oauth2-proxy

Pros of Keycloak

• Full-featured Identity and Access Management (IAM) solution
• Supports multiple authentication protocols (OAuth 2.0, OpenID Connect, SAML)
• Provides user federation, identity brokering, and social login

Cons of Keycloak

• More complex setup and configuration
• Higher resource requirements
• Steeper learning curve for implementation and management

Code Comparison

OAuth2-Proxy configuration example:

provider = "oidc"
client_id = "my-client"
client_secret = "my-secret"
oidc_issuer_url = "https://accounts.google.com"

Keycloak configuration example:

{
  "realm": "my-realm",
  "auth-server-url": "http://localhost:8080/auth",
  "ssl-required": "external",
  "resource": "my-client",
  "credentials": {
    "secret": "my-secret"
  }
}

OAuth2-Proxy is a lightweight reverse proxy that provides authentication using OAuth 2.0 providers, while Keycloak is a comprehensive IAM solution. OAuth2-Proxy is simpler to set up and use for basic authentication needs, whereas Keycloak offers more advanced features and flexibility but requires more resources and expertise to implement and manage effectively.

Pros of Authelia

• More comprehensive authentication solution, offering multi-factor authentication (2FA/MFA) out of the box
• Supports multiple identity providers and user storage backends (LDAP, file-based)
• Provides a built-in web portal for user management and self-service password reset

Cons of Authelia

• More complex setup and configuration compared to OAuth2 Proxy
• Requires additional infrastructure components (e.g., Redis for session storage)
• May have a steeper learning curve for administrators new to advanced authentication systems

Code Comparison

OAuth2 Proxy configuration example:

providers:
  - provider: github
    client_id: <client_id>
    client_secret: <client_secret>

Authelia configuration example:

authentication_backend:
  ldap:
    url: ldap://ldap.example.com
    base_dn: dc=example,dc=com
    user: cn=admin,dc=example,dc=com
    password: password

Both projects use YAML for configuration, but Authelia's configuration is typically more extensive due to its broader feature set.

Pros of Vouch Proxy

• More flexible authentication options, including support for multiple IdPs
• Built-in support for JWT token creation and validation
• Easier to integrate with existing applications due to its modular design

Cons of Vouch Proxy

• Less mature project with fewer contributors and stars on GitHub
• Limited documentation compared to OAuth2 Proxy
• Potentially more complex setup and configuration process

Code Comparison

OAuth2 Proxy configuration example:

providers:
  - provider: github
    client_id: <client_id>
    client_secret: <client_secret>
    scope: user:email

Vouch Proxy configuration example:

oauth:
  provider: github
  client_id: <client_id>
  client_secret: <client_secret>
  callback_url: https://vouch.yourdomain.com/auth
  scopes:
    - user:email

Both projects aim to provide authentication and authorization for web applications, but they differ in their approach and feature set. OAuth2 Proxy is more focused on being a reverse proxy with built-in OAuth support, while Vouch Proxy is designed to be a standalone authentication service that can be integrated with various reverse proxies and applications.

OAuth2 Proxy has a larger community and more extensive documentation, making it potentially easier to get started with and troubleshoot. However, Vouch Proxy offers more flexibility in terms of authentication providers and token handling, which may be beneficial for more complex setups or when working with multiple identity providers.

Pros of SSO

• Designed for multi-tenant environments with support for multiple upstream identity providers
• Includes a comprehensive web UI for user management and access control
• Offers more granular access controls and customizable authorization policies

Cons of SSO

• More complex setup and configuration compared to OAuth2 Proxy
• Requires additional infrastructure components (e.g., Redis for session storage)
• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates and contributions

Code Comparison

SSO configuration example:

upstreams:
  - id: example
    name: Example App
    domain: example.com
    from: example.com
    to: http://localhost:8080

OAuth2 Proxy configuration example:

http_address = "0.0.0.0:4180"
upstreams = [ "http://localhost:8080" ]
email_domains = [ "*" ]
client_id = "123456.apps.googleusercontent.com"
client_secret = "cookie_secret"

Both projects aim to provide authentication and authorization for web applications, but SSO offers more advanced features for complex, multi-tenant environments, while OAuth2 Proxy focuses on simplicity and ease of use for single-application setups. SSO may be better suited for large organizations with diverse access requirements, whereas OAuth2 Proxy is often sufficient for smaller projects or individual applications.

Pros of traefik-forward-auth

• Lightweight and specifically designed for use with Traefik
• Simple configuration and integration with Traefik's middleware system
• Supports multiple providers out of the box (Google, GitHub, etc.)

Cons of traefik-forward-auth

• Limited feature set compared to oauth2-proxy
• Less active development and community support
• Fewer authentication options and customization possibilities

Code Comparison

traefik-forward-auth configuration example:

labels:
  - "traefik.http.middlewares.auth.forwardauth.address=http://traefik-forward-auth:4181"
  - "traefik.http.middlewares.auth.forwardauth.authResponseHeaders=X-Forwarded-User"
  - "traefik.http.middlewares.auth.forwardauth.trustForwardHeader=true"

oauth2-proxy configuration example:

http:
  middlewares:
    oauth2-proxy:
      forwardAuth:
        address: "http://oauth2-proxy:4180/oauth2/auth"
        trustForwardHeader: true
        authResponseHeaders:
          - "X-Auth-Request-User"
          - "X-Auth-Request-Email"

Both projects serve similar purposes but cater to different use cases. traefik-forward-auth is more focused on simplicity and Traefik integration, while oauth2-proxy offers more features and flexibility for various reverse proxy setups.

Pros of oauth2-proxy

• Active development with regular updates and bug fixes
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Wide range of supported providers and authentication methods

Cons of oauth2-proxy

• Complexity in configuration for advanced use cases
• Limited built-in support for certain enterprise-specific features
• Potential performance overhead for high-traffic applications

Code Comparison

Both repositories contain the same codebase, as they are the same project. Here's a sample of the main OAuth2 proxy configuration from oauth2-proxy:

type Options struct {
    ProxyPrefix  string `flag:"proxy-prefix" cfg:"proxy_prefix"`
    HttpAddress  string `flag:"http-address" cfg:"http_address"`
    HttpsAddress string `flag:"https-address" cfg:"https_address"`
    RedirectURL  string `flag:"redirect-url" cfg:"redirect_url"`
    ClientID     string `flag:"client-id" cfg:"client_id"`
    ClientSecret string `flag:"client-secret" cfg:"client_secret"`
}

This code snippet demonstrates the core configuration options for the OAuth2 proxy, including proxy prefix, addresses, redirect URL, and client credentials.