SSO using OpenID Connect

[Timshel]

This is based on previous PR (#2787, #2449 and #3154) with work done by @pinpox, @m4w0lf, @Sheap, @bmunro-peralex, @tribut and others I probably missed sorry.

This PR add support for OpenId Connect to handle authentication to an external SSO.
This introduce another way to control who can use the vault without having to use invitation or an LDAP.

A master password is still required and not controlled by the SSO (depending on your point of view this might be a feature ;).

Bitwarden key connector is not supported and due to the license it's highly unlikely that it will ever be:

2.1 Commercial Module License. Subject to Your compliance with this Agreement, Bitwarden hereby grants to You a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free license to use the Commercial Modules for the sole purposes of internal development and internal testing, and only in a non-production environment.

Usage

This should be agnostic to the SSO used as long as it supports client secret authentication and expose an OpenID Connect Discovery endpoint. (I'm testing it with Keycloak at the moment, a demo test stack is available README.md)

Added some documentation at the root of the project SSO.md that could be later moved to the wiki.

I made some additional modification in my main branch to allow for easier testing (modified Docker image to use prebuilt patched front-end).

On front-end modification, I made patched versions available at Timshel/oidc_web_builds. Two versions are available :

• One contains the change expected to be merged (named button); all change needs to be compatible with the non-sso version.
• Second one set #sso as the default redirect url.

Issues

As mentioned in the previous PR one of the main issue is the inability for the organization invitation to work with the SSO redirection. To fix it a patch to the front-end is needed.

⚠️⚠️ ⚠️ If you have issues or need help testing the PR ⚠️ ⚠️ ⚠️

Please open issues in Timshel/vaultwarden in order to keep the discussion here focused on merging this work.
Of course if you believe your issue is important mention this PR so a reference will be visible.

But please try to keep commenting in this PR to a minimum to keep it legible, the previous one has over 200 comments ...

[derfabianpeter]

Super happy to see this PR being worked on. We (ayedo.de) would be willing to offer a sponsoring to prioritize this PR if that helps! Just reach out.

[Timshel]

Just added a configuration example for Gitlab which might be one of easiest way to test this PR :).

[AkechiShiro]

Hi @Timshel, thanks for your amazing and prolonged work on this feature, is this PR close to be in a ready merge-able state or is there a lot of work left?
I see the latest commit is about documentation, so, all issues mentioned at the beginning were fixed in some way or another ? Or there are still issue to fix ?

[Timshel]

Mainly waiting for maintainer review/feedback now :).

[ruben-herold]

@Timshel thx for your work!!! Hope this will be integrated soon

[pellux-network]

Hoping this gets merged soon!

[AkechiShiro]

Tagging some maintainers for review on this PR, if they have the available time resource to do so @BlackDex @dani-garcia

EDIT: I don't understand the thumbs-down, because tagging maintainers doesn't mean they have time to handle the PR or review it, it's just a way to mention them, if they don't answer/go MIA, or whatever, feel free to fork on this PR and maintain your own forks, no one is entitled to do any work, they don't want to.

[BlackDex]

I do not have much time actually.

Also, I'm a bit puzzled with all the different SSO PR's.
And I am a bit hesitant to merge one if that for some reason could break the other or has a totally different way of working.
I'm not sure what to do here because i see people want something like this, but there are multiple ways of getting this working it looks like.

One way would be to create a semi-supported release branch which contains SSO support, but that could get messy keeping it up-to-date. What do you think @dani-garcia ?

[Timshel]

? As mentioned this is the continuation of the previous PRs, it all rely on openidconnect. All of those PR are based on the previous ones when the previous PR owner stopped maintaining it.

I can´t speak for the owner of previous PRs but I believe this make all the others redundant. You could probably close the previous one referencing this one and encourage their owner to reopen if something is missing.

Thanks @bmunro-peralex for closing his PR to make things more legible and of course for his work which is present in this PR :).

[xoxys]

Why not finally add at least one way to support OIDC? You can also flag it as preview feature or something like this to get feedback from the community, but not getting this feature into Vaultwarden after multiple PRs were provided by the community without a review or without getting merged for months until the authors then gave up feels wrong to me for an open source project.

[BlackDex]

Why not finally add at least one way to support OIDC? You can also flag it as preview feature or something like this to get feedback from the community, but not getting this feature into Vaultwarden after multiple PRs were provided by the community without a review or without getting merged for months until the authors then gave up feels wrong to me for an open source project.

Well, because One way could be a different way then the others, or could cause a lot of other changes needed to be done if they do not match, or maybe even could overlap and do something totally different. 49 FIles are changed, so I'm not going to be happy if there needs to be major rework done because of adding this feature which is not fully working/supported.

You have to keep in mind that this could break other code in some way. But as said before, i do not have much time to check and validate this. And this is a huge PR and a lot of testing needs to be done, and i this is not specifically on my prio list for now actually. That is why i mentioned a special branch, which builds this version with a different tag and not fully supported in terms of issues with the login from my side.

[Timshel]

Well, because One way could be a different way then the others, or could cause a lot of other changes needed to be done if they do not match, or maybe even could overlap and do something totally different.

@BlackDex I'll insist but there is no other way (At least not in the currently opened PRs). All those PR are based on the previous ones. They got more refined each time as someone picked-it up.

[tschuyebuhl]

is there any way one can help with testing? or anything that can be done to help get this merged?

