Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER
Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
meson: Fix install-quiet after clean
- a9ffb35274fb 18.0 landed
- 4ae03be54734 19 (unreleased) landed
-
oauth: Run Autoconf tests with correct compiler flags
- 3d23f68c5529 18.0 landed
- 990571a08b66 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Link libpq with libdl if the platform needs that.
- 4df477153a6b 19 (unreleased) landed
- 7bd752c1fb8e 18.0 landed
-
Doc: correct spelling of meson switch.
- 3faac9d14063 16.9 landed
- 766d2e673342 17.5 landed
- ac557793d478 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Correct SSL dependency for libpq-oauth.a
- 3db68212a393 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix Autoconf build on macOS
- 4ea1254f35b2 18.0 cited
-
oauth: Move the builtin flow into a separate module
- b0635bfda053 18.0 landed
-
Remove a stray "pgrminclude" annotation
- 764d501d24ba 18.0 cited
-
oauth: Simplify copy of PGoauthBearerRequest
- 1cf4c56480f8 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Improve validator docs on interruptibility
- 873c0fd67872 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Disallow synchronous DNS in libcurl
- d7e40845f923 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix postcondition for set_timer on macOS
- 434dbf6907ec 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Use IPv4-only issuer in oauth_validator tests
- 8d9d5843b55f 18.0 landed
-
Work around OAuth/EVFILT_TIMER quirk on NetBSD.
- c301a0a74a8a 18.0 landed
-
oauth: Fix incorrect const markers in struct
- 03366b61dfe5 18.0 landed
-
Add missing entry to oauth_validator test .gitignore
- 2c53dec7f440 18.0 landed
-
cirrus: Temporarily fix libcurl link error
- 9d9a71002a1c 18.0 landed
-
Add support for OAUTHBEARER SASL mechanism
- b3f0be788afc 18.0 landed
-
libpq: Handle asynchronous actions during SASL
- a99a32e43ed7 18.0 landed
-
require_auth: prepare for multiple SASL mechanisms
- f8d8581ed882 18.0 landed
-
Move PG_MAX_AUTH_TOKEN_LENGTH to libpq/auth.h
- e21d6f297158 18.0 landed
-
Make SASL max message length configurable
- 6d16f9debae0 18.0 landed
-
jsonapi: fully initialize dummy lexer
- 41b023946dfd 18.0 landed
-
common/jsonapi: support libpq as a client
- 0785d1b8b2fa 18.0 landed
-
Remove fe_memutils from libpgcommon_shlib
- f1976df5eaf2 18.0 landed
-
Revert ECPG's use of pnstrdup()
- f0096ef13be2 13.17 landed
- 3557185538fe 14.14 landed
- 2de129b356bf 15.9 landed
- ee2997c678d8 16.5 landed
- e9e05c655069 17.0 landed
- 5388216f6adc 18.0 landed
-
Explicitly require password for SCRAM exchange
- adcdb2c8dda4 17.0 landed
-
Refactor SASL exchange to return tri-state status
- 24178e235ea5 17.0 landed
Hi Mahendrakar, thanks for your interest and for the patch!
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:03 PM mahendrakar s
<mahendrakarforpg@gmail.com> wrote:
> The changes for each component are summarized below.
>
> 1. Provider-specific extension:
> Each OAuth provider implements their own token validator as an
> extension. Extension registers an OAuth provider hook which is matched
> to a line in the HBA file.
How easy is it to write a Bearer validator using C? My limited
understanding was that most providers were publishing libraries in
higher-level languages.
Along those lines, sample validators will need to be provided, both to
help in review and to get the pytest suite green again. (And coverage
for the new code is important, too.)
> 2. Add support to pass on the OAuth bearer token. In this
> obtaining the bearer token is left to 3rd party application or user.
>
> ./psql -U <username> -d 'dbname=postgres
> oauth_client_id=<client_id> oauth_bearer_token=<token>
This hurts, but I think people are definitely going to ask for it, given
the frightening practice of copy-pasting these (incredibly sensitive
secret) tokens all over the place... Ideally I'd like to implement
sender constraints for the Bearer token, to *prevent* copy-pasting (or,
you know, outright theft). But I'm not sure that sender constraints are
well-implemented yet for the major providers.
> 3. HBA: An additional param ‘provider’ is added for the oauth method.
> Defining "oauth" as method + passing provider, issuer endpoint
> and expected audience
>
> * * * * oauth provider=<token validation extension>
> issuer=.... scope=....
Naming aside (this conflicts with Samay's previous proposal, I think), I
have concerns about the implementation. There's this code:
> + if (oauth_provider && oauth_provider->name)
> + {
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + (errmsg("OAuth provider \"%s\" is already loaded.",
> + oauth_provider->name)));
> + }
which appears to prevent loading more than one global provider. But
there's also code that deals with a provider list? (Again, it'd help to
have test code covering the new stuff.)
> b) libpq optionally compiled for the clients which
> explicitly need libpq to orchestrate OAuth communication with the
> issuer (it depends heavily on 3rd party library iddawc as Jacob
> already pointed out. The library seems to be supporting all the OAuth
> flows.)
Speaking of iddawc, I don't think it's a dependency we should choose to
rely on. For all the code that it has, it doesn't seem to provide
compatibility with several real-world providers.
Google, for one, chose not to follow the IETF spec it helped author, and
iddawc doesn't support its flavor of Device Authorization. At another
point, I think iddawc tried to decode Azure's Bearer tokens, which is
incorrect...
I haven't been able to check if those problems have been fixed in a
recent version, but if we're going to tie ourselves to a huge
dependency, I'd at least like to believe that said dependency is
battle-tested and solid, and personally I don't feel like iddawc is.
> - auth_method = I_TOKEN_AUTH_METHOD_NONE;
> - if (conn->oauth_client_secret && *conn->oauth_client_secret)
> - auth_method = I_TOKEN_AUTH_METHOD_SECRET_BASIC;
This code got moved, but I'm not sure why? It doesn't appear to have
made a change to the logic.
> + if (conn->oauth_client_secret && *conn->oauth_client_secret)
> + {
> + session_response_type = I_RESPONSE_TYPE_CLIENT_CREDENTIALS;
> + }
Is this an Azure-specific requirement? Ideally a public client (which
psql is) shouldn't have to provide a secret to begin with, if I
understand that bit of the protocol correctly. I think Google also
required provider-specific changes in this part of the code, and
unfortunately I don't think they looked the same as yours.
We'll have to figure all that out... Standards are great; everyone has
one of their own. :)
Thanks,
--Jacob