[keycloak-user] Token generation: possibilities to improve performance
Marek Posolda
mposolda at redhat.com
Tue May 31 02:59:44 EDT 2016
On 30/05/16 21:04, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>
>
> On 30 May 2016 at 12:03, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com
> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 30/05/16 11:51, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 May 2016 at 11:13, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com
>> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 30/05/16 08:02, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
>>> Create a JIRA for ECDSA. I don't think we could/should
>>> change the default, but could be a configuration option for
>>> clients.
>> Added https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-3057 with fix
>> version 2.0.0.CR1 for now.
>>>
>>> Looking at OpenID Connect spec it looks like ID token should
>>> always be generated in token response [1]. However, it
>>> should not be generated in refresh [2] response.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#rfc.section.3.1.3.3
>>> [2]
>>> http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#rfc.section.12.2
>> hmm... I am reading 12.2 that refresh response "might not"
>> contain ID Token, hence it's nothing bad if it contains it.
>> So looks we are currently specs compliant if we have IDToken
>> in both code-to-token response and refresh response.
>>
>> What I mean is, that flag for skip IDToken generation might
>> be just optional and disabled by default. So by default,
>> IDToken is available and all the communication is OIDC
>> compliant. However if someone doesn't need IDToken and wants
>> to save some performance, he may skip the IDToken generation.
>>
>> A week before, I've tried some JProfiler testing of
>> login-logout test and token generation was the main CPU
>> consumption (I still had just 1 hashIteration during this
>> profiling, with 20000 it will be likely very different
>> though). I saw 40% of CPU time in
>> TokenManager$AccessTokenResponseBuilder.build()due there are
>> 3 tokens signature here. The option to reduce it from 3 to 2
>> might slightly improve some CPU cycles "for free" (security
>> won't be reduced).
>>
>>
>> I'd argue that we should just include ID token from the
>> authorization response, while never in the refresh response. That
>> results in better performance without the need for a config option.
> Won't that break compatibility for some client applications, which
> actually use IDToken and rely on the fact that it's properly
> refreshed every time? Among other things, IDToken contains fields
> like "exp" , which might then contain expired value as it won't
> be updated during refreshes. Not sure if users won't be confused
> due to this.
>
>
> Surely the exp for an IDToken should be set to the session expiration
> and not to the expiration of access token though? Do we even update
> the profile details in the token or just fill it with whatever was
> there before?
That's not what we are doing now. Right now, all IDToken claims
(including expiration) are copied from accessToken. So IDToken
expiration is by default defacto just 5 minutes or so. And all the
claims are always updated during refresh. So if we don't refresh IDToken
we lost this and IDToken will always contain claims from the time of
login. Not sure if it's too bad or not, however some client apps, which
use IDToken (like our demo for example) might be confused that IDToken
will still contain old values after refresh...
Marek
>
> Marek
>
>>
>>
>> Marek
>>
>>
>>> On 27 May 2016 at 19:19, Marek Posolda <mposolda at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:mposolda at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding this, I wonder if we should add support for
>>> ECDSA based signatures as an alternative to RSA? Just
>>> went through some interesting blog [1] , which mentions
>>> that 256-bits ECDSA has around 9.5 times better
>>> performance of signature generation than 2048-bits RSA.
>>> The time of signature verification seems to be slightly
>>> worse for ECDSA (see second comment), however there is
>>> also increased security (256-ECDSA is equivalient of
>>> 3248 RSA according to blog). Maybe it's something we can
>>> look at?
>>>
>>> Also the optional flag to skip IDToken generation will
>>> be good too IMO. AFAIK the point of IDToken is the
>>> compliance with OIDC specification. However in case of
>>> Keycloak accessToken usually contains all the info like
>>> IDToken (+ some more) and it's the accessToken, which is
>>> used in REST endpoints. So with regards to that, most of
>>> the Keycloak-secured applications can live just with
>>> access+refresh token and don't need ID Token at all. So
>>> if just 2 tokens needs to be signed instead of 3, we
>>> have performance gain "for free" (no decrease of
>>> security, just one less useless token).
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://blog.cloudflare.com/ecdsa-the-digital-signature-algorithm-of-a-better-internet/
>>>
>>> Marek
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24/05/16 15:43, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>> Are you sure the performance gains are worth less
>>>> security? What kind of performance are you actually
>>>> worried about? Network (size of tokens) or CPU
>>>> (signatures/marshaling/unmarshalling)? If anything,
>>>> these signatures are only going to get stronger in
>>>> future releases.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/24/16 5:46 AM, Matuszak, Eduard wrote:
>>>>> Hello
>>>>> Motivated by considerations on how to improve the
>>>>> performance of the token generation process I have two
>>>>> questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> * I noticed that Keycloak’s token generation via
>>>>> endpoint
>>>>> “auth/realms/ccp/protocol/openid-connect/token”
>>>>> generates a triple of tokens (access-, refresh-
>>>>> and id-token). Is there any possibility to
>>>>> dispense with the id-token generation?
>>>>>
>>>>> * Is there a possibility to cause Keycloak to
>>>>> generate more “simple” bearer tokens then complex
>>>>> jwt-tokens?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards, Eduard Matuszak
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160531/8c2a511b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the keycloak-user
mailing list