[keycloak-user] Application Management

Tue Apr 7 02:38:25 EDT 2015

What's the purpose of app-admin?

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thiago Presa" <thiago.addevico at gmail.com>
> To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> Cc: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 April, 2015 7:33:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Application Management
> 
> Speaking with my colleagues, I believe it won't cause troubles for us. We
> had to give view-applications: the admin console wouldn't work properly,
> but this is also OK according to our requirements.
> 
> Would you mind giving us some feedback on [1]? We wrote this to experiment
> a bit with the proposal, but I'm not familiar with keycloak's source or
> practices. What should I do to help get this merged?
> 
> [1] https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/compare/master...tpresa:master
> 
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Stian Thorgersen <stian at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Thiago Presa" <thiago.addevico at gmail.com>
> > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > Cc: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> > > Sent: Friday, 27 March, 2015 2:01:56 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Application Management
> > >
> > > Ah, yes, I didn't understand your proposal properly. Wouldn't giving
> > > manage-users to app-admins wouldn't cause trouble, since app-admins could
> > > create and modify user accounts?
> >
> > Whether or not it's causing trouble depends on your requirements, but yes,
> > they could create and modify user accounts, but not grant more privileges.
> >
> > If you need to go beyond this one alternative is to wrap the admin
> > endpoints in your own application. We've just got so much on our plate at
> > the moment that we can't provide this level of control on permissions.
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Stian Thorgersen <stian at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, yes.. I told you it was a bit rubbish and would need some
> > re-design
> > > > to implement more fine grained permissions. Doing that is a relatively
> > big
> > > > task and is not a high priority for us ATM.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a bit confused by this email as I proposed a simple solution that
> > > > would resolve your requirements. If an admin can only grant permissions
> > > > that admin has access to all you have to do is to create an admin that
> > can
> > > > only access roles for certain applications and your problem should be
> > > > solved. That's a simple solution that we can add soon.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Thiago Presa" <thiago.addevico at gmail.com>
> > > > > To: "Stian Thorgersen" <stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 26 March, 2015 8:10:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Application Management
> > > > >
> > > > > So I've spent the last couple of days playing with the source. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > The current authorization mechanism is based on Realm/RealmApp i.e.
> > > > > whenever an API resource is called, check if the User has the
> > required
> > > > > Right (manage, any, view) in the resource's Realm/RealmApp.
> > > > >
> > > > > Consider, for example, the URI
> > > > >
> > /admin/realms/{realm}/applications-by-id/{app-name}/roles/{role-name}.
> > > > What
> > > > > I was trying to do is to create a permission for {app-name} so that
> > this
> > > > > API call wouldn't require any Realm/RealmApp right.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem I see is that this API call trigger many methods (i.e.
> > > > > AdminRoot#getRealmsAdmin, RealmsAdminResource#getRealmAdmin,
> > > > > RealmAdminResource#getApplicationsById, and so on...), and at those
> > > > methods
> > > > > there is not enough information to figure out whether this is:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1- An app-specific call and thus should be authorized even without
> > realm
> > > > > authorization, or;
> > > > > 2- Not app-specific call and this should be properly authorized by
> > > > > Realm/RealmApp.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even in the case of (1), the information on which app should I check
> > for
> > > > > authorization is not available.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it seems to me that this resource-loading mechanisms pressuposes
> > an
> > > > > authorization mechanism that checks only against the realm for
> > > > permission,
> > > > > and changing this seems daunting to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you guys have any idea on a more local change I could make to
> > achieve
> > > > > the intended behavior?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Thiago Presa <
> > thiago.addevico at gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > OK, agreed. We thought this out of consistency, but if that's not a
> > > > good
> > > > > > design we surely can consider a better one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Stian Thorgersen <
> > stian at redhat.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> > From: "Thiago Presa" <thiago.addevico at gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > To: stian at redhat.com
> > > > > >> > Cc: keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> > > > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, 24 March, 2015 1:41:16 PM
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [keycloak-user] Application Management
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hi there,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I'm Alex's coworker and I'll be working on this too.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > We were just discussing your idea, and it seems to fit our
> > > > requirements.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > As far as we have seen, keycloak already has a realm-admin
> > concept.
> > > > > >> > Whenever a realm "R" is created, it creates a R-realm
> > application
> > > > with
> > > > > >> > a bunch of default roles (manage-users, manage-roles, etc.)
> > into the
> > > > > >> > realm master.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > We are currently thinking if we could mimic this structure for
> > > > > >> > applications. What do you think?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> It's already messy with the way I modelled it and adding the same
> > for
> > > > > >> applications would be even worse. I don't see why that's needed
> > > > though if
> > > > > >> we'd add what I proposed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > I had an idea a while back that is a simple way to achieve
> > what
> > > > you're
> > > > > >> > > asking for. Th> e idea would be to only allow an admin to
> > grant
> > > > roles
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > > the admin has access to.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Basically:> * A user with admin (super user) role can grant
> > any
> > > > roles
> > > > > >> (we
> > > > > >> > > would need to add a per-> realm super user role)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > * A user with the role manage-users and some roles on app1 can
> > > > only
> > > > > >> grant
> > > > > >> > > other users > the roles on app1
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > * A user with the role manage-users and some roles on app2 can
> > > > only
> > > > > >> grant
> > > > > >> > > other users > the roles on app2
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > This is something we should add in either case (to prevent
> > users
> > > > > >> granting
> > > > > >> > themselves more access). Would it solve your problems?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 