The old spring security oauth can do this by spring-security-oauth2-autoconfigure
How can it be implemented using the latest spring security 5.7.x?
It seems that you have to create separate authorization server, resource server, and client...unlike the previous, you just have to enable configuration for authorization and resource server
But I am curious if there is a way to do libe the old way?
I discover this on my own.
Both the authorization and resource server can be in 1 springboot app and both can use same port.
It is the security configuration filter chain that you have to restrict both the "/login", "/oauth2/authorize"
Authorization server configuration is configured the basic way and so is the Resource server.
Related
We are building an OIDC Identity Provider in java which can be integrated into Keycloak and perform authentication .We are looking at Spring Authorization server or Apache Shiro as our options to build the custom service in java and register it as an IDP in Keycloak.Any help /documentation/leads welcome.
We have looked at any implementation logic within Spring Authorization Server for the integration with keycloak as an authentication mechanism,but not quite sure if its the right approach
I have been exploring APIgee and okta configuration using https://github.com/tom-smith-okta/okta-api-center repo. Here APIgee edge acts as a gateway to https://okta-solar-system.herokuapp.com/ api’s and the token for authentication is generated via okta. My understanding is that https://okta-solar-system.herokuapp.com/ doesnt have any okta authentication enforcement. The check is via apigee.
If I were to replace https://okta-solar-system.herokuapp.com/ with a spring boot application hosted publicly should the application have okta security enabled (eg : https://github.com/oktadeveloper/okta-spring-boot-oauth-example) or should i follow same procedure as above and delegate enforcement of token to apigee, without any security enforcement on the spring boot application?
Can someone tell me what is the standard way of implementation I should follow?
If the spring boot application has no enforcement of security, what is to prevent someone from bypassing the Apigee API gateway and calling it directly?
If you have successfully managed to secure the spring boot application so that only the API gateway can communicate with it (via mutual TLS connection, IP allow listing, etc), you might be able to forego any enforement at the service level, but I would recommend doing some authorization checks in the service itself.
Our stack includes the following services, each service runs in a docker container:
Front-end in React
Backend service based on Spring boot "resource-service"
Keycloak
Other backend service (consumer)
Both the front-end and the consumer services communicate with the backend using REST API.
We use Keycloak as our user management and authentication service.
We would like to integrate our Spring based service "resource-service" with Keycloak by serving both web application and a service flows:
Web application - React based front-send that should get a redirect 302 from the "resource-service" and send the user / browser to login in the Keycloak site and then return to get the requested resource.
Server 2 Server coomunication - A server that need to use the "resource-service" API's should get 401 in case of authentication issues and not a redirection / login page.
There are few options to integrate Spring with Keycloak:
Keycloak Spring Boot Adapter
Keycloak Spring Security Adapter
Spring Security and OAuth2
I noticed that there is a "autodetect-bearer-only" in Keycloak documentation, that seems to support exactly that case. But -
There are a lot of integration options and I'm not sure what is the best way to go, for a new Spring boot service.
In addition, I didn't find where to configure that property.
I've used approaches one and two and in my opinion, if you are using Spring Boot, use the corresponding adapter, use the Spring Security adapter if you're still using plain Spring MVC. I've never seen the necessity for the third approach as you basically have to do everything on your own, why would anyone not use the first two methods?
As for using the Spring Bood adapter, the only configuration necessary is the following:
keycloak:
bearer-only: true
auth-server-url: your-url
realm: your-realm
resource: your-resource
And you're done. The bearer-only is so that you return 401 if a client arrives without a bearer token and isn't redirected to a login page, as you wanted. At least that's what's working for us :-)
After that, you can either use the configuration for securing endpoints but it's a bit more flexible to either use httpSecurity or #EnableGlobalMethodSecurity which we're doing with e. g. #Secured({"ROLE_whatever_role"}).
If you're using the newest Spring Boot version combined with Spring Cloud, you might run into this issue.
I configure my resource-servers to always return 401 when Authorization header is missing or invalid (and never 302), whatever the client.
The client handles authentication when it is required, token refreshing, etc.: Some of certified OpenID client libs even propose features to ensure user has a valid access-token before issuing requests to protected resources. My favorite for Angular is angular-auth-oidc-client, but I don't know which React lib has same features.
Keycloak adapters for Spring are now deprecated. You can refer to this tutorials for various resource-server security configuration options. It covers uses cases from most simple RBAC to building DSL like: #PreAuthorize("is(#username) or isNice() or onBehalfOf(#username).can('greet')")
I have an architecture where my user application wants to use a basic authentication when accessing a spring service. This service has to use a Keycloak instance to verify the user/pass of the user application. I don't succeed to configure it (and don't know if its possible).
Yes, it is possible. Keycloak has Spring Security adapter that can be configured for Client and/or Resource Server.
https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/securing_apps/index.html#_spring_security_adapter
And also a working example here:
https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak-quickstarts/tree/latest/app-authz-spring-security
I have two spring boot server applications (Spring boot 1.5.2), the first one is the resource server and the second is the authorisation server (oAuth2), I have added Spring boot actuator to both servers and configured both with the following properties:
management.security.roles=ROLE_MYADMINROLE
management.context-path=/myactuator
In the resource server, I can access the actuator endpoints using a token obtained from the authorisation server for a user who hold the role ROLE_MYADMINROLE.
But in the authorisation server itself, I could not get the token working at the first place (Http Basic was working), to use the tokens, I have added a resource server configuration to it, and set the filter order at 3 after reading Spring boot documentation
security.oauth2.resource.filter-order=3
OAuth2 resources are protected by a filter chain with order security.oauth2.resource.filter-order and the default is after the filter protecting the actuator endpoints by default (so actuator endpoints will stay on HTTP Basic unless you change the order).
In Spring boot release notes we have this regarding this filter order:
OAuth 2 Resource Filter
The default order of the OAuth2 resource filter has changed from 3 to
SecurityProperties.ACCESS_OVERRIDE_ORDER - 1. This places it after the
actuator endpoints but before the basic authentication filter chain.
The default can be restored by setting
security.oauth2.resource.filter-order = 3
Now my actuator endpoint in the authorisation server accepts tokens issued from the same server, the question is why the default is Http Basic for the actuator endpoints? I assume oAuth2 is more secure than Http Basic? why I had to change the filter order in the authorisation server but not in the resource server? Here I am looking for an explanation for this rather than a solution as I have got this working as I want already.