Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo Identity Provider

[Michał Górny]

On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 00:59 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:26 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 00:21 -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 1:23 AM Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@g.o>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alec,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 May 2020 18:42:24 -0700 Alec Warner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > TL;DR: What if we launched id.gentoo.org, an identity provider that
> > > > > provides authentication for Gentoo properties? Basically, 1 username
> > /
> > > > > password for wiki, bugs, email, forums, and any other http
> > > > > service[0][1].
> > > > >
> > > > > Today Gentoo has numerous systems that mostly work in a segmented
> > way.
> > > > > - To connect to hosts, we use ssh keys.
> > > > > - Git is authenticated via ssh keys.
> > > > > - Email uses LDAP passwords.
> > > > > - Bugzilla has its own identities, with their own passwords.
> > > > > - Wiki is separate, with its own passwords.
> > > > > - Forums are separate.
> > > > > - Infra has an additional 4 systems that use separate credentials.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some applications support 2FA (such as wiki.)
> > > > > Some applications do not support 2FA.
> > > > > Applications that require 2FA have a configuration for each app, so
> > you
> > > > > have N configurations.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we configured id.gentoo.org you would have 1 identity across all
> > > > > gentoo properties.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this a thing people are interested in?
> > > > >
> > > > > [0] It's unlikely operations for git via ssh would change in this
> > > > > rollout. [1] Its unclear if the scope is "gentoo developers" or "any
> > > > > community member." The former have LDAP accounts and @gentoo.org
> > email
> > > > > addresses and so we can manage them easily; managing 1000s of other
> > > > > accounts in the IDP remains to be seem.
> > > >
> > > > In case 2FA won't be mandatory I find this a good idea.
> > > >
> > >
> > > 2FA is definitely a reason to deploy software like keycloak, but in the
> > > first rollout I don't expect to enforce 2FA. Ideally we would deploy the
> > > U2F support in keycloak and then, similar to our earlier program, offer
> > > discounted or free u2f devices for Gentoo developers; this would likely
> > be
> > > on a 1-2 year timeframe.
> > >
> > > Is there some reason you don't want to use 2FA?
> > >
> >
> > I myself would find 2FA bothersome for low importance services.  Whether
> > it's U2F or OTP, I would generally find it silly to have to carry
> > the hardware/software on me all the time or even use it when it's laying
> > right next to me, say, just to approve a comment on a blog.
> >
> > But I guess if we go for SSO, it becomes a necessity to better protect
> > our passwords.
> >
>
> I think each application, when it ends up integrating with keycloak, gets
> to decide what security level the application wants; I think this leads to
> flexibility for low-importance stuff. E.g. we may not need OTP for blogs,
> or wiki. Obvious cases are apps like our AWS credentials (where theft means
> financial harm for Gentoo) or the sso.gentoo.org itself (because you
> probably want to require OTP to change your password, for example.)
>

This is going only to work if you can have multiple passwords per
security level.  Otherwise, a low-level login could be used to guess
your password, then a separate attack against the second factor could be
devised.

Of course, I'm assuming that 2FA is implemented properly here, without
giving tips about each factor separately.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny