you are still discussing this in the
>>> keycloak team?
>>>>
>>>> Looking forwards to your reply! Cheers, Nils
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:18:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Stian
>>> Thorgersen < stian at redhat.com <mailto: stian at redhat.com >> Subject:
>>> Re: [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS To: Bill Burke
>>> < bburke at redhat.com <mailto: bburke at redhat.com >> Cc:
>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org > Message-ID:
>>> < 884719116.3009607.1395937081146.JavaMail.zimbra at redhat.com
>>> <mailto: 884719116.3009607.1395937081146.JavaMail.zimbra at redhat.com >>
>>>
>>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>>
>>> Personally, I think that in most cases for a client-side web app
>>> the best approach is to let the client-side do the oauth flow (the
>>> approach we're currently taking in keycloak.js). It does depend on
>>> your application though, and if you're application has a strict
>>> one html5 app calls one REST service then http-only cookies are an
>>> option. I don't see any real benefits of it though, and I believe
>>> it significantly complicates things.
>>>
>>> Have a look at
>>> http://blog.auth0.com/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs-token/
>>> ,
>>>
>>>
>> I think it provides a good summary of the pros of the token approach.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Bill Burke" < bburke at redhat.com
>>>> <mailto: bburke at redhat.com >> To: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 March, 2014 3:39:07 PM Subject: Re:
>>>> [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS
>>>>
>>>> What I like about the current admin console approach is that
>>>> there
>>> is no
>>>> book keeping required by the browser. The Angular app has really
>>>> no knowledge of how it is being secured as its all driven by the
>>>> server. Also, you need to remember that the admin console was
>>>> designed to
>>> be run
>>>> in a non-Java EE, non-servlet environment. While this is a
>>> requirement
>>>> for Keycloak, it may not be for your application. So, what I'm
>>>> saying is that for your angular application, you could rely on
>>>> the servlet container and keycloak adapter to maintain a session
>>>> cookie and
>>> identity.
>>>>
>>>> What I like about the keycloak.js approach is that there is no
>>>> server-side adapter required for the UI. The UI could be hosted
>>> off any
>>>> number of static web sites and use CORS invocations to any number
>>>> of Restful services.
>>>>
>>>> There's also the debate of public vs. confidential clients. The
>>>> keycloak.js approach requires a public client. My understanding
>>>> was that confidential clients exist so that only an authenticated
>>>> client (client *NOT* user) is able to obtain an access token.
>>>> I'm not
>>> exactly
>>>> sure what additional security benefits are obtained here beyond
>>>> this. I've been trying to ask this very question on OAuth mail
>>>> lists but
>>> have
>>>> been unable to get a response so far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/27/2014 10:41 AM, Nils Preusker wrote:
>>>>> Hi Stian and Bill,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've posted some questions regarding this topic before but I
>>> thought I'd
>>>>> start a new thread to keep things focused:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm writing an AngularJS application with Java EE 6/7 REST
>>>>> (JAX-RS) backend modules. To add authentication and
>>>>> authorization to this application, I'd like to use keycloak
>>>>>
>>>>> * as a user and role management front-end * to provide a
>>>>> customizable login page (works very well by the
>>> way ;)
>>>>> * as an OAuth 2.0 token provider * to add user and role
>>>>> information to the HTTPRequests in my REST/ backend modules
>>>>>
>>>>> To do this, I'm currently looking at keycloak.js and the
>>> customer-app-js
>>>>> example. However, I'm wondering whether this is really the
>>>>> best
>>> way to
>>>>> go. In a reply to an earlier post of mine you mentioned that
>>>>> the keycloak admin console is written in AngularJS and that you
>>>>> are
>>> using
>>>>> HTTP-only cookies there.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, in keycloak.js and the customer-app-js example you
>>>>> are retrieving the token in the JS app and adding an
>>>>> authorization
>>> header
>>>>> with a bearer token to the HTTP requests.
>>>>>
>>>>> So here are my questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Is there a reason you are using two different approaches in
>>> the admin
>>>>> console and the official demo app? * which one of the two
>>>>> approaches (bearer tokens vs. HTTP-only
>>> cookie)
>>>>> will you support/ will be the officially recommended one for
>>>>> HTML5/ client side JavaScript applications in keycloak? * am I
>>>>> right in assuming that you haven't quite decided yet which
>>>>> approach to use and that you are still discussing this in the
>>> keycloak
>>>>> team?
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forwards to your reply! Cheers, Nils
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 3 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:24:06 +0100 From: Nils
>>> Preusker < n.preusker at gmail.com <mailto: n.preusker at gmail.com >>
>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS To:
>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org > Message-ID:
>>>
>>> <CA+HCLu_XG0xu+KUALgxoDuAMftA= rBgV-eFhwbDvaxq48NiOwQ at mail.gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>> <mailto: rBgV-eFhwbDvaxq48NiOwQ at mail.gmail.com >>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> Hi Stian and Bill,
>>>
>>> thanks for your replies! I'll check out the blog post and try the
>>> approach with a web.xml and a keycloak.json in the backend for now.
