What’s everyones recommendations for a self-hosted authentication system?

My requirements are basically something lightweight that can handle logins for both regular users and google. I only have 4-5 total users.

So far, I’ve looked at and tested:

  • Authentik - Seems okay, but also really slow for some reason. I’m also not a fan of the username on one page, password on the next screen flow
  • Keycloak - Looks like it might be lighter in resources these days, but definitely complicated to use
  • LLDAP - I’d be happy to use it for the ldap backend, but it doesn’t solve the whole problem
  • Authelia - No web ui, which is fine, but also doesn’t support social logins as far as I can tell. I think it would be my choice if it did support oidc
  • Zitadel - Sounds promising, but I spent a couple hours troubleshooting it just to get it working. I might go back to it, but I’ve had the most trouble with it so far and can’t even compare the actual config yet
  • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    Does this do it all? It seems that it holds all your users like LDAP and can auth that way too. But it can also do simple oidc integrations too? Basically just want to see if it is the all in one. Looks like it does which is why i wonder why you use oauth2-proxy in addition.

    I’ve otherwise been trailing keycloak/authelia as the oidc portion and lldap/freeipa as the ldap Backend that actually holds the users. Would love to simplify if possible.

    • g5pw@feddit.itEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Yes, it should cover all the use cases you mention!

      I use oauth2-proxy as ForwardAuth on Traefik so I can protect apps that do not support OAuth/OIDC login/

      • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Awesome. Thank you.

        Now to see how i make this work in k8s since they evidently mandate the cert inside instead of just allowing the ingress to have it.

        • g5pw@feddit.itEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, sounds like a security feature… I was able to configure Traefik to connect with TLS, verifying the peer certificate.

          • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            I could do this but sadly even just the trial did not work. I’m using podman but it gives me “invalid state” just trying to login with a user per the quickstart, etc. Can’t reset the password cleanly, can’t add a passkey via bitwarden, etc.

            Unsure if I’m doing something wrong or if it’s very alpha/beta.

              • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                1·
                9 months ago
                0e2475ba-882a-4f61-8938-2642ca80193b WARN     │  ┝━ 🚧 [warn]: WARNING: index "displayname" Equality was not found. YOU MUST REINDEX YOUR DATABASE
0e2475ba-882a-4f61-8938-2642ca80193b WARN     │  ┝━ 🚧 [warn]: WARNING: index "name_history" Equality was not found. YOU MUST REINDEX YOUR DATABASE
0e2475ba-882a-4f61-8938-2642ca80193b WARN     │  ┝━ 🚧 [warn]: WARNING: index "jws_es256_private_key" Equality was not found. YOU MUST REINDEX YOUR DATABASE

                I had to drop it for a few days. I got that at some point though. It’s all brand new so I wouldn’t know why. Seems a bit rough around the edges so far. I’ll try to reindex and attempt again. I really want this to be the product I use since it’s a nice AIO solution but we’ll see.

                Edit:

                [~]$ podman run --rm -i -t -v kanidm:/data \
    kanidm/server:latest /sbin/kanidmd reindex -c /data/server.toml
error: unrecognized subcommand 'reindex'

                Phew boy. Straight from the docs. Same with the vacuum command.

                Looks like the docs need updated to specify the command is kanidm database reindex -c /data/server.toml

                And further upon trying to login…

                300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 INFO     handle_request [ 188µs | 0.00% / 100.00% ]
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 INFO     ┕━ request [ 188µs | 72.94% / 100.00% ] method: GET | uri: /v1/auth/valid | version: HTTP/1.1
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 INFO        ┝━ handle_auth_valid [ 50.8µs | 25.54% / 27.06% ]
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 INFO        │  ┝━ validate_client_auth_info_to_ident [ 2.85µs | 1.51% ]
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 WARN        │  │  ┕━ 🚧 [warn]: No client certificate or bearer tokens were supplied
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 ERROR       │  ┕━ 🚨 [error]: Invalid identity: NotAuthenticated | event_tag_id: 1
300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605 WARN        ┕━ 🚧 [warn]:  | latency: 204.504µs | status_code: 401 | kopid: "300e55b7-e30a-42a5-ac3e-ec0e69285605" | msg: "client error"

                I think I’m gonna have to just nuke it and start fresh but yeah, this is not a great first impression at all.

                • g5pw@feddit.itEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  I mean, it is a bit rough, they’re not at 1.0 yet, also: are you looking at the stable or latest docs? That may be the reason the commands do not match with the docs.