[isaiah-v]

I've been watching the progress of this feature. I can't wait for it, but out of curiosity, how does decryption work with this feature? Is it still client side? How do you now decrypt without knowing the password?

[Timshel]

@isaiah-v as mentioned a master password is still required. There is no change on this point.

[Timshel]

@BlackDex thinking on it I don´t think the semi-supported branch is a good idea.

Main issue for people running this branch is that there might be some change in the migrations that might force to correct DB state manually. Even if it's not difficult (cf Timshel/vaultwarden#db-migration), integrating in a separate branch would not help with this.

Additionally unless you grant me commit rights it means that this would make it more complicated for me to support it and if you have no time for review I can't see how you would semi-support it.

It's important to note that the SSO_ENABLED config act as feature flag, the impact on the non sso version is quite low so merging this should have a low risk for the non sso users.

In the end if people are not running it at the moment it might be because they are waiting for an easier way to run this (but I made updates on main@Timshel/vaultwarden to make it easier) but I would expect it's mainly because they are waiting for it to be reviewed, a solution without any review would not be worth much ...

Since I'm running this myself I will maintain this branch/PR, and will continue to update main@Timshel/vaultwarden with anything I can think of to help people running it. As mentioned before if you have any question don't hesitate but please open it on Timshel/vaultwarden to prevent spamming here (of course mention this PR if you think your issue is important).

In my opinion the next step is for it to be reviewed and then integrated (maybe without being promoted at first).

[AkechiShiro]

I will definitely try to host the branch of your fork that contains sso-support and see if I run into any issues, I will report them on your repo @Timshel

[dandanthedev]

+1, please merge!

[griefie]

It seems that there is a lot of hesitation on investing time into reviewing this and i can understand this. However - the longer the delay the bigger the diff guys. The branch clearly works and simply needs a bit more love. Besides it already looks like a lot of work went into this and the older preceding branches. Why not make it a beta build? Even 2.0.0-beta? The closer it is to the main stream, the quicker will be the feedback and the improvement. Let's not forget this is open source, where ideas thrive and not corporate where ideas die ;)

[derfabianpeter]

We're still happy to sponsor this PR if it helps

[Timshel]

Rebased and added the @BlackDex suggestion in #3154 (comment) to make the SSO button visible when running the docker-compose.

[Timshel]

Hey,
Upgraded openidconnect to 4.0.0, for now it will be available only in testing :).

[matbgn]

I hope you’re all doing well.

@BlackDex: When you have a moment, could you please let us know if you anticipate being able to run another round of tests on the OIDC functionality? I completely understand that you have a lot on your plate, so any rough estimate or update would be greatly appreciated.

Additionally, I’d like to revisit the discussion on merging the PR, as it is, related to the SSO feature:

Context:
    @BlackDex noted that the changes appear to work well and shouldn’t affect environments with SSO disabled.
    @dani-garcia suggested that merging the PR and observing the outcomes might be a practical approach.

Given that we now have evidence of functionality and that @Timshel has kindly committed to maintaining this part of the project, would it be reasonable to merge this PR with a clear notice that the SSO feature is experimental? It’s important to note that this feature is implemented as a feature-flagged activation, doing so implies a willing and a knowing of the sysadmin how things happen and risks that it implies.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this approach. Please share any concerns or suggestions you might have.

[rokx]

I'm thrilled to see this happen.

[Timshel]

So I tested integrating the new web-v2025.1.2 web-vault and the org invitation was once again broken for new users.
Decided to stop patching the client and more closely follow the official logic and accept the invitation when setting the master password.

• As such had to bring back the invited_by_email in the Membership since we only have the org Identifier to resolve the invitation and not all the claims.
• A side effect of the logic is that a user will be enrolled in an invited organization on account creation even when not using the link (it could be changed, but it means the correct policies are used).
• Removed the old set-password mail and just used the welcome one.

⚠️ So between this and the openidconnect upgrade, proceed with caution :). ⚠️
1.33.2-1 docker image should be ready in ~1h (Edit: missed a change in the release, so it started building 1h after initial post ^^).

[binaryben]

Hey all, I am sorry to add another message to the already way too noisy comment section. Could this please be locked to existing collaborators though? Like everyone else, I am very excited for this to land and very grateful to the work done by all (specific shoutout to Timshel for carrying this so wonderfully in it's current attempt). And like almost everyone else, I am also slowly becoming frustrated by the notifications that are not actual, relevant updates.

[BlackDex]

@binaryben That is probably a good idea. If I'm correct @Timshel can still comment here. And i also think people can still review the PR if they want (And please do :) ).

From my point of view i want to merge this after a next patch release to at least have some small other items fixed before we merge this large PR.

I also want to make some other changes, but i only want to start on those after this PR is merged, else @Timshel needs to make a lot of changes too, which i think are not in the scope of this PR just because i want to optimize some code which has large impact.

[Timshel]

I also want to make some other changes, but i only want to start on those after this PR is merged, else @Timshel needs to make a lot of changes too, which i think are not in the scope of this PR

Thank you ^^, at the same time if there is some issue/PR where the changes are described I may be able to make some modification to prepare for those :).

[BlackDex]

I also want to make some other changes, but i only want to start on those after this PR is merged, else @Timshel needs to make a lot of changes too, which i think are not in the scope of this PR

Thank you ^^, at the same time if there is some issue/PR where the changes are described I may be able to make some modification to prepare for those :).

Nea, it's a combi deal sorta. You can't prepare stuff up-front.