Skip to content

Handling SSO/Web_Auth flow/tokens within the Openvpn-Client #369

@andwei

Description

@andwei

Hi,

This is a general question, no bug report. I've been digging into the possibilities to use OpenIDConnect (oidc) to authenticate a User at an openvpn-server.

I'm aware of the supported method of using an AUTH_PENDING control message, supplying a redirect-url within a following INFOMSG that triggers the client to open a browser and continue Authentication using a OAuth2/oicd Flow (WEB_AUTH and management-interface).

AFAICT this method always relies on some (openvpn-)server-side https-service that is used as a redirect-uri for the authorization-code flow, e.g. the openvpn-auth-oauth2 plugin, i.e., receiving id_token, refresh_token at the server side and logging the user in from "there".

I'm also aware of the various ways to send an additional challenge to the client using AUTH_PENDING with crtext or the (older?) mechanism of using sending back an error containing the CRV1:<flags>:<state>:<b64(user)>:<challenge-text>. Those are restricted to a strictly textual challenge-response, though.

I was wondering why there seems to be no support for a solution (in the openvpn repos, at least) that only involves the client (be it a "native/desktop app" or a "mobile app" in OAuth2 terms) completing the authorization-code flow (with PKCE) and using the thereby obtained id_token to authenticate with the openvpn-server, in lieu of a password. The redirect-uri for that scenario could either be a loopback addr (http://127.0.0.1:<port>) for desktop or a claimed https:// URI for mobile.

I am aware that it is possible to implement a plugin and custom client (or even a wrapper around the existing client, as was done here) that implements the described "client-local approach". However it seems like a nice thing to have the "official" openvpn-server and client implementing a mechanism and configuration support for oidc in a way that the openvpn-server defines the parameters and the client takes care of the OAuth2-Flow and mangement of the id_token (and in extension, refresh_token etc.).

Am I missing something that makes that approach unfeasible or unsafe? Is it something that has been discussed and been discarded for this or that reason? Or am I overlooking something and it's ready to go and I just can't find it?

Kind regards,
Andreas

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions