Keycloak service account linked to custom User Storage identity
We have a a Keycloak realm backed by a custom User Storage provider. The identity store behind this provider is legacy, and we are unlikely to replace it with keycloak's internal storage.
We use this very effectively for our web application using "authorization code grant" and the keycloak-spring-security adaptor. We use protocol mappers to add additional claims from our identity store to the access token. This is all part of our legacy authorization scheme. This all works great.
Now we want to expose a set of our API's to our partners/customers for them to use in their applications. We want to provide access to our partners through a simple "client credentials grant" and a single service account. I can set this up easily, however, we need this service account to be bound to one of the users in our identity store and take on the associated claims.
Is this possible?
---Edit---
I considered using Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant" but I would prefer this client to have access to a single service account authorized by the client secret. I don't want additional password credentials, and I don't want to maintain password policies for service accounts.
We have no plans on implementing a user federation scheme with our partners, and we cannot assume our partners will be using this for interactive, user-driven applications.
oauth-2.0 keycloak
asked Nov 22 '18 at 15:48
dsmithdsmith
1,790913
add a comment |
We have a a Keycloak realm backed by a custom User Storage provider. The identity store behind this provider is legacy, and we are unlikely to replace it with keycloak's internal storage.
We use this very effectively for our web application using "authorization code grant" and the keycloak-spring-security adaptor. We use protocol mappers to add additional claims from our identity store to the access token. This is all part of our legacy authorization scheme. This all works great.
Now we want to expose a set of our API's to our partners/customers for them to use in their applications. We want to provide access to our partners through a simple "client credentials grant" and a single service account. I can set this up easily, however, we need this service account to be bound to one of the users in our identity store and take on the associated claims.
Is this possible?
---Edit---
I considered using Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant" but I would prefer this client to have access to a single service account authorized by the client secret. I don't want additional password credentials, and I don't want to maintain password policies for service accounts.
We have no plans on implementing a user federation scheme with our partners, and we cannot assume our partners will be using this for interactive, user-driven applications.
oauth-2.0 keycloak
asked Nov 22 '18 at 15:48
dsmithdsmith
1,790913
I'm thinking a custom Authentication Provider might be the answer. Hoping for something simpler.
– dsmith
Nov 22 '18 at 17:52
add a comment |
We have a a Keycloak realm backed by a custom User Storage provider. The identity store behind this provider is legacy, and we are unlikely to replace it with keycloak's internal storage.
We use this very effectively for our web application using "authorization code grant" and the keycloak-spring-security adaptor. We use protocol mappers to add additional claims from our identity store to the access token. This is all part of our legacy authorization scheme. This all works great.
Now we want to expose a set of our API's to our partners/customers for them to use in their applications. We want to provide access to our partners through a simple "client credentials grant" and a single service account. I can set this up easily, however, we need this service account to be bound to one of the users in our identity store and take on the associated claims.
Is this possible?
---Edit---
I considered using Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant" but I would prefer this client to have access to a single service account authorized by the client secret. I don't want additional password credentials, and I don't want to maintain password policies for service accounts.
We have no plans on implementing a user federation scheme with our partners, and we cannot assume our partners will be using this for interactive, user-driven applications.
oauth-2.0 keycloak
asked Nov 22 '18 at 15:48
dsmithdsmith
1,790913
We have a a Keycloak realm backed by a custom User Storage provider. The identity store behind this provider is legacy, and we are unlikely to replace it with keycloak's internal storage.
We use this very effectively for our web application using "authorization code grant" and the keycloak-spring-security adaptor. We use protocol mappers to add additional claims from our identity store to the access token. This is all part of our legacy authorization scheme. This all works great.
Now we want to expose a set of our API's to our partners/customers for them to use in their applications. We want to provide access to our partners through a simple "client credentials grant" and a single service account. I can set this up easily, however, we need this service account to be bound to one of the users in our identity store and take on the associated claims.
Is this possible?
---Edit---
I considered using Resource Owner Password Credentials Grant" but I would prefer this client to have access to a single service account authorized by the client secret. I don't want additional password credentials, and I don't want to maintain password policies for service accounts.
We have no plans on implementing a user federation scheme with our partners, and we cannot assume our partners will be using this for interactive, user-driven applications.
oauth-2.0 keycloak
oauth-2.0 keycloak
asked Nov 22 '18 at 15:48
dsmithdsmith
1,790913
asked Nov 22 '18 at 15:48
dsmithdsmith
1,790913
edited Nov 22 '18 at 16:45
dsmith
asked Nov 22 '18 at 15:48
dsmithdsmith
1,790913
asked Nov 22 '18 at 15:48
dsmithdsmith
1,790913
asked Nov 22 '18 at 15:48
dsmithdsmith
1,790913
1,790913
I'm thinking a custom Authentication Provider might be the answer. Hoping for something simpler.
– dsmith
Nov 22 '18 at 17:52
add a comment |
I'm thinking a custom Authentication Provider might be the answer. Hoping for something simpler.
– dsmith
Nov 22 '18 at 17:52
I'm thinking a custom Authentication Provider might be the answer. Hoping for something simpler.
– dsmith
Nov 22 '18 at 17:52
I'm thinking a custom Authentication Provider might be the answer. Hoping for something simpler.
– dsmith
Nov 22 '18 at 17:52
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53434454%2fkeycloak-service-account-linked-to-custom-user-storage-identity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53434454%2fkeycloak-service-account-linked-to-custom-user-storage-identity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I'm thinking a custom Authentication Provider might be the answer. Hoping for something simpler.
– dsmith
Nov 22 '18 at 17:52