Your approach of storing roles and other user-related information in the

metadata_public

field is correct and aligns with Ory's identity model. Let me explain how sessions work in React/Next.js with Ory and how you can use this metadata for authorization. In React/Next.js applications using Ory for authentication, sessions are typically managed using cookies. When a user logs in, Ory creates a session and sends a session cookie to the browser. This cookie is then automatically included in subsequent requests to your backend and Ory APIs. Here's how you can work with sessions and authorize users: 1. Session Check: In your React/Next.js application, you should perform a session check when the app loads or when accessing protected routes. This is typically done using Ory's

toSession()

method. Here's an example from the Next.js integration guide:

javascript
useEffect(() => {
  ory
    .toSession()
    .then(({ data }) => {
      // User has a session!
      setSession(data)
      // Create a logout url
      ory.createBrowserLogoutFlow().then(({ data }) => {
        setLogoutUrl(data.logout_url)
      })
    })
    .catch(() => {
      // Redirect to login page
      return router.push(edgeConfig.basePath + "/ui/login")
    })
}, [router])

[Ory Docs: Next.js Integration](https://www.ory.sh/docs/getting-started/integrate-auth/nextjs#require-login-to-access-the-home-page) 2. Accessing Metadata: The session object returned by

toSession()

includes the identity information, including the

metadata_public

field where you've stored the roles and IDs. You can access this data to make authorization decisions in your frontend. 3. Backend Authorization: For backend API calls, you should validate the session and extract the metadata. In your backend, you need to forward the session cookie to Ory when calling its APIs to validate the session. Here's an example of how you might do this in a Go backend:

go
// Middleware to validate session and extract metadata
func AuthMiddleware(next http.HandlerFunc) http.HandlerFunc {
    return func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
        // Forward cookies to Ory API
        session, err := ory.ToSession(r.Context(), r)
        if err != nil {
            http.Error(w, "Unauthorized", http.StatusUnauthorized)
            return
        }
        
        // Access metadata
        metadata := session.Identity.MetadataPublic
        // Use metadata for authorization decisions
        
        next.ServeHTTP(w, r)
    }
}

[Ory Docs: Backend Integration](https://www.ory.sh/docs/migrate-to-ory#integrate-backend) Your approach of storing roles and IDs in

metadata_public

is correct and follows Ory's recommendations. This data is visible to the frontend but can only be modified through admin APIs, making it suitable for authorization purposes.

Your approach of storing roles and other user-related information in the

metadata_public

field is correct and aligns with Ory's identity model. Let me explain how sessions work in React/Next.js with Ory and how you can use this metadata for authorization. In React/Next.js applications using Ory for authentication, sessions are typically managed using cookies. When a user logs in, Ory creates a session and sends a session cookie to the browser. This cookie is then automatically included in subsequent requests to your backend and Ory APIs. Here's how you can work with sessions and authorize users: 1. Session Check: In your React/Next.js application, you should perform a session check when the app loads or when accessing protected routes. This is typically done using Ory's

toSession()

method. Here's an example from the Next.js integration guide:

javascript useEffect(() => {   ory     .toSession()     .then(({ data }) => {       // User has a session!       setSession(data)       // Create a logout url       ory.createBrowserLogoutFlow().then(({ data }) => {         setLogoutUrl(data.logout_url)       })     })     .catch(() => {       // Redirect to login page       return router.push(edgeConfig.basePath + "/ui/login")     }) }, [router])

[Ory Docs: Next.js Integration](https://www.ory.sh/docs/getting-started/integrate-auth/nextjs#require-login-to-access-the-home-page) 2. Accessing Metadata: The session object returned by

toSession()

includes the identity information, including the

metadata_public

field where you've stored the roles and IDs. You can access this data to make authorization decisions in your frontend. 3. Backend Authorization: For backend API calls, you should validate the session and extract the metadata. In your backend, you need to forward the session cookie to Ory when calling its APIs to validate the session. Here's an example of how you might do this in a Go backend:

go // Middleware to validate session and extract metadata func AuthMiddleware(next http.HandlerFunc) http.HandlerFunc {     return func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {         // Forward cookies to Ory API         session, err := ory.ToSession(r.Context(), r)         if err != nil {             http.Error(w, "Unauthorized", http.StatusUnauthorized)             return         }                  // Access metadata         metadata := session.Identity.MetadataPublic         // Use metadata for authorization decisions                  next.ServeHTTP(w, r)     } }

[Ory Docs: Backend Integration](https://www.ory.sh/docs/migrate-to-ory#integrate-backend) Your approach of storing roles and IDs in

metadata_public

is correct and follows Ory's recommendations. This data is visible to the frontend but can only be modified through admin APIs, making it suitable for authorization purposes. Remember that while storing this information in

metadata_public

makes it easily accessible, you should always validate permissions on the backend for sensitive operations. The frontend authorization should be used primarily for UI purposes, while critical security decisions should be made server-side.

