Selfhosted @lemmy.world johntash @eviltoast.org 8 mo. ago

Simple authentication for homelab?

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

You're viewing a single thread.

71 comments

I use kanidm with oauth2-proxy. No issues so far, it was pretty easy to set up.

Note that the connection to kanidm needs to be TLS even if you have a reverse proxy!

EDIT: currently using 80MB RAM for two users and three Service Providers.
- Thanks, kanidm looks promising. I'll try it out this weekend
- Thanks (grazie?)! I was looking for something similar and kanidm looks great feature wise and simple to deploy!
- 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.
  
  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/
  
  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.
  
  Yeah, sounds like a security feature… I was able to configure Traefik to connect with TLS, verifying the peer certificate.
  
  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.
  
  I didn’t have any issues, do you see anything in the logs?
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  I will have to check. Still willing to try again. I'll update if i get it going better on round 2.
  
  Thanks for the hint about the docs. I hadn't thought of that.

You've viewed 71 comments.