To support Shawn's statement even further. If my customer can't get NiFi to operate behind our reverse proxy, it won't be in our system. I'm trying to find the easiest approach, and NiFi's OIDC should be perfect, if X509 wasn't "wanted" up front.
I'd argue that all of the AuthN/AuthZ code should be abstracted out significantly more than it currently is, with the ability to completely configure it via nifi.properties, and mix-in custom AuthN/AuthZ solutions. The ability to manage users/groups in NiFi's UI should be a toggle. There should be an easy higher level API to use for group/role provisioning. If a new user "bob" open's NiFi and they have a "read-only" role, then they shouldn't need to be manually provisioned in NiFi, and we my customer tries to minimize the number of unique applications reaching into LDAP. Every application that implements LDAP support implements it differently, and they don't always scale up appropriately. For example, i'm trying to get Apereo CAS 5.x working with Apache NiFi. With CAS, it can provide SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID Connect, or CAS's custom protocols, which can support Yubikey, Google Authentication, ADFS, Azure AD, etc. Sadly, because of the wantClientAuth(true) I can't use any of it. I'm even willing to assist in providing some PRs to move NiFi in the right direction, I just think we should figure out the higher level architecture/design a little better; especially since NiFi's job is to help things integrate together, it's not being a good team player. As much as I hate to say it, if NiFi was a proper Java EE project, I could just use a war overlay to modify the AuthN/AuthZ to success; even if it was just a self-executing .war. -- Curtis Ruck On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:14 PM Shawn Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll clarify my statement a little as well with a workflow. > > > > 1. You open the NiFi UI Link > 2. Chrome sees NiFi Asking for SSL and Prompts You for Cert > 3. Then you get Prompts for Username and Password because of GSSAPI > even though your not on that REALM. > 4. Then you get directed to the Identify Management Reverse Proxy URL > for Knox SSO > 5. Then you get prompted for your Certificate which you should select. > 6. Then you might get prompted for Kerberos Again which you cancel > 7. Finally your in NiFi. > > > Painful doesn't even begin to describe it lol. > > > Thanks > > Shawn > ------------------------------ > *From:* Kevin Doran <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 9, 2018 11:07:28 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Re: > > > *Explaining to your end users that you should skip the first Certificate > Prompt but accept the second but only when you haven't logged in the > current session is really painful* > > > Wow, that sounds terrible. Confusing, accident prone, and frustrating to > correct mistakes (at least in my experience, forcing a browser to forget > client certificate preferences is difficult). > > Thanks for sharing those details about your deployment scenario. This can > definitely be improved and I have some ideas for how to do it. I've cloned > the issue to NiFi to make sure we are tracking it for both projects [1][2] > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFIREG-189 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5504 > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Shawn Weeks <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The project I'm on is running into this issue as well and it gets > particularly painful when all of your server's are signed by the same root > ca that signs your smart card logins and your using something like KnoxSSO. > Explaining to your end users that you should skip the first Certificate > Prompt but accept the second but only when you haven't logged in the > current session is really painful and shows major shortcoming between the > back end authentication between servers and front end ui authentication. > > > We can't even considering putting it behind our identify reverse proxies > because we can't turn off two way ssl. > > > Thanks > > Shawnk > ------------------------------ > *From:* Kevin Doran <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:47:56 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: > > sorry forgot the link. here it is: > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/NIFIREG/issues/NIFIREG-189 > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Kevin Doran <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Curtis, > > This has come up a few times. Unfortunately I don’t think there is > currently an easy way to disable X509-based identity extraction in NiFi > today. There is an open JIRA for the same issue in NiFi Registry [1]. NiFi > Registry follows the same AuthN/AuthZ design (and a fair amount of code) as > NiFi, so this ticket should apply to NiFi as well. > > Perhaps you could share more about your needs and use case on that ticket > so that when it gets implemented we could take that scenario with reverse > proxies and OIDC into account? > > Thanks, > Kevin > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Curtis Ruck <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm trying to setup OIDC authentication, but with Nifi service existing > behind a reverse proxy, and for our other apps we use SSL Client > Authentication between reverse proxy and application, Nifi is picking up > the Reverse Proxy's SSL Certificate and falling into X509 Authentication > instead of OIDC. Any idea how I can disable X509 authentication in Nifi? > > Connecting directly to nifi, it triggers the proper OIDC redirects. > > -- > Curtis Ruck > > > > >
