Stytch is also $125/month, and frontegg is similar.
I genuinely didn't mean it to be much of an ad for our company. I was just surprised how few people had written a simple explainer of reasonable quality.
With straight up fed you can autocreate users etc but as the relying party you don't know when their access has been revoked. Sometimes this doesn't matter, but... often it does. People come and go all the time in enterprise. You can more accurately show user state in your UI and (crucially) accurately adjust license seats. You can also de-activate API tokens or alternative auth methods the user might have configured to close the loop on security.
Big orgs will pay more for SCIM to avoid having to do user access reviews in the UIs of individual products they have bought. It directly translates to person-hours of busywork and admin burden of executing / tracking that work.
SCIM is much cleaner.
1. New employee joins the team.
2. SCIM creates their account in the ticket tracking system.
3. Employee's boss can create onboarding tickets and assign them to the new person before they've even logged into the system.
That's not such a big deal for small companies that don't use a gazillion services. It's huge for large companies with hundreds of vendors where you want everyone in an employee group ("engineering", "sales", "everyone") to have an account in some of those services.
For example, say I leave the company. My account in SSO (IdP) gets deactivated, so I can no longer use SSO to log in to the company GitLab. However, without some way to let GitLab know that I'm gone, I might still be able to access repos with my SSH keys or access tokens, and scheduled jobs in my account will still run. Deprovisioning not only lets GitLab know I won't be logging in through SSO again, but also that it should stop the scheduled jobs in my account, and block other access methods.
You're right that depending on what your application does, you might not need it at all.
* Migration of the Identities
* Single Sign-On (SSO) Service (allowing provisioning instead of JIT)
* Provisioning of the User Accounts for a Community of Interest (with complex infra)
* Transfer of Attributes to a Relying Party's Website (so profile data)
* Change Notification (of profile data and access)
0: https://fusionauth.io/articles/identity-basics/what-is-scim
In hindsight we could've done many things differently, but the usage of this service is generally very spiky, so hard to scale, but wasteful to have additional servers just idling.
In reality, most systems expect you to have the full default schema present without modifications and might complain when items are missing. Do you provide scim support without passwords (only SSO)? Okta will send a password anyway (random and unused). Does your application not differentiate between username and email? IdPs will complain if they can't set them separately. Do you not store the user's `costCenter`? IdPs will get mad and keep trying to set it because it never sticks.
Some of the time, you'll have to store SCIM attributes on your user objects which have no effect on your system at all.
The other side is making custom schema items. SCIM has you present these in the `/Schema` endpoints. But, no system (that I know of) actually looks at your schema to autopopulate items for mapping. Entra and Okta are great at letting your provide mapping from an IdP user to a SCIM user, and then you map SCIM users back to your app's users. But you typically have to follow app documentation to map things properly if it's not using the default schema entirely.
IMO, many folks want SCIM with to support only two providers: Azure AD/Entra and Okta.
I guess there's a third: a homegrown system an enterprise has that "supports SCIM". That one is always going to be weird.
So in reality those two vendors get to determine acceptable behavior for SCIM servers (the data stores that push data into SCIM clients like Tesseral).
https://github.com/AzureAD/SCIMReferenceCode/tree/master/Mic...
One way this comes up is that the way those C# objects serialize, there are properties that Microsoft will send you in form `"key": { "value": "xxx" }`, but which they expect that you read back to them of the form `"key": "xxx"`.
It's best to not take the SCIM RFCs too literally.
SCIM allows clients to ignore the group membership lists via `?excludeAttributes=groups` (or members on the group resource). But not all clients send that by default. Entra does well to only ask for a list of groups or members on resources when it's really needed in my experience.
Some enterprise customers use SCIM with tons of users. Querying for the users themselves is simple because querying users is paginated and you can constrain the results. But returning a single group with 10,000 users in a single response can be a lot. It only really contains the user's identifier and optionally their display name, but if you have to pull this data from a paginated API it'll take a while to respond. Or it could still be taxing on some databases.
It'd be nice to query `/Users/:id/groups` or `/Groups/:id/members in a paginated fashion similar to `/Users`.
> Attribute names are case insensitive and > are often "camel-cased" (e.g., "camelCase")
Whilst it's not a huge deal to support this, to me this feels like complexity/flexibility for the sake of it - I'd prefer more rigidity and one correct way.
One thing I haven't completed for my SCIM client implementation is a decent grammar for parsing the filter parameters. Does anyone know of a comprehensive one, preferably peggy/pegjs?
I suspect in practice most systems just use camelCase, but they could use TitleCase / ALL CAPS / etc which bugs me as it feels like a committee couldn't agree and decided "why not all of them".
There's a good chance there's historical context I'm missing, though I'd like to imagine any SCIM V3 might have stricter rules on that kinda of thing to reduce implementation complexity
It sounds like is is a sort of 'change-events' pub-subscribe approach, where dependent systems keep their state updated by doing deltas against what they currently store (if I misunderstood this part, the rest here probably is moot).
If that is true, is there anything in the system that guards against if a subscriber fails to ingest an event, for whatever technical reason (bug or systems/execution failure, e.g. network or overload), ie some sort of 'transaction' approach where a subscriber will keep receiving/being due an event, until he has reported back an "ACK I have processed that" ().
I am asking because otherwise it could lead to things like a user account staying open/active, even though an event said it should be deleted.
Some alternative mechanisms with other trade-offs could be things/events like "group X has changed, its current member list is now [...]". In that case, the mirrored group might eventually become consistent on a later update (as opposed to carrying an eternal memory left over by a missed update).
() I am vaguely aware true consistency guarantee is impossible in a distributed system, something about confused generals.
I think the general intention is that these can/should be retried until the caller receives a successful response indicating the other system has updated its records.
(I'm not an expert in SCIM but I've played around with it, so could be wrong)
Okta and Entra have different request patterns, and so have differing artifacts if the SaaS vendor's state diverges from the desired state. Okta tends to be more stable, because they usually GET-then-PUT (c.f. compare-and-set). Entra likes to PATCH, which leads to dead-reckoning artifacts.
What you're describing is an interesting and hard problem in computer science, but SCIM is not trying that hard to get it right.
(You’ll also see that the author is right: “The SCIM specification is basically good, but has some subtle details”)
> It turns out that Microsoft’s default behavior sends a boolean value as a string
> You can force Microsoft to send you the proper JSON if you use a certain feature flag (aadOptscim062020), but that’s really not an obvious solution!
Boom. That was exactly my issue.
> This sort of stuff is very time-consuming and demoralizing to resolve.
I would have sunk hours into this - thanks Ned O'Leary - you made my day!
conception•16h ago
zdc1•16h ago
lemma_peculiar•5h ago