I am very new to the concepts of SSO and Keycloak. I am trying to read the official documentation of Keycloak. In the "Supported Protocols" part (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/securing_apps/index.html), the documentation talks about the two use cases of using OIDC like this:
"The first is an application that asks the Keycloak server to authenticate a user for them. After a successful login, the application will receive an identity token and an access token. The identity token contains information about the user such as username, email, and other profile information. The access token is digitally signed by the realm and contains access information (like user role mappings) that the application can use to determine what resources the user is allowed to access on the application.
The second type of use cases is that of a client that wants to gain access to remote services. In this case, the client asks Keycloak to obtain an access token it can use to invoke on other remote services on behalf of the user. Keycloak authenticates the user then asks the user for consent to grant access to the client requesting it. The client then receives the access token. This access token is digitally signed by the realm. The client can make REST invocations on remote services using this access token. The REST service extracts the access token, verifies the signature of the token, then decides based on access information within the token whether or not to process the request."
What I do not understand is this: In the first paragraph it talks about an application making a request and in the second one it talks about a client. But aren't applications counted as clients? Why the specific differentiation? And can anyone given an example of the remote services that is talked about in the second part?
Thank you.
But aren't applications counted as clients? Why the specific differentiation? And can anyone given an example of the remote services that is talked about in the second part?
Yes exactly it. The reason for the differentiation is because there could be many applications more than just this one client. And the client, that the user is authed against may want to access all those other applications' data.
For example take the google ecosystem. Does google email have access to drive, and photos, etc... While it could out the box, it doesn't. You need to explicitly allow email "offline access" to those other applications, even though they are all part of the same platform.
Keycloak understands this and provides that terminology. But it is a bit confusing because this isn't the best way to think about it. Instead a better explanation is that there is just the user and service clients. The service clients all talk to each other and ask for a user's data. While a user may want their data by going straight to one application, other applications may want that user's data too.
Assuming you want to actually allow one service to ask for user data from another service, you want to be using something that supports authorization as a service and not just authentication. There are some examples of this, such as PolicyServer and Authress.
I have a question more related to the way OAuth 2 is working but since using IdentityServer to implement OAuth I think it's relevant. I could not find an answer anywhere.
I'm building a website and a mobile app that consumes my own API. Each user of my app will have a username and password, that will give him access to the app/website and though the API to his information.
I'm not sure about the right way to handle the flow for user login:
On the website I have my own designed login form. I don't want to move the user to my auth server to login, and then have him approve the information he gives - he is the user on my system - I have access to all information - kida like facebook has a login and access to the informatio - they don't ask what you're willing to give them. So is implicit really the way for this?
On the mobile app I also have a login form and now I read here (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-oauth-native-apps-10) that the OAuth approach is to have the login in a WebView?? Doesn't look like facebook login is in a WebView on their mobile app.
The approach I was first lookin at is the Resource Owner. Users will login, get the token and the refresh token and can start working against my APIs. But storing my client_id and secret on the mobile app? on the website javascript files? doesn't feel right. I can of course make a call to an API that will mask those and be a proxy to the login process... but... (read #4).
In the future I would like to allow access for third-party developers. For them to allow login for users of my system I will use the implicit flow. Also, I plan for those developer accounts to have restricted API access (for example, the number of calls to the API will be limited by plan). What prevents those developers from asking for the username and password of their account on my system on their website, getting the response from my servers with the access token and refresh token, and using my API however they want, without restrictions, and having access to the entire user profile?
Lets say I'm sticking to the resource owner flow, receiving back from the server a token and a refresh token. What should I store on the mobile device and how? What should be stored in the browser and how? the refresh token? and each time he opens the app get a new updated token with that refresh token?
Edit
Just to clarify, because I find a lot of lectures and articles that explain the process from an API consumer point of view (ie. the third-party developer): I am the API owner and the auth server owner, I'm the owner of the user accounts (they are my users of my services), I'm also my own consumer (though the website and the mobile app), and in the future I want to enable third-party developers to allow my users to login with their accounts of my service (kinda like Facebook or Google)
You're correct that you shouldn't store the client_secret in your app, but I doubt you will get around storing the client_id. You could disable the consent screen for your app as well, and build a native login view. You need to store the access_token and the refresh_token on the device (maybe encrypted in a database) if you don't want the user to login everytime they use your app.
