I have an application where right now a user could work in different context : in the same client application he could switch his context and work either for a company1 as "Administrator" or if he switch to the second context , he could work as "Editor" for the company2…
This was done by using a custom homemade authorization module, but we are trying to use openid-connect now so we are trying to find some solutions with KeyCloack.
Is it possible to assure the same kind of thing in Keycloack ?
It's possible. BUT it's not something that anyone who doesn't know the internal of your custom implementation could give you a solution.
Authorization services provided by Keycloak is quite flexible and of course complex. I suggest you to take a look at the following link and see which of of authorization solution can answer your requirements and would also be possible to adopt your system to use it (e.g. RBAC, ABAC, CBAC, etc.).
As an example, one solution could be to consider each company a resource and then each user of the application, can have different roles/permissions on each resource. So in Keycloak you define who has what roles on which resources (companies) and then in your app, you check those to see if user is authorized or not. But I'm pretty sure when you get a better overview of the Authorization Services in Keycloak, you would come up with a much better idea.
Keycloak Authorization Services
Related
I'm just starting a new project. The result will be an API server and a progressive web app. The API server is implemented with TypeScript and the NestJS framework, the client with Angular 6.
I've been flirting with keycloak for some time. Still, I'm not quite sure it's right for me yet. But I don't want to worry about things like token renewal anymore and find it sexy that Keycloak tells me how to create user roles.
What bothers me, is the following - integration. For my use case it is necessary that the login and all features like password reset and so on are part of my application. That means I want to create forms myself in order to be able to do this perfectly in my own design and not have a second translation process, etc. Keycloak themes are not an option. So is it possible to hide keycloak in such a way, or is it so complex that I shouldn't use Keyloak in the first place? Afaik there is already an issue with password resets - I can't request it from the user side but have to make an REST call to the admin endpoint - which is okay but not ideal since it requires me to do more server side logic ( and that is not why I want to use Keycloak).
In addition, Keycloak is too much about the GUI - which makes it difficult for me, especially during development. Because I also want to provide my team with a local instance of keycloak during development. But what is the concept to import the initial data into realms, apps and also users into Keycloak? I found some JSON imports - but so far only for realms and apps. Is there also a function to import a whole dumb?
So that my team builds on a pre-built setup and has a user for each role. A reproducible setup with Vagrant or Docker which contains the import of initial data - that would be the goal.
So in short my questions:
Is it still worth the effort using Keycloak if I want to use everything via the API or should I simply use Passport and JWT?
Can I have a reproducible setup during my development that includes realms, apps, users, user roles, etc?
So, the question asked few months ago, but I also faces with that question, and I want to answer on it.
I think that you don't need Keycloak, it is fairly enough for you to use OAuth2 and JWT.
Let's justify my answer:
You have just one client - Angular application. Keycloak useful, when you have many clients (web-js, mobile platforms) and you want to create and manage them dynamically. But, I think that, in your case, you create your client once without modification in the future.
Also, Keycloak very useful, when you have a lot of integration with third part systems (Google, Fb, Twitter and etc) because Keycloak has them out-of-box. Or you need to integrate with some SAML or LDAP provider.
You may use Keycloak, if you need some Identity and User management platform, and when you have complicated user access flow.
In the end, you could consider Keycloak, if you need SSO (Single Sign On) feature. Once logged-in to Keycloak, users don't have to login again to access a different application. But, by your description, you have just one application.
Keycloak offers features such as Single-Sign-On (SSO), Identity Brokering and Social Login, User Federation, Client Adapters, an Admin Console, and an Account Management Console.
It's an out of box solution for rapid security layer development of application.You could have single common security layer for multiple application .
You can implement you security mechanism without using keycloak.
The basic architecture of my application is React front-end consuming a RESTful API sitting on top of a polyglot storage layer.
Front-end:
React consuming APIs
Back-end:
Python
Flask
Authentication
Auth0+OKTA
Everything is working great. However, I need to have different roles for the users. In other words, I need to control the actions that a user can perform on a resource based on the role.
Example:
-User A wants to add a new user
-He has a token in his request, so I know User A is Authenticated
-Now I need to make sure he can in fact add users base on his role.
