[keycloak-user] Keycloak Proxy passing thorugh unauthenticated

[Guy Bowdler]

Thanks for your reply Chris,

Good point about the constraints I'll check tomorrow, must admit I'd forgotten all about them, just assumed you'd have to login regardless. 

So from what you say, there is no currently supported way of getting key cloak to authenticate direct from the proxy.  Is this correct?

Kind regards

Guy 


On 15 May 2016 15:39:59 BST, Chris Pitman <cpitman at redhat.com> wrote:
>I'm using the proxy in one of my environments and it definitely is
>requiring authentication. The logs are pretty poor, so debugging is a
>pain.
>
>Two possibilities come to mind:
>
>First, are you sure you haven't already authenticated? If you look at
>the network activity in your browser, are you redirected to keycloak
>then directed back to your app?
>
>Second, have you set constraints in the proxy config? Do those
>constraints (starting at your configured base path) match the urls you
>are trying to hit?
>
>Bill: As far as I am aware, neither of those httpd modules are
>supported by us either. A supported option for getting SSO in front of
>legacy apps is step 1 of getting in the door at clients. If we do end
>up telling customers to use an apache module, adding generated config
>for them to the web ui would really help.
>
>Chris Pitman
>Senior Architect, Red Hat Consulting
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> 
>> 
>> FYI I haven't touched this code in more than a year and have been
>relying on
>> the community to maintain it. Why? Well, we're not supporting it in
>product
>> and Apache plugins like mod-auth-mellon and mod-auth-oidc exist.
>We're also
>> talking to other teams like API Man to see if we can offload the
>proxy on
>> them. Anyways, sounds like lame excuses...I know you just want
>answers...
>> 
>> On 5/13/16 4:33 PM, Guy Bowdler wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Also, you just need to configure and back end proxy only to accept
>> connections from the key cloak proxy to secure, we've just left it
>open for
>> now to troubleshoot
>> 
>> On 13 May 2016 19:58:47 BST, Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The idea of the proxy is that the secured app doesn't have to have a
>> plugin.  The secured app is supposed to be on a private network and
>the
>> proxy sits on a public one.
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/13/16 11:52 AM, Jason Axley wrote:
>> 
>> From my read of the design, it doesn’t look like the proxy design
>provides a
>> secure way of front-ending an application that won’t allow someone
>with
>> network access behind the proxy to access the application either
>without
>> authentication or by impersonating any user since the design appears
>to rely
>> on HTTP headers set with identity information sent to the backend
>> application.
>> 
>>  A better design would have been to pass the actual Id Token to the
>backend
>>  application so that the backend application can actually verify the
>>  identity signature on the JWT so that someone can’t just fabricate
>> arbitrary identity information.  I would think this could work in
>concert
>> with an application plugin that could consume these tokens and
>validate and
>> make the identity information available to the application in a
>trustworthy
>> manner.
>> 
>>  -Jason
>> 
>>  On 5/13/16, 8:00 AM, "keycloak-user-bounces at lists.jboss.org on
>behalf of Guy
>>  Bowdler" <keycloak-user-bounces at lists.jboss.org on behalf of
>>  guybowdler at dorsetnetworks.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>  We've got the Keycloak Security Proxy (official one -
>> 
>https://keycloak.github.io/docs/userguide/keycloak-server/html/proxy.html
>)
>>  running and passing to an nginx proxy which is in turn proxying out
>>  different apps, ie:
>> 
>>  [client] ----> [:80|443 KeyCloak Proxy ----> :8080 Nginx
>> Reverse Proxy]
>>  ------> [application]
>> 
>>  Where [] denotes a different box, the ProxyBox is hostname.domain
>and
>>  the apps are published as hostname.domain/appname
>> 
>> 
>>  However, the client is able to access the application without
>>  authentication, we have clients and roles set up in keycloak and the
>>  config looks ok (although obviously isn't!)
>> 
>>  Are there any KeyCloak Proxy logs we can look at, or debugging
>options?
>>  I haven't found any as yet andnothing is jumping out of the config.
>> 
>>  We can access the back end apps ok either from the Keycloak proxy
>>  running on ports 80 or 443 or via the nginx proxy on 8080 (and yes,
>this
>>  latter connection will be restricted to localhost when it's
>working!).
>>  The keycloak proxy config is very similar to the default except the
>>  values from the keycloak installation GUI have been pasted in.
>> 
>>  Any troubleshooting tips would be much appreciated! thanks in
>advance:)
>> 
>>  Guy
>> 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
>> -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my
>brevity.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-user mailing list
>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/attachments/20160515/e885887a/attachment-0001.html