As for problem 4, you could do the following:
Embed the client_secret in your (web) app
Set up which hosts have access to your api on the IdentityServer
The IdentityServer generates a salt and sends it to the client
The client calculates a session_secret using hash(ip_address + session_salt)
The client uses the session_secret and the client_secret for the API call
Server validates the hash and client_secret
It's nearly impossible to completely prevent someone from using your API. But you should add various rate limiting methods, such as limiting IP addresses, API calls etc. But nothing will stop someone decompiling your app and accessing your client_id.
I'm working on a personal project composed of an API and 4 clients (web, android, iOS, windows phone).
I'm using django-rest-framework and oauth2 toolkit on the API side and I wonder which grant_type would be more suitable in my situation.
I read somewhere that the implicit grant_type is appropriate for working with mobile clients.
I'm currently using the resource owner password credentials system.
My current workflow is:
The user creates an account on the API registration page (http://mysite/api/register) then gets redirected on the web client.
The user have to authenticate himself on the API from the web client (the secret and client ID are store in the web client). If the authentication is successful the access_token and refresh_token are both stored in the user session.
Each time the user want to access a page I verify if he is authenticated by requesting the API using his access_token. If the request fails, I retry with the refresh_token. If it's fails again I redirect the user on the auth page.
The user can use the API on a mobile client with the same account without extra manipulations (the secret and client ID are store in a secure location ex. share preferences or keychain)
I like this workflow, it's simple and convenient for the user: he registers once and can use all the clients and I get a perfect separation between the logic (API) and the UI (client). But I'm worried about the security of this system. I don't want to expose my users to threats. Do you guys have any thoughts, recommendations, suggestions?
You help in this matters would be very appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
We are developing an SPA - full client base javascript application and need to authenticate our users to get access to the internals.
As I found from the search we can outsource our authentication mechanism and use Google accounts for that. I learned from this site
https://developers.google.com/accounts/docs/OAuth2Login -
How to deal with Google API and mechanism for authentication.
In the short word, we need:
send request to google url with params to ask user to allow SPA use their personal data
in case of success we get a token from Google
we may use this token to get access to API we were asked and work with it.
This is described well and I understand it and have some JS code to make it happen.
What I do not understand.
I have an application with it's private data. I want use user's e-mail as the login, or user id (doesn't matter how to call it) to access app's internals, such as user's created tasks, user's profile, etc. So, to display user's created tasks in my SPA I need query database with the user's e-mail.
I imagine the next scenario:
user click Login with Google button
we obtain an token - this means user was authenticated successfully
we persist user and his e-mail to work with SPA
when user click Logout we clear all access data
Where should I persist this data?
In case of Forms Authentication I understand that we pass login/password to server and if they match the database we create Forms Ticket and store it in cookie.
Is there any similar case with Google's auth? If I'll store user's email in cookie I think that's not very good from security reason. If I'll save a token - I'm not sure why I need it and how to use it in my SPA, I'm not using any Google API after authentication.
Do you have any example case how do we build our process in similar cases?
Thank you.
If all you need is the user's email address, then you would be better off using OpenID instead of OAuth. OAuth provides access to a user's account and services, scoped to a specific resource or set of resources. OpendID is designed just for logging into a third-party service. You can then extract the user's ID and email address from the OpenID login. Note: The ID will always be sent but the email address has to be explicitly requested during authentication.
Google also supports a hybrid OpenID+OAuth scheme that lets you piggyback OAuth requests on top of an OpenID login if there is some resource you need to authenticate to. Take a look at the authentication document to get an idea of how both protocols work and which is better for your scenario.
Once you have the email address returned, you probably shouldn't persist it in a cookie. The normally recommended way to handle it is to add it as a session parameter. That way only the session cookie is stored on the client, and the server can use it find the values it needs. This answer has a good explanation of the differences and when you want to use sessions versus cookies.
It seems to be a widely asked questions and after having read tons of documentations on the subject, I'm still not sure to have understood everything correctly (I assume that being dumb is a possible answer ;)).
I'm trying to build an API that will provide a service to users. The users will be connected through Facebook or any OpenId provider (I separate Facebook since their implement their own connecting system).
(I think it's a good way because I will not store the user's password and finally will have less problem in case of a similar Gawker issue.)
When a request is made from the client (web app, mobile app, whatever) to the API, an indicator must be sent with the request in order to identify which user is using the app. This is generally used via a token, defined during the Authentication.
