[keycloak-user] REST services supporting basic auth and bearer tokens

[Gary Brown]

----- Original Message -----
> Looks good to me, but I'd like it to be an optional feature that is enabled
> in keycloak.json (should be disabled by default).

Sounds reasonable - I'll call the property 'enableBasicAuth'.

> 
> Another thing is that we should add an example + documentation for this
> feature.

Will do.

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at redhat.com>
> > To: "Marek Posolda" <mposolda at redhat.com>
> > Cc: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> > Sent: Thursday, 27 November, 2014 10:58:21 AM
> > Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] REST services supporting basic auth and bearer
> > tokens
> > 
> > Hi Marek
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I am not 100% sure if having basic auth with direct grant directly in
> > > our adapters is way to go. Probably yes as for your use-case it makes
> > > sense, so I am slightly for push your change as PR. But maybe others
> > > from team have different opinion.
> > > 
> > > Earlier this week I've added DirectAccessGrantsLoginModule to KC
> > > codebase, which is quite similar and is intended to be used for non-web
> > > applications (like SSH), which rely on JAAS. But I guess that using this
> > > one is not good option for you as you want support for Basic and Bearer
> > > authentication in same web application, right?
> > 
> > Thats correct.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Few more minor points to your changes:
> > > - Is it possible to use net.iharder.Base64 instead of
> > > org.apache.commons.codec.binary.Base64? Whole KC code has dependency on
> > > net.iharder, so would be likely better to use this one to avoid possible
> > > dependency issues in adapters.
> > 
> > That shouldn't be a problem.
> > 
> > > 
> > > - Wonder if it's possible to simplify a bit, like have single
> > > "completeAuthentication" method for both bearer and basic authenticator
> > > (afaik only difference among them is different authMethod right?). But
> > > this is really minor.
> > 
> > Will do.
> > 
> > I'll wait until mid next week before doing any more on this, to see whether
> > others have an opinion.
> > 
> > If the PR was accepted, any chance it could go into 1.1 even though in
> > beta?
> > If no, any idea what the timescale is for 1.2.beta1?
> > 
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Gary
> > 
> > > 
> > > Marek
> > > 
> > > On 26.11.2014 14:54, Gary Brown wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Concrete use case - we have implemented the OASIS S-RAMP specification,
> > > > in
> > > > which it requires basic auth support
> > > > (http://docs.oasis-open.org/s-ramp/s-ramp/v1.0/s-ramp-v1.0-part2-atom-binding.html
> > > > section 5 "The S-RAMP Specification does not attempt to define a
> > > > security
> > > > model for products that implement it.  For the Atom Binding, the only
> > > > security requirement is that at a minimum, client and server
> > > > implementations MUST be capable of being configured to use HTTP Basic
> > > > Authentication in conjunction with a connection made with TLS.").
> > > >
> > > > However we also need the same service to support bearer token, for use
> > > > within our KeyCloak SSO session.
> > > >
> > > > I've implemented a possible solution, details defined on
> > > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-861.
> > > >
> > > > If this solution is on the right path, I would appreciate any feedback
> > > > on
> > > > any changes that might be required before submitting a PR. Currently
> > > > there
> > > > are no tests, but would aim to provide some with the PR.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Gary
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > 
>