-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 163
adr: Add thoughts about guest users #2183
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,205 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: "Guest users in OpenCloud" | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| * Status: pending | ||
| * Deciders: [] | ||
| * Date: 2026-01-20 | ||
|
|
||
| Reference: https://github.com/opencloud-eu/opencloud/issues/2111 | ||
|
|
||
| ## Context and Problem statement | ||
|
|
||
| To allow collaboration with external Users (Users that don't yet have an | ||
| account in the IDP, and might be external to the organization), it should | ||
| be possible to invite "Guest Users" into an OpenCloud instance. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| - the audit trail of the external user accessing the resource needs to | ||
| be maintained, that means sharing via a password protected public link | ||
| is not sufficient as access to that one is tracked as if the creator | ||
| of the link accessed the resource | ||
| - external users need to be authenticated just like "normal" users, when | ||
| accessing the shared resource (including the possibility to use 2FA) | ||
| - the ability to invite external users is tied to a separate permission | ||
| (e.g. "can invite guest users") | ||
| - make it work with all (most) of the user-management configurations we support. | ||
| The built-in IDP (lico) does not need to be supported. | ||
| - avoid creating "Shadow IT" Infrastructure, e.g. we don't want to | ||
| create/maintain a separate IDP instance just for Guest User that would | ||
| allow bypassing corporate rules for Identity Management | ||
| - the process of inviting a guest must can be asynchrounous, i.e. the user | ||
| account of the guest user might not be created at the moment of | ||
| creating the share/sending the invitaion as the whole process crosses | ||
| multiple systems (OpenCloud, Identity Management System, Email) and might | ||
| even require manual steps. | ||
| - It should be possible to "convert" a guest user into a "normal" user without | ||
| the user loosing their shares. | ||
| - Guest user invitations should have an expiration date, after which they can | ||
| no longer be accepted. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Privileges of guest users | ||
|
|
||
| - guest users can not share or invite other users to a space or create public | ||
| links. (primary focus of the feature is to provide a simple way to grant | ||
| external, authorized access. anything else like resharing would undermine | ||
| regular user accounts). | ||
| - guestusers can use the desktop and mobile client to access their shares or spaces | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| - all "normal" users are able to share with guest users, just as if they where "normal" users. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Questions still to be answered | ||
|
|
||
| - what's the life cycle of a guest user? | ||
| - Who's responsible for deprovisioning? | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I suggest users with the role "admin" |
||
| - Do guest users expire after a certain time? | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. default: guest user accounts expire after 120 days of inactivity (=no login), can be configured. the invitation expires after 30 days per default. can be configured.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is where the whole thing gets murky again. I don't think we can reliably provide such a feature and keep the promise of working with all kinds external IDPs. Locking inactive user accounts is usually a feature of the IDP, we're not an IDP.
|
||
| - Do we need to keep track of who invited whom and when? (not just in | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. yes. there needs to be a lowlevel option to manage guest users eg. via cmd. list all email adresses:
actions:
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See my other comment above. In a "normal" setup with an external IDP the OpenCloud admin is not able to delete users. As "guest" users are supposed to come from the same IDP, we will also not be able to delete those. Somehow I think we need to get a common understand of the whole "lifecycle of an OpenCloud user". I have the feeling everybody has a different understanding of what OpenCloud really should provide in that area. |
||
| the audit log?) | ||
| - What if the user already exists but used a different mail address in | ||
| his account (e.g. sub-addressing?). | ||
|
|
||
rhafer marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| ## Obstacles | ||
|
|
||
| ### UserIDs | ||
|
|
||
| - Every user in OpenCloud needs to have a userid assigned | ||
| - Sharing, as many other features, needs that userid for storing the | ||
| share (share service) and for assigning the grants on the shared | ||
| resources (storage provider) | ||
| - When an external IDP is used the generation of that userid is usually | ||
| not in control of OpenCloud (exception User-Autoprovisioning, or when | ||
| the Provisioning/Education API is used). In that case, the userid is | ||
| taken from a LDAP Attribute maintained in the external system | ||
|
|
||
| ### Lots of identity management options | ||
|
|
||
| - OpenCloud provides many different ways to consume user-accounts. Guest | ||
| users are supposed to be working with all/most of them: | ||
| - External IDP, with external LDAP service | ||
| - External IDP, with manual provisioning via the | ||
| Education/Provisioning APIs (to a local OpenCloud specific LDAP | ||
| service) - e.g. in multi-tenant setups | ||
| - External IDP, with User-Autoprovisioning (also to a local OpenCloud | ||
| specific LDAP service) | ||
| - everything in-between and outside of the above | ||
rhafer marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| - Each of these options have different ways for user-provisioning and in | ||
| the way userids are generated and managed | ||
|
|
||
| ### How do we keep track of invitations? | ||
|
|
||
| - Completely rely on external system? | ||
| - Track creation and acceptance of invitations somehow? | ||
| - Do invitation expire at some point? | ||
rhafer marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Possible solutions | ||
|
|
||
| ### Re-vitalize the PoC implementation of the invitations service and finalize it (<https://github.com/opencloud-eu/opencloud/blob/main/services/invitations/README.md>) | ||
|
|
||
| - Implements parts of the MSGraph Invitation Specification | ||
| (<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/resources/invitation?view=graph-rest-1.0>) | ||
| - Currently there's just a single backend that allows creating users, | ||
| using the Keycloak Admin API | ||
| - As part of the user creation keycloak triggers an email to be sent to | ||
| the invited user to get him to verify his email address and set a | ||
| password. This is not really and invitation email. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That is not enough. We need to be in control of that EMail probably.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What exactly do you mean by that? |
