Hi Hasintha, On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Hasintha Indrajee <[email protected]> wrote:
> We have had several discussions with the objective of making these logics > more reusable. One of the ideas was to use our carbon-auth-rest valve to > authenticate client. Since it has below concerns and gaps we thought of > implementing these authenticators as CXF interceptors. > > 1) Current implementation of rest-auth valves does not have a mechanism to > engage authenticators per context. > 2) Current implementation of rest-auth valves does not have a way to order > the execution sequence of authenticators. > 3) Also it seems like using a valve to intercept these specific requests > which comes to a context doesn't seem logically correct. Tomcat level > doesn't seem to be the correct place to intercept. Instead specific > intercepting specific context seems more logical. > Yes, point #3 is a valid point to not to use a tomcat valve, whereas other two points are limitations of the existing implementations and I could not see them as blockers since if we are anyway have to implement those functionalities. > > Hence we will be going forward with CXF interceptors for authentication. > Can we consider this interceptor as an another enforcement point like tomcat valve and add a new module to identity-carbon-auth-rest component? The reason is https://github.com/wso2-extensions/identity-carbon-auth-rest component desined to enforce authn & authz for rest endponints. And tomcat valve implementation is only an one way of intercepting method which not suitable for this context, but we still could reuse org.wso2.carbon.identity.auth.service and org.wso2.carbon.identity.authz.service modules to manage central operations of authenticators. If this implementation is only applicable for oauth endpoints and if there is no usage of any other rest endpoints for similar authentication mechanisms, its ok to develop these as separate modules, but we have to clearly decide what to use when. Regards, > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Hasintha Indrajee <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Isura Karunaratne <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Hasintha Indrajee <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The idea behind this is to decouple the authentication mechanism used >>>> by OAuth2 clients from the rest of the OAuth2 logic, so that different >>>> types of client authenticators can be plugged. For an example according to >>>> specification [1] client_secret_basic, client_secret_post, >>>> client_secret_jwt are few client authentication mechanisms. >>>> >>>> The client authentication will be done through an extension. Hence >>>> different client authentication criteria can be implemented and can be >>>> plugged. >>>> >>>> The interface (API) will consist of three main methods. >>>> >>>> 1) canAuthenticate - Decides whether the particular authenticator can >>>> authenticate the incoming request or not. >>>> >>>> 2) authenticateClient - Authenticates the client request based on >>>> information present. As a result of authentication client ID will be >>>> available in the context. >>>> >>>> 3) getClientId - Depending on the authentication mechanism they way >>>> client ID is extracted depends. For an example in JWT client authentication >>>> client sends out the client Id within the JWT as the subject. Hence in a >>>> case authenticaiton fails, we may need to extract client Id for other >>>> puposes. ex - data publishing, if the client is non confidential. >>>> >>>> The client authenticator has to be implemented as an OSGI bundle and >>>> should be deployed in dropins upon building. Also relevant authenticator >>>> name has to be configured in identity.xml under client authenticators. >>>> >>>> <ClientAuthHandlers> >>>> >>>> <ClientAuthHandler Class="org.wso2.carbon.identit >>>> y.oauth2.token.handlers.clientauth.BasicAuthClientAuthHandler"> >>>> </ClientAuthHandler> >>>> >>>> </ClientAuthHandlers> >>>> >>> >>> How are we going to support, non-confidentials clients, will that >>> support through another ClientAuthHandler? Also, Do we support >>> backword compatibity for exsting ClientAuthHandlers? >>> >> >> Client authenticator will only authenticate if the application is >> confidential. If not, still a client authenticator can be introduced to >> extract client ID. If no authenticator can handle (either authenticate/ >> extract client ID) it will try to extract client ID from the body of the >> request and allow to go forward if it's non confidential. Otherwise it will >> fail. >> >> Most probably there will be a code migration required since there will be >> subtle changes in client authenticator interface. Ideally as per the >> current way there shouldn't be much custom client auth handlers implemented >> since the authentication was tightly coupled to the rest of the flow. >> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> Isura >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html#Cli >>>> entAuthentication >>>> <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fspecs%2Fopenid-connect-core-1_0.html%23ClientAuthentication&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEcVTdgiIUSObwbxp8OUtTU1By8Rg> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Hasintha Indrajee >>>> WSO2, Inc. >>>> Mobile:+94 771892453 <077%20189%202453> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Isura Dilhara Karunaratne* >>> Associate Technical Lead | WSO2 >>> Email: [email protected] >>> Mob : +94 772 254 810 <077%20225%204810> >>> Blog : http://isurad.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Hasintha Indrajee >> WSO2, Inc. >> Mobile:+94 771892453 <077%20189%202453> >> >> > > > -- > Hasintha Indrajee > WSO2, Inc. > Mobile:+94 771892453 <+94%2077%20189%202453> > > -- Regards, *Darshana Gunawardana*Technical Lead WSO2 Inc.; http://wso2.com *E-mail: [email protected] <[email protected]>* *Mobile: +94718566859*Lean . Enterprise . Middleware
_______________________________________________ Architecture mailing list [email protected] https://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/architecture
