On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 00:59 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:26 AM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 00:21 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 1:23 AM Lars Wendler <polynomia...@gentoo.org> > > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
