The session_state parameter which used to be present in the authentication/ token response is not present in keycloak version 18.0.0 along with the refresh_token. Although there is an option under Clients -> OpenID Connect Compatibility Modes to exclude/include this, that doesn't seem to do anything.
We're using this value in our application hence with the upgrade to keycloak 18.0.0 the authentication flow seem to be broken.
Is there any way we can include this parameter in the authentication response?
Related
I am trying to use Keycloak behind an API gateway (Apache APISIX).
I use minikube to run Keycloak and my API gateway.
The gateway is working right and Keycloak too :
With Keycloak, I can use the different end-point (use the discovery end-point (http://127.0.0.1:7070/auth/realms/myrealm/.well-known/uma2-configuration), ask an access token and verify it).
With APISIX, and a simple route, I can join a backend microservice on my minikube.
(typically : http://127.0.0.1:80/greeting is served by the gateway which routes the request to the right backend microservice)
The problem occurs when I try to use the two tools together. I have used the Keycloak integration, in order to force the user to use a valid token when he is using a route served by the gateway.
In this case, when I use a valid bearer token (I get it and verify it with the end-point of keycloak), and I try to request the backend via the api gateway with the verified bearer token, I obtain systematically an "Invalid bearer token" exception.
{"error":"invalid_grant","error_description":"Invalid bearer token"}
I think the settings of the integration is well set because I am sure that te gateway call Keycloak to verify the token.
Here are the keycloak I have used to get and verify the token :
Get token : http://127.0.0.1:7070/auth/realms/myrealm/protocol/openid-connect/token
Verify : http://127.0.0.1:7070/auth/realms/myrealm/protocol/openid-connect/token/introspect
I have seen some posts about problem when Keycloak is behind a reverse proxy, but I don't find a clear solution to my case.
Thanks for any help you can bring to me.
Regards
CG
I think there are those ways you can do it.
First, I think you can check the log of Apache APISIX.
Second, you can check the log of Keycloak.
Third, you can use tcpdump or wireshark to capture the request that Apache APISIX sends to keycloak.And diff the request that sends by APISIX and curl.
Looking forward to your reply.
We are currently evaluating the possibilities of keycloak since we need to replace a custom SSO solution. This requires us to connect to external IDPs which we already connected to.
Currently I am investigating an OpenID-Connect Provider which is authenticating the clients via POST using client_id and client_secret as parameters. Additionally, its API is secured with a basic authentication via the Authorization header. Whilst the first part is no problem, I have not found a solution to overcome the additional basic authentication with the available default configurations (using a user-defined OpenID Connect V1.0 provider). Vice versa, I can overcome the basic authentication, but then will miss the client_id and client_secret parameters which results in an error of the IDP not returning an access token.
Is there a way to resolve this issue? If not via default options, is there an option to add custom IDPs which can be configured in the backend? I saw the SPIs in the developer documentation (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_development/#_providers) but I am not sure if one of those suits our needs.
I want to access the kubernetes dashboard and the API using an already existing openid connect session (apache reverse proxy with mod_auth_openidc + WSO2 identity server). Unfortunately, kubernetes requires an id_token as a bearer token (signed JWT), which is quite hard to obtain by just having the session cookie from mod_auth_openidc module.
My problem is the following: When I call the the OIDCInfoHook with the id_token configured (the reverse proxy callback_url like http://service.domain?json=info), I just get the unsigned id_token token, which is useless for kubernetes authentication. Calling the info hook with the refresh token configured I can retrieve successfully the refresh token. With this token the identity server (WSO2) returns the id_token, a new access token and the next refresh token. Unfortunately, the mod_auth_openidc still has the old access_token and I need to map to the new the id_token to the old and new access token. Although it works after a fresh login, optaining the id_token doesn't work anymore after the session timeout (3600 s). In this state, I have to delete manually the session cookie in order to get a new login prompt.
I have two questions:
Is there any other possibility to use oidc authentication with kubernetes that does not rely on the id_token, i.e. using one the openid connect flows as described in the spec? According to the openid connect spec, the id_token should not be send around and this method seems not to be one of the openid connect flows, I guess.
Is there any other best practice way to integrate kubernetes into an existing openid connect based single sign on environment?
The common SSO solution for this kind of problems is to use Kubernetes OAuth2-Proxy, https://github.com/pusher/oauth2_proxy. You could either run the proxy in an ingress or in a side car container. If you have istio, you could also integrate Istio with your openid conenect provider.
I am trying to wrap my head around the concept of bearer-only clients in Keycloak.
I understand the concept of public vs confidential and the concept of service accounts and the grant_type=client_credentials stuff. But with bearer-only, I'm stuck.
