Sergey, this is just what was proposed earlier and what I'd like to have. ;-)
Maybe it would be better if we discuss actual API proposals as it seems we miss each other's vision. Too bad this topic didn't start with some elaborate idea about such an API bringing all on the same page, but I heard that this is not wanted since it's too much to read. :-D
-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyozkin_at_talend.com]
Sent: Montag, 15. Dezember 2014 13:27
To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
Subject: Re: JAX-RS Security
Hi Bill
On 15/12/14 12:14, Bill Burke wrote:
> Just like JAX-RS, Servlet spec is a standalone specification. There are
> many embeddable servlet implementations that can run in a "Java SE
> environment". We would be much better off working with JASPIC to create
> a JAX-RS binding.
>
> But I told you this earlier in the thread: pure JAX-RS does not need a
> security SPI. Filters work just fine both on the client and server.
>
You recommended adding a client side support for 2.0, it was not done
but you had some good ideas, right ?
IMHO a higher-level binding, possibly around the latest Security JSR
would be better, as opposed to working with JASPIC - binding to it can
be in itself an internal detail if needed...
Sergey
> On 12/14/2014 10:57 AM, Markus KARG wrote:
>> I would say this is a valid argument only if we restrict JAX-RS to
>> Java EE only (hence remove anything about Java SE as a platform from
>> the spec), which is not planned AFAIK. As this is not the case, it is
>> comparing apples with oranges as Servlet spec does _not_ say that a
>> Servlet can run on Java SE.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Burke [mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com]
>> Sent: Sonntag, 14. Dezember 2014 14:16
>> To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS Security
>>
>> The servlet spec doesn't have its own security SPI either. Having
>> multiple ways to do the same thing is not conducive to the platform as
>> a whole IMO. The vast majority of JAX-RS developers run inside an EE
>> container. Any security SPI you would propose to JAX-RS would have to
>> take into the fact it needs to integrate with a Java EE environment
>> and you would just be redoing work already done by specs like JASPIC.
>>
>>
>> On 12/14/2014 3:11 AM, Markus KARG wrote:
>>> You still didn't get the point. When you want to use JASPIC with Java
>>> EE but JAX-RS filters without, then your are forcing the deployer to
>>> repackage the application, which voids the WORA principle. To prevent
>>> that, annotations and / or an API is needed, which is unambiguous to
>>> the application vendor, but that automatically uses either JASPIC or
>>> JAX-RS filters at runtime _without_ enforcing a repackaging. Instead,
>>> the JAX-RS container decides which technology to use under the hood.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Bill Burke [mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Sonntag, 14. Dezember 2014 01:54
>>> To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS Security
>>>
>>> Since this is an EE 8 spec, then use an EE 8 API: JASPIC. If you are
>>> not running in Java EE, JAx-RS filter works just fine. If you want
>>> everything to run in JAX-RS and create Servlet.next, that's probably
>>> just not going to fly, IMO.
>>>
>>> On 12/13/2014 1:06 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
>>>> The problem is the WORA principle: Application vendors (like me) do
>>>> not know what platform is underlying the JAX-RS container at
>>>> runtime. Our application for example might be run on Java SE, pure
>>>> Servlet containers, or full Java EE server -- without knowing it. So
>>>> how should it find out which filter to apply just to get the needed
>>>> security?
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Bill Burke [mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com]
>>>> Sent: Samstag, 13. Dezember 2014 15:14
>>>> To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS Security
>>>>
>>>> You don't really need a specific API for security on the client as
>>>> Filters can implement it fine. On the server there are a few issues
>>>> though:
>>>>
>>>> * Getting client IP address is needed in some security solutions
>>>> * Getting client certificate is needed in some security solutions
>>>> * There is no way to override and propagate principal/role mappings
>>>> (SecurityContext) to other nested component calls.
>>>>
>>>> All this is really for pure JAX-RS. With Java EE there is JASPIC
>>>> that allows you to plug in your own providers. It might be
>>>> interesting to offer a JAX-RS binding for this, but it already has
>>>> one for servlets.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/13/2014 8:54 AM, Markus KARG wrote:
>>>>> Thank you for that explanation. In fact I always assumed that due
>>>>> to JAAS' modular concept it would be possible to provide some JAAS
>>>>> module to the client which under the hood does OAuth. Maybe I was
>>>>> wrong with that, but as you seem to be an expert with that, I'd
>>>>> like you to check this before we invent something completely new.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> -Markus
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Casey Lee [mailto:cplee_at_nektos.com]
>>>>> Sent: Samstag, 13. Dezember 2014 01:19
>>>>> To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS Security
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair question. Let's consider client side first. For
>>>>> authentication, JAAS provides a pluggable way of collecting the
>>>>> credentials from the user. However with OAuth 2.0, we don't want
>>>>> the client app to collect the credentials...we want the client app
>>>>> to redirect the resource owner to an authorization server to
>>>>> authenticate and grant access to the client app. I don't think
>>>>> this type of authorization on the client side lines up with JAAS.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the server side, I think there is more opportunity for
>>>>> integration, ideally with the annotations that are already
>>>>> available. Another challenge though is that OAuth brings another
>>>>> party to the transaction. Rather than just AuthN/AuthZ of the
>>>>> client by the resource, we also have to AuthZ the resource owner
>>>>> who is using the client. Specifically, we need to authorize that
>>>>> the resource owner has access to the resource AND that the client
>>>>> has been granted access to the resource on behalf of the resource
>>>>> owner.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to reinvent the wheel if it's already there...I'll
>>>>> give JAAS another look and see if any other folks are having better
>>>>> luck with using it with OAuth 2.0.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Casey
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Markus KARG
>>>>> <markus_at_headcrashing.eu> wrote:
>>>>>> Casey,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not a security guy at all, so please don't mind if the
>>>>>> question is dumb, but doesn't JAAS already define interfaces for
>>>>>> authentication providers? If so, we could use those instead of
>>>>>> reinventing the wheel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> -Markus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Casey Lee [mailto:cplee_at_nektos.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Freitag, 12. Dezember 2014 17:53
>>>>>> To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>>>>>> Subject: JAX-RS Security
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have some opinions on opportunities for adding security to JAX-RS.
>>>>>> First, on the client side I'd love to see a method added to
>>>>>> Invocation.builder to add an implementation of a new interface
>>>>>> named AuthorizationProvider. This would allow implementations of
>>>>>> AuthorizationProvider to be created for specific types of
>>>>>> authz...like OAuth2AuthorizationProvider or
>>>>>> BasicAuthorizationProvider. These providers would be responsible
>>>>>> for applying necessary Authorization header (or query params?) to
>>>>>> the invocation. What are the thoughts on adding some standard
>>>>>> providers to the API? OAuth 2.0 for example is something that has
>>>>>> become ubiquitous, but has a steep learning curve for developers
>>>>>> to use properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the server side aren't the JSR-250 security annotations
>>>>>> supported by JAX-RS? Or is that only implemented by some specific
>>>>>> vendors?
>>>>>> Seems that those solve course grained security (by role). We have
>>>>>> chosen to leverage those annotations and treat OAuth 2.0 scopes as
>>>>>> roles. Would it make sense to have a more OAuth 2.0 specific
>>>>>> solution (@ScopesAllowed)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Casey
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bill Burke
>>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>>>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>> http://bill.burkecentral.com
>>
>