||
|
|
||
| #### Pros | ||
|
|
||
| - A partial implementation already exists | ||
| - no shadow IT | ||
|
|
||
| #### Cons | ||
|
|
||
| - while the emails sent by keycloak can be themed. There is no way | ||
| to add custom content, like: "you've being invited by user X to | ||
| access resource Y" | ||
| - the keycloak admin API does not return the password reset link in | ||
| the response, so we can't use that to send a custom email | ||
| - the keycloak implementation is not a real "user invitation" | ||
| workflow, the user experience for the invited user is not ideal | ||
| - The workflow likely only works with a limited set of setups. | ||
| (Specifically: a keycloak that is able to write into a connected | ||
| LDAP database, that OpenCloud can consume) | ||
| - As the invitations are not really tracked, e.g. we don't really | ||
| "know" if an invitation was accepted | ||
| - Requires direct access to the Identity Management System | ||
|
|
||
| ### Invitation Service + support for pending shares in the share manager | ||
|
|
||
| - Create some form in invitation manager and provide tools/documentation | ||
| for customers to hook that up with their Identity Management System | ||
| - User's with the "right" privileges are able to create invitations, | ||
| invitations get a unique identifier. Other data maintained on the | ||
| invitation: | ||
| - Invited user's email address | ||
| - Invited user's userid (once the user account was provisioned) | ||
| - Inviting user's userid | ||
| - Creation timestamp | ||
| - Invitation State (Pending, Accepted, …) | ||
| - (more probably) | ||
| - our sharing API | ||
| ('graph/v1beta1/drives/{drive-id}/items/{item-id}/invite') is enhanced | ||
| to allow creating shares that target an invitation as the share | ||
| recipient. (That share would only be persisted in the 'shares' service | ||
| and would not yet crate any grants on the filesystem, or send out | ||
| sharing notifications). (Requires changes to the CS3 sharing APIs) | ||
| - A middleware (specific to the Identity Management System) is | ||
| "informed" (e.g. via web hooks or a message queue) when a new | ||
| invitation is created. That middleware is responsible for provisioning | ||
| the user account of the guest user. Whatever this process looks like | ||
| it completely up to the middleware (maybe it triggers some invitation | ||
| workflow or it could just even open a support ticket with the IDP | ||
| admin) | ||
| - once the user is provisioned the middleware calls back into our | ||
| invitations service,marks the invitation as "accepted" and provides | ||
| the "userid" of the guest user. The invitations service then triggers | ||
| the "pending" shares to be processes, which causes the filesystem | ||
| grants to be written and notifications to be send out to the guest | ||
| user. | ||
| - We'd provide a reference implementation of that middleware, that works | ||
| with keycloak | ||
|
|
||
| #### Pros | ||
|
|
||
| - Agnostic to whatever Identity Management System is used | ||
| - We have an audittrail about who was invited by whom at what point | ||
| in time | ||
| - no shadow IT | ||
|
|
||
| #### Cons | ||
|
|
||
| - somewhat complex | ||
| - likely requires changes to the CS3 APIs | ||
|
|
||
| #### Implementation Obstacles | ||
|
|
||
| - Permissions on spaces are currently not tracked in the share | ||
| manager, the are purely managed via grants. So currently the share | ||
| manager service currently does not know anything about (invited) | ||
| users being assigned to spaces | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why does the share manager need to know about invited or even accepted guest users? Is't that just a second call to the invitation manager to get that info where needed?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you please elaborate on that? |
||
|
|
||
| ## Additional thoughts | ||
|
|
||
| If OpenCloud were responsible for allocating the UserIDs of all users | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Good point! I was wondering also, if that could simplify things in the future and let us get rid of the LDAP dependency.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. AFAICT always having opencloud generate a userid would allow us to get rid of the shared ldap deployment mode. The ldap server would only be used to find recipients (users or groups) in an organization. We always only send invitations into some form of inbox of a user. This could literally be an email. Or an internal nats queue with invites. Anyway, IIRC we bounced around the idea of exchanging the sub+iss, basic auth or app password credentials in the proxy with a userid generated by opencloud years ago already. It has seeveral benefits:
The last point addresses the problem that if a user shares with a guest, aka an email address, that needs to trigger an onboarding process for the new guest. If we just create a new user in a keycloak that we have write permission to we are back at the same shadow it user management as before. We could use OpenID Connect Discovery to find the external issuer and trust that to authenticate users. OIDC in theory is federated. However, in practice our clients would have to dynamically register with the guests IdP ... which does not seem to be widely supported, yet. I think we should use a list of trusted identity providers, this would allow a single instance to use multiple identity providers, eg for multi tenancy use cases or when organization merge and multiple idps exist for a wile or to better reflect the sovereignty of organizations. If no idp is responsible for the guest email, we can use a fallback idp that is only used for guest accounts. We already have the webfinger service that we can use for the issuer discovery. So ... yes, please ... make opencloud generate a userid. |
||
| the solution sketch above would likely loose some of its complexity. We | ||
| would "roll" the userid for the invited user already when creating the invite. | ||
| That would allow to skip the step of creating a "pending" Share with an | ||
| invitation assigned. As we have an ID already, we could just create a "normal" | ||
| share and even populate the grants on the filesystem for that share (or space) | ||
|
|
||
| We've been pondering on the idea of making OpenCloud manage all UserIDs | ||
| for quite a while as it would have some additional benefits for the | ||
| whole user management story. | ||
|
|
||
| - We wouldn't rely anymore on the external Identity Management system to | ||
| provide a unique id with certain properties. Ideally the only unique | ||
| thing we'd need from the external system is the `iss` and `sub` | ||
| claims of the IDP and those are required by the OIDC standards. | ||
|
|
||
| It could be worth to spend some time on figuring out a migration path | ||
| towards such a solution, before spending resources on a complex guest | ||
| features implementation. | ||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.