Your approach of using Oathkeeper with a remote JSON authorizer connected to Keto for permission checks is a valid and secure method for backend authorization. Let's break down how this works and its implications: 1. Oathkeeper Configuration: You've configured Oathkeeper to use a

remote_json

authorizer, which is correct. This authorizer makes an HTTP request to Keto to check permissions [Oathkeeper Docs: remote_json](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline/authz#remote_json). 2. Keto Integration: The authorizer is making a request to Keto's

/relation-tuples/check

endpoint, which is the correct endpoint for permission checks [Keto API: checkPermission](https://www.ory.sh/docs/keto/reference/rest-api#checkpermission). 3. Permission Model: Your permission model is using the

api_access

namespace, with

general_endpoints

as the object,

access

as the relation, and the user's role as the subject. This is a simple and effective model for role-based access control. 4. Metadata Usage: You're correctly accessing the user's role from the

metadata_public

field of the identity, which aligns with your previous approach. 5. JWT Upstream: After successful authorization, Oathkeeper forwards the request to your service with a JWT containing the user's information. This is a secure way to pass user data to your service. This setup offers several advantages: - It separates authentication (handled by Kratos) from authorization (handled by Keto). - It centralizes permission checks in Keto, allowing for consistent access control across your services. - It leverages Oathkeeper's ability to integrate with various systems, providing a flexible authorization pipeline. However, there are a few points to consider: 1. Granularity: Your current setup checks for a general "access" permission. Depending on your needs, you might want to create more specific permissions for different endpoints or actions. 2. Performance: Each request to your backend will trigger a permission check to Keto. For high-traffic applications, you might need to consider caching strategies. 3. Role Management: Ensure you have a process in place to manage and update roles in Keto as user roles change in your system. Overall, your approach is solid and follows good practices for implementing authorization with Ory's suite of tools. It provides a secure and scalable way to manage access control in your backend services. [Ory Docs: Oathkeeper](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline/authz) [Ory Docs: Keto Concepts](https://www.ory.sh/docs/keto/concepts/api-overview)

Your approach of defining specific access rules for different endpoints in Oathkeeper is correct and provides fine-grained control over your API access. Let's break down your configuration and explain its components: 1. Access Rule Definition: You've defined an access rule for the

/v1/employees

endpoint, which is a good practice for controlling access to specific resources [Oathkeeper Docs: API Access Rules](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/api-access-rules). 2. Authentication: You're using the

cookie_session

authenticator, which is appropriate for web applications using session-based authentication [Oathkeeper Docs: Authenticators](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline/authn). 3. Mutation: The

id_token

mutator is used to generate a JWT token containing the user's identity information, which is then passed to your upstream service [Oathkeeper Docs: Mutators](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline/mutator). 4. Authorization: You're using the

remote_json

authorizer with a specific payload for this endpoint. This allows you to define different access requirements for different endpoints, which is exactly what you need for endpoints that are only accessible to employee managers [Oathkeeper Docs: remote_json Authorizer](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline/authz#remote_json). 5. Error Handling: You've set up a redirect to your login page in case of authentication or authorization failures, which is a good user experience practice. Regarding your specific questions: 1. Having different payloads for each endpoint is the correct approach when you need different authorization rules for different resources. For example, your "employees" endpoint might require a manager role, while other endpoints might have different requirements. 2. The authorizer configuration in the

oathkeeper.yml

file serves as a global configuration, while the one in your access rule is specific to this endpoint. The endpoint-specific configuration takes precedence over the global one, allowing you to customize authorization for each endpoint as needed [Oathkeeper Docs: Handler Configuration](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/api-access-rules#handler-configuration). Your setup allows for flexible and granular access control. Each endpoint can have its own authorization rules, making it easy to implement complex permission structures. For instance, you could have: ```yaml - id: 'employees:protected' # ... other configurations ... authorizer: handler: remote_json config: payload: | { "namespace": "api_access", "object": "employees", "relation": "manage", "subject_id": "{{ print .Extra.identity.metadata_public.role }}" }

Your approach of defining specific access rules for different endpoints in Oathkeeper is correct and provides fine-grained control over your API access. Let's break down your configuration and explain its components: 1. Access Rule Definition: You've defined an access rule for the

/v1/employees

endpoint, which is a good practice for controlling access to specific resources [Oathkeeper Docs: API Access Rules](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/api-access-rules). 2. Authentication: You're using the

cookie_session

authenticator, which is appropriate for web applications using session-based authentication [Oathkeeper Docs: Authenticators](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline/authn). 3. Mutation: The

id_token

mutator is used to generate a JWT token containing the user's identity information, which is then passed to your upstream service [Oathkeeper Docs: Mutators](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline/mutator). 4. Authorization: You're using the

remote_json

authorizer with a specific payload for this endpoint. This allows you to define different access requirements for different endpoints, which is exactly what you need for endpoints that are only accessible to employee managers [Oathkeeper Docs: remote_json Authorizer](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline/authz#remote_json). 5. Error Handling: You've set up a redirect to your login page in case of authentication or authorization failures, which is a good user experience practice. Regarding your specific questions: 1. Having different payloads for each endpoint is the correct approach when you need different authorization rules for different resources. For example, your "employees" endpoint might require a manager role, while other endpoints might have different requirements. 2. The authorizer configuration in the

oathkeeper.yml

file serves as a global configuration, while the one in your access rule is specific to this endpoint. The endpoint-specific configuration takes precedence over the global one, allowing you to customize authorization for each endpoint as needed [Oathkeeper Docs: Handler Configuration](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/api-access-rules#handler-configuration). Your setup allows for flexible and granular access control. Each endpoint can have its own authorization rules, making it easy to implement complex permission structures. For instance, you could have:

yaml - id: 'employees:protected'   # ... other configurations ...   authorizer:     handler: remote_json     config:       payload: |         {           "namespace": "api_access",           "object": "employees",           "relation": "manage",           "subject_id": "{{ print .Extra.identity.metadata_public.role }}"         }  - id: 'projects:protected'   # ... other configurations ...   authorizer:     handler: remote_json     config:       payload: |         {           "namespace": "api_access",           "object": "projects",           "relation": "view",           "subject_id": "{{ print .Extra.identity.metadata_public.role }}"         }

This setup allows you to define different permissions for different resources, all while using the same underlying authorization mechanism. Remember to keep your Keto policies updated to match these authorization rules. The effectiveness of this setup depends on having correctly defined relations in Keto that correspond to the payloads in your Oathkeeper rules. [Oathkeeper Docs: Access Rule Pipeline](https://www.ory.sh/docs/oathkeeper/pipeline)