How to enhance Caddy's basic_auth?

Comments

• Cyberflunk@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Check out supertokens.io

  I see voidauth already mentioned, great setup also

  source
• notquitenothing@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Developer of VoidAuth here, you could give that a try! If you have any issues or questions I can help :) VoidAuth

  source

  • tubbadu@lemmy.kde.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    This looks very interesting! I see that it supports users groups, would it be possible to create “named access policies” (like “admin_only_policy”, “group_XXX_policy” ecc) and then assign them to the various services directly in the Caddyfile? thank you very much!

    source

    • notquitenothing@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I don’t think you could do that directly in the Caddyfile, but you can create those groups/policies inside VoidAuth and assign them to users there.

      The steps would be to create the ProxyAuth Domain (protected.example.com/*) in VoidAuth with the allowed group(s), make sure the user(s) have that group, then in Caddy add the forward_auth directive to the same route you want to protect.

      Then when you go to access that route in a browser it will redirect you to VoidAuth login, or if you pass an Authentication header with Basic Auth (like when using an API) it will use that.

      source
• conrad82@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I use github.com/nosduco/nforwardauth for this purpose

  There is an example implementation for caddy in github.com/nosduco/nforwardauth/tree/…/caddy-v2

  or maybe voidauth could do it sh.itjust.works/post/42016490

  source
• _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I use Authelia powered by LLDAP with Caddy to protect services. For accessing files I use copyparty, it can hook into Authelia for user auth.

  source

  • tubbadu@lemmy.kde.social ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I already looked into Authelia, and the “problem” I encountered is that it does not support “named policies” (I don’t know the actual name): what I mean is to be able to create “only_admin_policy”, “only_registered_users_policy” etc, and then in Caddy to be able to say something like this

    service1.website.com {
        reverse_proxy container1:1234
        apply_policy only_admin_policy
    }
    service2.website.com {
        reverse_proxy container2:1234
        apply_policy only_registered_users_policy
    }
    service3.website.com {
        reverse_proxy container3:1234
    }
    

    Instead if I understood correctly (and I would gladly be proved wrong) this is not possible with Authelia, as these policies have to be specified inside Authelia, so I would have two different configurations in two different places instead of having everything in the Caddyfile

    I hope I explained well what I mean

    thanks for the help!

    source

    • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      yes, it can do that, assuming you are using LDAP or have set up users/groups in the Authelia config. you don’t need to set it up in the caddyfile though, you can handle everything from Authelia’s end. for example, here is a typical protected item from my caddyfile.

      # this is a bit of code at the top that I use for every protected item, and call it each time to save space
      (protected) {
      	tls /ssl/home-cert.pem /ssl/home-key.pem
      	forward_auth :4100 {
      		uri /api/verify?rd=https://auth.myurl.xyz/
      		copy_headers Remote-User Remote-Groups Remote-Name Remote-Email
      		header_up Host {upstream_hostport}
      	}
      	encode gzip
      }
      
      # UptimeKuma
      uptime.myurl.xyz {
          # now to call the code above for this item
      	import protected *
      	reverse_proxy :4000
      }
      

      that’s all I need in my caddyfile, just the bits that forward the information about the user to each site to log them in. I can then handle all the auth rules like saying which sites are only for admins or users in the Authelia config. since I use LDAP, I can set up the groups in that, then just specify which sites are DENY or TWO_FACTOR for each group in the Authelia config. or even in the apps themselves, if they support LDAP like Jellyfin and Forgejo.

      source
• ohshit604@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I don’t use Caddy but Keycloak may be what you’re looking for.

  source

  • tubbadu@lemmy.kde.social ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    This was actually pretty interesting until I found out that Caddy is not yet supported :(

    Thank you anyway!

    source
• dgdft@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  How does programmatic access tie into the desire for a login form?

  Either way, you can do a login form -> basic auth forwarding page by rigging up some simple JS, or access programmatically in a direct way by simply setting a manual Authorization header.

  source

  • tubbadu@lemmy.kde.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    How does programmatic access tie into the desire for a login form?

    I would like to keep files with “private” information protected from public access, but I would like to access them from a script. An example: i wrote a karaoke application to use with my friends, they have to go to a webpage and select the songs they like, and then the karaoke app connects to the server to get the updated preference file. I would like that the users had a “nice login form” to select their songs, and then I’d like my karaoke app to easily download the file while still keeping it password-protected

    source

    • dgdft@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Yeah, you don’t need to extend Caddy at all for that.

      Add a properly-formatted Authorization header to any requests you make to the server and it’ll work. See Wikipedia page for header string format:

      en.wikipedia.org/…/Basic_access_authentication

      source