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

Fri Nov 28 02:19:51 EST 2014

I think in the long run if we try to show all features in the demo it'll end up getting to bloated. It's probably best to keep the demo to the core features (SSO, etc) and have separate basic examples (quickstarts?) for the rest.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marek Posolda" <mposolda at redhat.com>
> To: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>, keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Thursday, 27 November, 2014 4:22:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] REST services supporting basic auth and bearer tokens
> 
> Oki, sounds good to me.
> 
> Marek
> 
> On 27.11.2014 15:37, Gary Brown wrote:
> > Hi Marek
> >
> > I was originally thinking the same - but it would complicate the demo more.
> >
> > Its possible that the database-service could simply be changed to support
> > both bearer and basic auth, and then provide curl instructions to
> > demonstrate basic auth access, but then there wouldn't be an example
> > showing a bearer-only configuration.
> >
> > So assuming that a 'bearer-only' example is still required, then having a
> > completely independent basic auth example may be the next best thing - and
> > then leave it as an exercise for the user to enable basic auth on the
> > database-service?
> >
> > Regards
> > Gary
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Sent previous email before I figured that you guys already decide on
> >> something, so feel free to ignore me:-)
> >>
> >> On the other hand, it may be nice to show in the example that particular
> >> jaxrs endpoint is able to support both bearer and basic auth in same
> >> application imo.
> >>
> >> Marek
> >>
> >> On 27.11.2014 15:26, Gary Brown wrote:
> >>> Ok sounds good.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> Another option is to add a separate basic example outside of the demo,
> >>>> like
> >>>> what was done for multi-tenancy. A single jax-rs endpoint that supports
> >>>> basic auth and an example curl command to invoke it?
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at redhat.com>
> >>>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> >>>>> Cc: "Marek Posolda" <mposolda at redhat.com>,
> >>>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 November, 2014 2:59:46 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] REST services supporting basic auth and
> >>>>> bearer
> >>>>> tokens
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In terms of example, was thinking the database-service is ideal -
> >>>>> however
> >>>>> I'm
> >>>>> guessing it also needs to be shown as a 'bearer-only' example (as now).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the same way that there is multiple customer-apps, one approach
> >>>>> could
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> to have an alternate database-service supporting basic auth as well,
> >>>>> but
> >>>>> then would also need a separate copy of the testrealm.json.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>> Great, if you do a PR include an example we can merge it before a
> >>>>>> 1.1.0.Beta2
> >>>>>> release (probably next week)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> >>>>>>> Cc: "Marek Posolda" <mposolda at redhat.com>,
> >>>>>>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 November, 2014 1:48:55 PM
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] REST services supporting basic auth and
> >>>>>>> bearer
> >>>>>>> tokens
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ----- 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
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>
> 
> 