On Mon, Apr 2, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > Sorry it took so long to write this up and send it out, but here's our > proposed plan for authentication moving forward. > > Please do feel free to comment or suggest changes/improvements here. Any > mistakes are mine alone. :) > > Fedora Project Auth roadmap > > Background/History > > The Fedora project created its own authentication/user/group > management system at nearly the beginning of its existance. FAS (Fedora > Account System) (version 1) and then a rewrite (FAS2). At each of these > points other solutions were investigated and found unacceptable for > various reasons. Over the last few years, several additional > applications have been added next to FAS2 to provide additional > functionality: ipisilon has been added as a identity provider, and > FreeIPA has been added for kerberos authentication. FAS2 is still the > authoritative source of authentication data. FAS2 is currently deployed > on RHEL6 servers and won't run on RHEL7. > > Also during the last few years, a new FAS re-write has been slowly in > the works. FAS3 is written in a modern framework and has a number of > functionality and interface improvements over FAS2. Additionally it can > run on RHEL7. > > Goals and Critera > > Maintaining authentication applications is difficult and time > consuming work, and it has always been a goal to try and move to more > industry standard applications as much as possible given our goals and > critera. The last time we looked, Some of those goals/critera include: > > * User self service registration > * User self service password reset > * FPCA acceptance requirement > * Basset integration (may not be needed anymore) > * Allow Self Service groups with their own sponsors/admins > * Allow group requirements (other group first, etc) > > Plan: > > On discussion with FreeIPA developers and looking at how things are > setup now, we came up with a plan to get what we need, but reduce the > footprint and maintance we need to do. Many of the features we were > hoping to use in FAS3 have now been implemented upstream in > FreeIPA (2fa, fasClient syncing better, etc). > > Basically we will: > > * A new small wrapper type project is written (Community Account > Information API) or CAIAPI. > This small app provides the Critera listed above, talking at first to > FAS2 on the backend then, later switching to talking to FreeIPA on the > backend and providing a json API to consumers. Where does this leave us with the development on those features of FAS2 that aren't auth related? Do we have open work to do on the new group enablements, etc.? regards, bex > * Switch anything we have using the direct FAS api to use CAIAPI instead. > * Move to FreeIPA being the canonical source for authentication data. > This should just be a switch to CAIAPI, and no consumers should even > notice. > * FreeIPA still provides kerberos auth. > Note that kerberos will remain limited to use at ipsilon and koji. > * Ipsilon provides identity auth for applications, preferably with OIDC > (still provides others) > * A new small website that uses the CAIAPI json to provide end user > access / management. This thing would be in flask and needs a name still. > > Since https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fas_freeipa FreeIPA > has matured and our understanding of the work required to make CAIAPI > and a small web consumer has clarified. > > Pros: > > * IPA handles all the storing of credentials, replication and such and > we just use it. > * Our maint goes from needing to maintain FAS2 or FAS3 to just CAIAPI > (a much smaller api) and a > very small web application. > * Easier to audit 2 small apps. > * We can try and share the CAIAPI with other open source communities > (Gnome? CentOS? others?) > Open Source Communities already using FreeIPA would be easy to add > this to. > * We can stop using fasClient in favor of ipa-client setup (no more > heavy syncing) > * The heavy security aspects will be handled by upstreams we don't > need to fully maintain > (FreeIPA, sssd, ipsilon, etc). > > Cons: > * We still need to write the CAIAPI/webapp, although Patrick may have > CAIAPI already somewhat implemented. > * It feels very sad to have spent so long on FAS3 and never deploy it, > but sometimes > thats just the way things go. ;( > > > _______________________________________________ > infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Email had 1 attachment: > + signature.asc > 1k (application/pgp-signature) _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