>>> I'll keep you posted on what I end up with on the client side.
>>>
>>> Cheers, Nils
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Stian Thorgersen
>>> < stian at redhat.com <mailto: stian at redhat.com >> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I think that in most cases for a client-side web app
>>> the best
>>>> approach is to let the client-side do the oauth flow (the
>>>> approach
>>> we're
>>>> currently taking in keycloak.js). It does depend on your
>>>> application though, and if you're application has a strict one
>>>> html5 app calls
>>> one REST
>>>> service then http-only cookies are an option. I don't see any
>>>> real
>>> benefits
>>>> of it though, and I believe it significantly complicates things.
>>>>
>>>> Have a look at
>>>>
>>> http://blog.auth0.com/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs-token/
>>> ,
>>>
>>> I think it provides a good summary of the pros of the token
>>> approach.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Bill Burke" < bburke at redhat.com
>>>>> <mailto: bburke at redhat.com >> To: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 March, 2014 3:39:07 PM Subject: Re:
>>>>> [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS
>>>>>
>>>>> What I like about the current admin console approach is that
>>> there is no
>>>>> book keeping required by the browser. The Angular app has
>>>>> really no knowledge of how it is being secured as its all
>>>>> driven by the
>>> server.
>>>>> Also, you need to remember that the admin console was designed
>>> to be run
>>>>> in a non-Java EE, non-servlet environment. While this is a
>>> requirement
>>>>> for Keycloak, it may not be for your application. So, what
>>>>> I'm
>>> saying
>>>>> is that for your angular application, you could rely on the
>>>>> servlet container and keycloak adapter to maintain a session
>>>>> cookie and
>>> identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I like about the keycloak.js approach is that there is no
>>>>> server-side adapter required for the UI. The UI could be
>>>>> hosted
>>> off any
>>>>> number of static web sites and use CORS invocations to any
>>>>> number of Restful services.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also the debate of public vs. confidential clients.
>>>>> The keycloak.js approach requires a public client. My
>>>>> understanding was that confidential clients exist so that only
>>>>> an authenticated client (client *NOT* user) is able to obtain
>>>>> an access token. I'm not
>>> exactly
>>>>> sure what additional security benefits are obtained here
>>>>> beyond
>>> this.
>>>>> I've been trying to ask this very question on OAuth mail lists
>>> but have
>>>>> been unable to get a response so far.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/27/2014 10:41 AM, Nils Preusker wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Stian and Bill,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've posted some questions regarding this topic before but I
>>> thought
>>>> I'd
>>>>>> start a new thread to keep things focused:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm writing an AngularJS application with Java EE 6/7 REST
>>> (JAX-RS)
>>>>>> backend modules. To add authentication and authorization to
>>>>>> this application, I'd like to use keycloak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * as a user and role management front-end * to provide a
>>>>>> customizable login page (works very well by the
>>> way ;)
>>>>>> * as an OAuth 2.0 token provider * to add user and role
>>>>>> information to the HTTPRequests in my REST/ backend modules
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To do this, I'm currently looking at keycloak.js and the
>>>> customer-app-js
>>>>>> example. However, I'm wondering whether this is really the
>>> best way to
>>>>>> go. In a reply to an earlier post of mine you mentioned that
>>>>>> the keycloak admin console is written in AngularJS and that
>>>>>> you
>>> are using
>>>>>> HTTP-only cookies there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, in keycloak.js and the customer-app-js example you
>>>>>> are retrieving the token in the JS app and adding an
>>>>>> authorization
>>> header
>>>>>> with a bearer token to the HTTP requests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So here are my questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Is there a reason you are using two different approaches
>>>>>> in
>>> the admin
>>>>>> console and the official demo app? * which one of the two
>>>>>> approaches (bearer tokens vs. HTTP-only
>>> cookie)
>>>>>> will you support/ will be the officially recommended one for
>>> HTML5/
>>>>>> client side JavaScript applications in keycloak? * am I right
>>>>>> in assuming that you haven't quite decided yet which approach
>>>>>> to use and that you are still discussing this in the
>>> keycloak
>>>>>> team?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking forwards to your reply! Cheers, Nils
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>>>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>
>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
>>> scrubbed... URL:
>>> http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/attachments/20140327/b8e5ee89/attachment-0001.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 4 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:29:54 -0400 From: Bill Burke
>>> < bburke at redhat.com <mailto: bburke at redhat.com >> Subject: Re:
>>> [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS To: Stian Thorgersen
>>> < stian at redhat.com <mailto: stian at redhat.com >> Cc:
>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org > Message-ID:
>>> < 53345202.4060105 at redhat.com <mailto: 53345202.4060105 at redhat.com >>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>
>>> One of the problems with the keycloak.js approach is that we have
>>> no way to perform a single log out or to force a logout of a
>>> specific user. I think the OpenID Connect spec may have a way with
>>> IFrames to do this sort of thing though. I didn't really get it at
>>> first glance though.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/27/2014 12:18 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think that in most cases for a client-side web app
>>> the best approach is to let the client-side do the oauth flow (the
>>> approach we're currently taking in keycloak.js). It does depend on
>>> your application though, and if you're application has a strict
>>> one html5 app calls one REST service then http-only cookies are an
>>> option. I don't see any real benefits of it though, and I believe
>>> it significantly complicates things.
