Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support the access token binding to the client MTLS authentication #4482

Open
sberyozkin opened this issue Oct 9, 2019 · 6 comments
Open
Assignees
Labels
area/oidc kind/enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@sberyozkin
Copy link
Member

Description
When the client uses the same certificate to authenticate to both IDP when requesting a token and Quarkus adapter, it can help the adapter to link the access token to the client certificate thus achieving an extra guarantee that the token is coming from the same client which requested it from IDP. Per the KC team recommendation

Hi Stian @stianst, Pedro, @pedroigor FYI

@sberyozkin sberyozkin added kind/enhancement New feature or request area/oidc labels Oct 9, 2019
@sberyozkin
Copy link
Member Author

Related to #4447

@sberyozkin sberyozkin changed the title Review the possibility of supporting the client MTLS authentication Support the access token binding to the client MTLS authentication Oct 29, 2019
@sberyozkin
Copy link
Member Author

@CSTDev if you know where in the Vertx request context the client cert info is available then please comment here

@CSTDev
Copy link
Contributor

CSTDev commented Oct 29, 2019

I've been using the peerCertificateChain from the request context to get any information I need for authentication.
In an authenticate method in a class extending io.quarkus.vertx.http.runtime.security.HttpAuthenticationMechanism I do:

routingContext.request().peerCertificateChain()

where routingContext is io.vertx.ext.web.RoutingContext

This will be different if you're behind a reverse proxy mind, then I think practice is to put the info in headers, but i could be wrong.
Hope that's helpful and what you're after.

@sberyozkin
Copy link
Member Author

@CSTDev thanks for this information

@sberyozkin
Copy link
Member Author

sberyozkin commented Feb 16, 2023

This old issue is the next major OIDC issue I will be looking at

@sberyozkin
Copy link
Member Author

It will be completed after Michal @michalvavrik's PR, #42935 is merged

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/oidc kind/enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants