An analysis of the Keycloak authentication system

> What if instead of publicly blaming an OSS product, you try to get a support contract with some of the engineers behind it? If your company is too cheap for that, maybe a PR would have been nice?

Yeah, no. That's not how security research works.

If I disclose a security issue to you, it doesn't matter if you're a multinational trillion dollar corporation or a hobbyist in Nebraska, the onus is on you to fix it. Not the security researcher. Their job is done once it's disclosed.

From the timeline:

> 28/03/2024 – First communication sent with all details and a proposed fix.

After that point, any additional help (including a pull request) is going above and beyond.

I run into this attitude you're exhibiting a lot. Where proprietary software has the legal threats, the open source community is plagued by patch entitlement.

Knowledge of a security issue in a project is, in and of itself, a valuable contribution. Expecting a PR devalues this work.

> If I disclose a security issue to you, it doesn't matter if you're a multinational trillion dollar corporation or a hobbyist in Nebraska, the onus is on you to fix it. Not the security researcher. Their job is done once it's disclosed.

On the other hand, if I'm a hobbyist, I have 0 obligations to do or fix anything I've made open source. Patches are welcome ofcourse.

>I have 0 obligations to do or fix anything I've made open source.

While technically true, this seems pretty scummy when you're advertising security software for real people and companies to use as their identity management.

Nowhere on the Keycloak home page does it say "just a hobby project" or anything that would remotely indicate that it is not a serious project and that you shouldn't use the software.

Instead, it seems like they are trying very hard to be taken seriously as an identity management product.

There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online. If they're selling the result, then sure, you can argue there's reasonable consideration, but just because a security researcher has made a contribution (and a valuable one) it doesn't compel any further contribution from the original author. Now, the lack of action does probably remove some of the credibility of the project as one that should be used in any security context (bit of a problem for something intended to be used as authentication).

> Nowhere on the Keycloak home page does it say "just a hobby project" or anything that would remotely indicate that it is not a serious project and that you shouldn't use the software.

https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/blob/main/LICENSE.txt#L...

Indeed

   7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
      agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
      Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
      WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
      implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
      of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
      PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
      appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
      risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.

Point 7 buried in the license document of the github repository is very much not https://www.keycloak.org/

> There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online.

Correct, but I didn't say there was. The onus being on them to fix it is predicated on anyone having such an obligation at all. If anyone has an obligation, it's always the vendor, not the researcher.

But keep in mind this situation involves an IBM-funded open source project under the Red Hat product line. The hobbyist remark is tangential to the story.

Customers have been refunded in full.

You really feel that anything that is not directly on the home page does not matter? A link to a separate document explicitly named as containing the conditions of license, warranty and such should not count?

Seems like an absurd view to me.

For all that I think RedHat is not a poor hobbyist and morally at fault. It's just a different matter altogether. The terms under which the software is provided are clearly spelled and in public view. You're just inventing a reason to disregard them.

>You really feel that anything that is not directly on the home page does not matter?

No, that's not what I said.

When it comes to software like this (one of the most important components of your security architecture), hiding the fact that you wont fix vulnerabilities unless you feel like it halfway down in your legalese-filled license is unethical.

I think it's absurd that people are defending this position. We're not talking about a weather app made by Joe Somebody for a weekend project.

Is this the first time you heard of open source licenses or something? This is standard boilerplate, and it's hilarious to think you get to ask for more from a project you're not even contributing to.

As long as you disclose that right-front on your value statement, yeah, you don't have any other obligation.

Is there an open source license that doesn't?

I'm not asking for more. I'm saying I think it is scummy to do the bare minimum when you're advertising yourself as a critical piece of security software and encouraging the use of the software in real security-critical applications.

It is right in the license.

So what gives you a right to download and use the software in the first place? The copyright law forbids that by default. What permission other than the license do you have?

That's not what these licenses have come to mean. They're a way to reduce the risk that you'll get sued,

but not any "I don't give a fuck" statement.

You could add "I don't care about fixing security vulnerabilities" somewhere in the beginning of the readme, if you're developing security related OSS software? That'd be more clear.

Maybe the WTFPL actually a little bit indicates that the developers maybe don't give a fuck, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL ?

That sounds a little like having your cake and eating it too. 'Giving a fuck' is not really a boolean value but more of a broad spectrum.

Of course, anyone who writes any software cared a little bit about it at one point, or they wouldn't have written it. But warranty is about whether they care enough to cater specifically to you when you have a problem in the future.

Maybe many of these projects do care enough to give general updates to the community as a whole on a best effort basis, but that's a lower level of assurance and more voluntary than what you'd get in a legal warranty.

> There's no obligation for a hobbyist to fix the stuff they publish online.

I may be wrong but this might not the case anymore in 2025 (not sure about the timeline) in the European Union because of the new cybersecurity acts.

>You could add "I don't care about fixing security vulnerabilities" somewhere in the beginning of the readme

I care about fixing security vulnerabilities in my OS projects, but I care more about my sanity, my family, getting enough money to survive, and a few other things. Unless you pay me I don't care about your problems with my free (as in a beer) software.

And that's a good thing btw - I tried to ask for donations once, got the equivalent of a few cups of coffee per month, and... burned out almost immediately. I started to feel responsible for that project, staying up late to fix reported minor bugs, and it turns out watching Github issues 365 days a year for a few dollars monthly is not a great business strategy.

Then you should never work on software with security implications, or if you do you should keep it to yourself. I’m a terrible party host, so I don’t host parties. I help other people do so when I can.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but thankfully, given that they obviously can't be trusted to maintain security-critical software (despite what they imply on their website and marketing material), I haven't downloaded or used it or recommended it anywhere while consulting.

This is not a one-person project ran by someone in their spare time, posted online for fun.

They are going out of their way to advertise so that people use their security-critical software in security-critical applications, and then they neglect the security.

While they aren't under any legal obligation, it's (in my worldview at least) pretty damn unethical.

All they would have to do to not be unethical is make it clear that this software should not be used in any security-critical application because it is not properly/frequently maintained. Put that in a header on the website.

I don't have a business presence in the EU, so I rarely care about that for my own projects. (Insofar as I do care, it's limited to "let's not make GDPR compliance logically impossible when designing cryptographic features").

The license is not your value statement.

They are literally explicitly stating that the software does not claim to be fit for purpose.

You can’t have it both ways.

They are advertising on their website, extremely prominently, that they are fit for your all of identity management needs.

Are they allowed to put a single paragraph in their license file that runs counter to all of their other marketing, advertising, and communication efforts? For sure!

Is it shitty to do that? I think so. Just be upfront, it's not hard. If your software isn't fit for security-critical applications, don't pretend it is.

Red hat consumers have been refunded? Where?

As per the terms here: https://www.keycloak.org/pricing

> Point 7 buried in the license document of the github repository is very much not https://www.keycloak.org/

Not a single word in this comment refers to "software like this (one of the most important components of your security architecture)". I guess you realized the absurdity of your position and moved the goalposts to something else.

What?

Can you explain where you think I set goalposts, and how you think I moved them? Because I am not following.

There's carve-outs in that for open source hobbyists ("not associated with commercial activity"). This was originally vaguely worded but they've now made it a lot less ambiguous, the only open source it covers is that which is being developed by a company which is also making money directly from it.

(And in the case that a company takes that code and uses it in a product, they are responsible to fix any security vulnerabilities but also to report it to the author)

The point is that red hat also sells keycloak and develops it. I agree that most users don't pay, but your point is a bit weird considering that some people do actually pay/paid for its development and still do not get a refund

I suppose it's best if you never use any open source software ever again because they all do that. Like I said, it's standard boilerplate and it's absurd to think you get to wish for more from an open source project that you aren't contributing to.

Of course this boilerplate is necessary else you get people like yourself demanding unreasonable things.

I'm not demanding anything, please stop reading my comments in the most uncharitable way you possibly can.

I'm not sure what has you in super-defense mode, but just as they are allowed to misrepresent themselves on their website, I'm allowed to think that it's shitty to do so. However, as I've said already (a few times, actually), they are more than free to continue doing so (and I'm more than free to keep saying it's shitty).

>[...] because they all do that.

No, they don't all do that.

The point is they're not misrepresenting anything, you just don't seem to understand open source. Literally all of them have the same disclaimer, and obviously they're not going to make any guarantees to randos who haven't even paid them. If this is a problem for you, stop using open source. For a start, say byebye to linux.

As for why I'm "on the defensive", bashing open source projects is bad form. You're absolutely welcome to request a refund, though.

The Linux kernel, probably one of the most critically important pieces of software nowadays, is licenced mainly under the GPL version 2.0[0], and other compatible licenses, and provides a section and 2 paragraphs on how there is no warranty for those who decide to use it.

"""

NO WARRANTY

11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

"""

No Linux kernel engineer is obliged to fix any bugs, even security vulnerabilities, if one decides to, but since there's so much at stake, kernel engineers will end up fixing at their own timeframes, as they see fit.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html

>and obviously they're not going to make any guarantees to randos

This is what I mean by purposefully misreading my comments. I have never once said or asked for this. You are arguing in bad faith.

You literally started by calling them scummy. That is an implicit demand for change.

My complaint was not about the license, it was about how the product represents itself.

Linux.org is a much different website than keycloak.org in the way they represent themselves, how they communicate the product, etc.

And you also shouldn't expect anyone to use your software. Which of course is up to you.

Nobody has an obligation to even do that outside of a contractual relationship, though it would be polite.