>>>>
>>>> Have a look at
>>> http://blog.auth0.com/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs-token/
>>> ,
>>>
>>>
>> I think it provides a good summary of the pros of the token approach.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Bill Burke" < bburke at redhat.com
>>>>> <mailto: bburke at redhat.com >> To: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 March, 2014 3:39:07 PM Subject: Re:
>>>>> [keycloak-user] Keycloak and AngularJS
>>>>>
>>>>> What I like about the current admin console approach is that
>>> there is no
>>>>> book keeping required by the browser. The Angular app has
>>>>> really no knowledge of how it is being secured as its all
>>>>> driven by the server. Also, you need to remember that the admin
>>>>> console was designed to
>>> be run
>>>>> in a non-Java EE, non-servlet environment. While this is a
>>> requirement
>>>>> for Keycloak, it may not be for your application. So, what
>>>>> I'm
>>> saying
>>>>> is that for your angular application, you could rely on the
>>>>> servlet container and keycloak adapter to maintain a session
>>>>> cookie and
>>> identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I like about the keycloak.js approach is that there is no
>>>>> server-side adapter required for the UI. The UI could be
>>>>> hosted
>>> off any
>>>>> number of static web sites and use CORS invocations to any
>>>>> number of Restful services.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also the debate of public vs. confidential clients.
>>>>> The keycloak.js approach requires a public client. My
>>>>> understanding was that confidential clients exist so that only
>>>>> an authenticated client (client *NOT* user) is able to obtain
>>>>> an access token. I'm not
>>> exactly
>>>>> sure what additional security benefits are obtained here beyond
>>>>> this. I've been trying to ask this very question on OAuth mail
>>>>> lists
>>> but have
>>>>> been unable to get a response so far.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/27/2014 10:41 AM, Nils Preusker wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Stian and Bill,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've posted some questions regarding this topic before but I
>>> thought I'd
>>>>>> start a new thread to keep things focused:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm writing an AngularJS application with Java EE 6/7 REST
>>>>>> (JAX-RS) backend modules. To add authentication and
>>>>>> authorization to this application, I'd like to use keycloak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * as a user and role management front-end * to provide a
>>>>>> customizable login page (works very well by the
>>> way ;)
>>>>>> * as an OAuth 2.0 token provider * to add user and role
>>>>>> information to the HTTPRequests in my REST/ backend modules
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To do this, I'm currently looking at keycloak.js and the
>>> customer-app-js
>>>>>> example. However, I'm wondering whether this is really the
>>>>>> best
>>> way to
>>>>>> go. In a reply to an earlier post of mine you mentioned that
>>>>>> the keycloak admin console is written in AngularJS and that
>>>>>> you are
>>> using
>>>>>> HTTP-only cookies there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, in keycloak.js and the customer-app-js example you
>>>>>> are retrieving the token in the JS app and adding an
>>>>>> authorization
>>> header
>>>>>> with a bearer token to the HTTP requests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So here are my questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Is there a reason you are using two different approaches
>>>>>> in
>>> the admin
>>>>>> console and the official demo app? * which one of the two
>>>>>> approaches (bearer tokens vs. HTTP-only
>>> cookie)
>>>>>> will you support/ will be the officially recommended one for
>>>>>> HTML5/ client side JavaScript applications in keycloak? * am
>>>>>> I right in assuming that you haven't quite decided yet which
>>>>>> approach to use and that you are still discussing this in
>>>>>> the
>>> keycloak
>>>>>> team?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking forwards to your reply! Cheers, Nils
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>>>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>>>
>>>
>>> -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> <mailto: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org >
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>
>>> End of keycloak-user Digest, Vol 3, Issue 14
>>> ********************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ keycloak-user
>>> mailing list keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTNSHcAAoJEDnJtskdmzLMHrYH/1D/vMgPxD0WUZ5KdIoD5Cow
>> gb9fa+RZDQrpPxL1qKpqWJX3g1cKt8hQa1Xz7dX64G3/xcLUUkoJKkAtiJPysp75
>> xbkdWV+RGQXDHuyZcS75xEXQlPaWt2cEVxdSXMalzfQPzVhq00FBbeJLirKLbYsY
>> I2CIjJgCSQhmOrVfP5vUSdrwsLsd+TBXee4779YiOceSW16oG9Nfsa5gF1XJSNhi
>> o2fZCEkoXhbTD7RXuhhrDWlFBCQOIgWf6FUHEAVKnXeIR5oey6U9hv1Z16Kd2Pll
>> Pv8+LWlJjKMfkmrCQrVQvYSI/n64vxjikta2ByBdOPethsebqXO9oknbiPtjq6E=
>> =TiWl
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-user mailing list
>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-user mailing list
>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-user mailing list
> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>

-- 
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com