Googling only reveals fragments of discussions saying:
You cannot obtain a token from keycloak with a bearer-only client.
The docs are unclear as well. All they say is:
Bearer-only access type means that the application only allows bearer token requests.
Ok, if my app only allows bearer token requests, how do I obtain this token if I cannot get it from Keycloak using client id / client secret?
And if you can't obtain a token, what can you at all? Why do these clients exist? Can somebody please provide an example of using this type of client?
Bearer-only access type meaning
Bearer-only access type means that the application only allows bearer
token requests. If this is turned on, this application cannot
participate in browser logins.
So if you select your client as bearer-only then in that case keycloak adapter will not attempt to authenticate users, but only verify bearer tokens. That why keycloak documentation also mentioned bearer-only application will not allow the login from browser.
And if you can't obtain a token, what can you at all? Why do these clients exist?
Your client can't be set as bearer-only on Keycloak Server. You can
still use bearer-only on the adapter configuration though. Keycloak
doesn't allow "bearer only" clients (when setting up your client on
the server) to obtain tokens from the server. Try to change your
client to "confidential" on the server and set bearer-only on your
adapter configuration (keycloak.json).
So if you understand above statement then if you have two microservice which are talking to each other in the case, caller will be confidential and callee will be bearer-only
And Keycloak also mentioned
Bearer only client are web service that never initiate a login .It’s typically used for securing the back-end.
So if you want to use any adapter you can use bearer-only depend on the need
EDIT-
Lets go in more details ..Let see one example i have a web-app and one rest-api for web-app i am using React/Angular/JSF any front end technology and for back-end i am using Java based rest-api OR Nodejs.
Now for above requirement i have to secure both the products(web-app,rest-api) so what will be my work of action? How will I secure both the apps through Keycloak?
So here is details explanation
I have to create two client inside a realm in keycloak
Client A will be use by web-app
Client B will be used by rest-api
So now question will be why two client?
For web-app we want to force user to login via GUI then only generate the token
For rest-api we dont want GUI based api as these api consume by web-app but still secure the access to rest-api.
Now Go to Client A and make its Access Type public client so web-app will ask to login via keycloak GUI or your login page then generate the token
So same token which generated in above step used by rest-api and according to user role and other information data will fetch. So Access Type of Client B will be bearer-only so web-app generated token is passed to rest-api and it is then used to authorize the user .
Hope it will help. Someone want to add more he/she free to add.
Short answer: you can't obtain an access token using a bearer-only client, so authentication flow configuration is irrelevant, but keycloak may still need to know such a bearer only client to manage role / or audience
More details
bearer-only clients usefully represents back-end applications, like web service, called by front application and secured by the authorization server (= keycloak)
Backend / Web service application are not called directly by user, so they can't play in the Oauth2.0 user interactive flow. Setting "bearer-only" document this fact to keycloak server, allowing administrator to configure client without otherwise mandatory values (example redirect uri…) and allowing usefull error messages if someone trying to obtain a token for such a client
However, this doesn't mean you cannot configure specific roles for this client: so it need to appear in keycloak realm.
In addition bearer-only client need to verify the received access token, especially, if this (recommenden) adapter feature "verify-token-audience" is activated, bearer-only client need to verify that the access token has been issued for it: the bearer-only client must be in the audience attribute of the access token:
see https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_admin/index.html#_audience
for audience managing by keycloak, bearer-only clients needs to be registered in keycloak realm.
In my understanding, it is used when you have some internal service.
Let's say you have ServiceA and ServiceB. A user calls ServiceA which in hand calls ServiceB. ServiceB is never called by the user directly, only by other services. ServiceA will get a token using the user's credentials. And then will use this token to call ServiceB. ServiceB will never initiate a login. It will just use the token to verify permissions.
In this case, ServiceA will be confidential and ServiceB will be bearer-only clients.
An other idea why bearer only clients exist could be that client are misused for role containers sometimes, see the following discussion on the Keycloak User mailing list https://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/2016-April/005731.html
E. g. the default client "realm-management" is a bearer only client, that contains roles to manage things in a realm. There is no need to invoke a login on a client like this, so public and confidential doesn't make any sense.
I have added an identity provider with OpenID connect V1.0 and used Google endpoints. I have provided the option ?hd=X.com(https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth?hd=X.com) to restrict the login, but as per the google doc, it says HD is an optional parameter. How to validate if the token received from Google after login from keycloak perspective and restrict login?
For anyone still curious about this answer, as of KC 11.0.0 the KeyCloak server is explicit that it will validate the response from Google matches the hd parameter you set in KeyCloak, as seen here: