I want to secure a rest service with basic authentication. The credentials should be used to obtain an access token from a keycloak instance for that client and check the allowed roles on the service.
The quarkus security architecture guide states that at least one extension installed that provides a username/password based IdentityProvider is required. It refers to JPA IdentityProvider and JDBC IdentityProvider, only. But I want to authenticate agains keycloak.
I have successfully setup a web app and a rest service with quarkus-oidc. It authenticates the user and provides access to the rest service via access token.
I also used properties files with basic authentication successfully.
My keycloak myclient setup has Direct Access Grants Enabled with Access Type set to confidential.
My configuration in application.properties:
quarkus.oidc.enabled=true
quarkus.oidc.auth-server-url=http://localhost:8180/auth/realms/myrealm
quarkus.oidc.client-id=myclient
quarkus.oidc.credentials.secret=secret
quarkus.http.auth.basic=true
Is this a valid combination?
When I debug into HttpAuthenticator constructor the only mechanism found is OidcAuthenticationMechanism, I'd expect BasicAuthenticationMechanism to be present.
I'm building a microservice based REST API and a native SPA Web Frontend for an application.
The API should be protected using OAuth2.0 to allow for other clients in the future. It should use the Authorization Code Flow ideally with Proof Key for Code Exchange (PKCE)
As I understand it I need to run my own OAuth Auth Server that's managing the API Clients and generating access tokens, etc.
Also I need my own Authentication/IAM service with it's own fronted for user login and client authorization granting. This service is the place the users login credentials are ultimately checked against a backend. That last part should be flexible and the backend might be an LDAP server in some private cloud deployment.
These components (Auth Server and IAM servicve) are outside of the OAuth scope but appear, correct me if I'm wrong, to be required if I'm running my own API for my own users.
However creating these services myself appears to be more work than I appreciate besides the obvious security risks involved.
I read about auth0 and okta but I'm not sure if they are suited for my use case with the application potentially deployed in private cloud.
I also thought about running Hydra (OAuth Server) and Kratos (IAM) by ory but I'm not sure if this is adding too many dependencys to my project.
Isn't there an easy way to secure an API with OAuth that deals with the Auth Server and the IAM that's good for small projects?!
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'm trying to create a SAML IDP for the system I built. Probably I'm getting confused with concepts. My problem is as follows:
This system was built in SymfonyPHP which authentication is made by OAuth token. Nothing so special, the username and password are passed to the /auth endpoint and the request returns the token if the credentials are valid. It's working fine.
Now I have to integrate this credentials to a client system. Once the user is logged to my system, so it should be on the client side (like the "login with Google button). I've been searching and realized I should use SAML for that.
I installed the SimpleSAMLPHP and I'm trying to understand how to set it up as my IDP. Once it's made, I can create SPs for my clients systems.
Question: how to make the SimpleSAML use my existing service for authentication? Which module should I use?
With SimpleSAMLPHP acting as an IdP, you want to have a look at authentication modules. The latter is a component that encapsulates the mechanics of signing into the identity provider. For example, if you were trying to sign in to the IdP with your Facebook account, SimpleSAMLPHP ships a FB authentication module that does this for you.
If your existing service can be supported by one of the SimpleSAMLPHP modules, then you're all set. Else, you need to develop your own module.
There is an existing mechanism to log into a website. Now, external / remote SAML IDP is being added to facilitate SSO. The website uses other micro-services and components that provide data and functionality to the website.
Is there a way to have an existing mechanism of local identity username password credentials to continue to co-exist as an alternate strategy for authentication alongside remote IDP SSO while keeping rest of the services handling authorization in a semantic way (using a saml token)?
P.S. I looked at the options to implement existing auth mechanism as saml IDP, but building it seems complex even with the likes of shibboleth or openSAML libraries.
P.P.S. I haven't looked at possibility of reimplementing existing auth mechanism with openId connect to co-exist with remote saml idps.
Sure: one can provide a landing page to the user that gives a choice between using a local account or an account at a remote IDP.