I don't want to hard-code the user roles as suggested in other solutions, and I would like to allow for custom roles to be added.
Also, I want to be respectful of people's time, so if there is a resource that addresses my concern, please feel free to point me to it.
These are my questions:
1. Are there any best practices for implementing what I am trying to accomplish?
2. Could you point me to examples or tutorials discussing authorization(not authentication)?
3. Do I check at each service call if the authenticated user can also perform the action or do I provide the roles in some form after authorization, so a service request contains both the authentication and authorization token?(this seems pretty easy to hack so I am guessing no...)
If I sound confused on the topic of authorization, it is because I am. Please feel free to point me to any resource that have been helpful to you.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to help! I really appreciate it.
You can use a framework like Yosai that is based on Apache Shiro.
These are some features:
Enables Role-Based Access Control policies through permission-level and role-level access control
Two-Factor Authentication, featuring Time-based One-Time Passwords
Native Support for Caching and Serialization
Event-driven Processing
Ready for Web Integration
I'm new to OAuth and I would really appreciate if someone could give me a hand with my problem. I need to create a simple web application for track expenses, with some basic actions (user must be able to create an account and log in, list expenses, edit them, etc) with a REST API for each one, and the trick is that I need to be able to pass credentials to both the webpage and the API. So, after some research I've found some examples using Digest Authentication and HMAC Authentication but lot of posts also mentioned OAuth as an alternative approach, so my question is, given this scenario, would be proper to use OAuth? I mean, as far as I understand OAuth is suitable when you want to share resources with other application, which I'm not doing for this project; besides that, when you try to access the shared resource it appears a page requesting permission for the foreign application, would that page appear at some point in my application? (maybe after the login?)
Thanks in advance guys
In your current scenario it does not make sense to use OAuth. It's not what OAuth is designed for.
If your application ecosystem is going to have multiple webapps running on a single SSO (like google) then it is very helpful to have OAuth.
Suggestion: Decide based on your business/operation plan and implement accordingly.
Note: If you plan to have 10 apps in the span of the next 5 years but only have one app now it does not make sense to spend time to implement complex protocols like OAuth right now. Scale as you grow.
in SAML 2.0 you can use the AttributeStatement element to provide any kind of application specific information.
What I was wondering, is it really good design to pass business related information within a SAML assertion? Shouldn't this data be provided in a e.g. separate web services call?
I just want to ask for best practice in this case or any real world experiences.
Regards,
Andreas
It depends a lot on just what information you're conveying. For instance, on the application I work on, we use attributes to indicate what web site features should be shown to the user being logged on. That's clearly an appropriate use. Now, we also allow use of attributes to create a user profile, even though we have a web service that does the same thing (and in fact, the implementation calls the web service behind the scenes). It's not an ideal context for that sort of thing; there's no endpoint to convey the web service response to, or any errors resulting from the attempt. But we get a fair amount of resistance from customers, who don't want to have to call a separate web service before they can make an SSO call. So we've had to compromise. What we've done is require that if a customer wants to use this particular functionality, that they provide an endpoint (either email address or web page) to receive errors from the web service call. And if they're concerned about security of the information being conveyed, they can use standard XML encryption.
I would like to have some guidance regarding how to handle authentication for my restful service to be able to support a couple of different scenarios, see included image?
I've been thinking about this problem for a couple of week without finding a solution for all of the cases and even if I'll make trade offs I'll be running into problems
If we skip the Mobile application and the use of Curl, there's no need to expose the service to the public and it would be possible to use basic authentication for the server to server communication. But we'll still need to put some responsibility at the "Web site for ninjas only" to pass the (openid authenticated user) as part for the http header?
In this case we're using Google apps to manage credentials for our co-workers and I don't like the idea to manage another username/password within the service if it's possible to avoid.
Is there any sustainable solution for my dreams, so that I can build awesome features for the client and implement a tight api that manages the authorization for different resources for a specific user?
Another possible to solution might be to integrate the service with the openid provider, but then I'll have problem with passing the user from "Web site for ninjas only"