But regarding the Authentication, I can't find any valuable example, tutorial, explanations about how to implement it correctly.
I'll (try to) explain :
In my (wonderful world of happy care bears), I structured my project in various parts :
A RESTful API
A web apps that will use the api. Ideally, I was thinking about making a complete html/css/js project, without any server side work (php/python/java or whatever)
A mobile application
An windows/mac/linux application
As far as I saw, every time someone ask how to implement a RESTful API authentication, three major answers pops out :
The HTTP basic( + preferably SSL)/digest way
OAuth
OpenId
Since I will not store the user's password, the first one is out for me, but the two other leave me perplex.
But OAuth and OpenId are not the sames, one (OpenId) stand for the Authentication (that the base of the questions) where the second (OAuth) stand for the Authorization!
When Twitter implements OAuth for their API, they are not implementing an Authentication system, there are setting up a way to indicate their users that the application X want to have access to the user account (in various level of access). If the user is not currently logged in Twitter, he will first have to authenticate himself, and then authorize the current application to access his data.
So, just to clear things up, OAuth is NOT an authentication mechanism, it's a :
An open protocol to allow secure API
authorization
(source: http://oauth.net/)
Then, the only way to authenticate a user would be using OpenId. And then, the hell comes true.
If I take as an example a web application that is exclusively made of html/css/js, with no server side components, communicate with an API.
The web app must indicate to the API that the user currently using the API is mister X.
To do so, the web app show a popup containing a list of OpenId providers, asking the user to authenticate himself. The user click on one of them, get redirected (or a new popup open up) to the OpenId provider, indicate his login/pass, get authenticated by the OpenId provider, that return the success with a token (I simplified the communication).
That's great, the web app know now that the user is really mister X. But the API still have any clue !
Finally, my question is quite simple : how can I authenticate mister x through the web app to the API via OpenId and after that, how can the web app and the api keep the information that this is mister X that is currently using the web app and of course, the API.
Thank you very much for your help !
-edited format
You don't really want to login to the API using OpenID. As you said, OpenID is for Authentication, i.e. Who, while OAuth is for Authorization, i.e. am I allowed? But your structure suggest you'll be using an API as a backend and a web app as a front-end.
The best way then is to use OpenID on the web-app to authenticate the user, and then the web-app connects to the API and stores the OpenID credentials. The web-app then knows who the user is, and can provide the service. The API has nothing to do with the user, except that it stores its data.
The fundamental difference between OpenID and OAuth is its use. In your situation, you could have something like that:
-------- --------- -------
| User | <------> | App | <--------> | API |
-------- OpenID --------- (OAuth) -------
The User never interacts directly with the API: who would want to manually send HTTP request? (lol) Instead, the service is provided through the app, which can optionally be authorized using OAuth. However, in the case of a single app accessing the API, you can make the app <=> API connection internal and never expose it.
(If you don't want to read, the list bellow sum up the whole idea)
A possible solution (tell me if I'm wrong) would be to display the login form in the consumer (web apps, mobile apps, etc), the user click on it's provider (myopenid, google, etc) that opens a popup to do the login.
The tricky part is that the return_to parameter would be set to the API, not the website
The API will then resend the check_authentication and get the is_valid:true (or not).
During this step, the app would query the api to a specific url that return the state of the authentication (processing, failed, success). While it's procesing, an indicator is displayed to the user (loading gif), and if it's success/fail the result is displayed to the user.
If the api receive a is_valid:true, then it will ask informations about the user to the openid server, like email, firstname, lastname, and compare them with it's user's database. If there is a match, the api create a session between itself and the app, if the user is new, it create a new entry and then the session.
The session would be a unique token with a specific duration (maybe equal to the openid server assoc_handle duration ?)
It seems to be something possible, but I'm not an expert in security.
In order to explain things simplier, here is a little "map" :
Note: Provider is the OpenId server (that provide the informations about the authentication)
The User go the webapp and click on the login icon of his provider (Google for ex)
The webapp opens a popup containing the provider login page and access page, and specify a return_to to the Api
The provider sends informations to the Api
The Api validate these informations via the check_authentication
If not valid, the API indicate to the webapp (that ask the api every x seconds) the failure
If valid, the Api asks informations about the user to the provider, like email, display name, etc
If the user exists, a session is created
If the user is new, he's added to the database and the session is created
The Api returns the state of the auth (in this case, success) with a token session that will be used by the web app for further requests.