February 2023 - Idpy-discuss

Agenda: idpy Developers call, 16 May 2019

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Date: Tuesday, 16 May 2018 Time: 06:00 PT | 09:00 ET | 15:00 GMT https://bluejeans.com/163562895 Agenda: 0. Agenda bash 1. Governance update a. Commons Conservancy b. Note Well and licensing by repository vs license in each file 2. Code releases - speed vs stability? a. Resources (do we have enough if we use them well? If not, what are we asking the idpy Board for?) 3. GitHub review a. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2 b. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA c. pyFF - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyFF d. ... 4. AOB Thanks! Heather

3 months, 3 weeks

7
9
0 0

Project licensing within IdentityPython

by ivan.kanak＠gmail.com

Hi all, being part of Commons Conservancy brought up yet another subject, which is whether we should add a header with license information in every file in the projects under idpy. This is not something done in an abstract way, there is a specific format modelling this information (see https://spdx.org/ and https://reuse.software/ - more specifically https://reuse.software/practices/2.0/) Still, I find it problematic. We want to open up the question to the wider community and consider their thoughts on this. The forwarded message below is discussing this subject. You can see the question we posed, the answer we got and my comments. Feel free to tell us what you think on this. ---------- Forwarded message --------- Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 at 09:56 > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: May 8, 2019, 8:15 AM -0700 > > > Why does CC think having a single license file per project is > > insufficient? Our thought is that if we can avoid adding a header to > > every single file, that would be nice, esp. given we already have this > > info in the license file and we have the Note Well. > > > this is not just our opinion, but something that is an industry and > community standard for legal compliance these days. When companies like > Siemens, Samsung or Honeywell use some code in one of the hundreds or > thousands of devices and systems in their product line, they need to be > able to provide the correct license and a download of the exact version. > This means machine readability too. > I've actually observed the opposite of that. Communities abandon the "license in every file" model, and just use a single LICENSE file in the root of the project. The LICENSE file contains license information, that is, it is not a single license but it has exception sections and so on. > To quote from https://reuse.software/practices/2.0/ : > > Scroll to the section "2. Include a copyright notice and license in each > file"... > > "Source code files are often reused across multiple projects, taken from > their origin and repurposed, or otherwise end up in repositories where > they are separate from its origin. You should therefore ensure that all > files in your project have a comment header that convey that file’s > copyright and license information: Who are the copyright holders and > under which license(s) do they release the file? > Continuing from above, the standardization of package-management formats and tools has helped exactly with that: to avoid distribution of single files, and instead provide packages and modules. It is bad practice and considered a hack to copy files. Nobody liked that model and everyone is moving away; it is unstructured, it becomes unmanageable and it will cause problems. > It is highly recommended that you keep the format of these headers > consistent across your files. It is important, however, that you do not > remove any information from headers in files of which you are not the > sole author. > > You must convey the license information of your source code file in a > standardised way, so that computers can interpret it. You can do this > with an SPDX-License-Identifier tag followed by an SPDX expression > defined by the SPDX specifications." > > (the text goes on for a while after this, to clarify the point but this > is the basic gist of it) > > There is a nice Python tool to check: > > https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool > > I hope this makes sense > Well, it does not make complete sense. We're talking about licensing a project. A project is not just code; there are data files (html, xml, yaml, json files), binary files (archives/zip, images, audio, video, etc), text files (configs, ini-files, etc) all "not-code". How do you mark those files? Does the LICENSE file need a license-header? The json format does not define comments, how do you add a header there? If a binary file does not get a license header, why should a file with code get one? I would expect there to be a way to have the needed information unified. If the files themselves cannot provide this information it has to be external; thus the LICENSE file. If someone is worried about somebody else re-using single files that do not have license information (a python file, a png image, etc) there is really nothing you can do (the DRM industry has been trying to solve for a long time; and still your best bet is "social DRM"). Since, we're developing on open source with a permissive license, even if someone does that, should we be happy that someone is actually using what we built or sad that the files they copied did not have a license header? And if they include the license information of that copied file in their project's LICENSE file, is this solved? Having pointed these contradictions, I am thinking that the "license in every file" model seems to be a step backwards. It is introducing overhead and does not really solve the problem, while at the same time it enables a culture of bad practice (copying files around). Cheers, -- Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3

5 months, 3 weeks

5
4
0 0

PySaml2 v5.0.0 - Security release

by ivan.kanak＠gmail.com

Hello everyone, there has been a report on incident-response at idpy.org about a security issue in PySaml2. Alexey Sintsov and Yuri Goltsev from HERE Technologies reached out and reported a XML Signature Wrapping (XSW) vulnerability. The issue affects responses with signed assertions. PySaml2 can be tricked to think that an assertion had been signed and use the assertion information, when in reality the Signature points to another part of the xml document that is controlled by another party. The issue was assigned CVE-2020-5390 and is now fixed in the latest pysaml2 release. The relevant code commit that fixes is the issue: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/commit/5e9d5acbcd8ae45c4e736ac521… Release v5.0.0 contains more changes, including: - Add freshness period feature for MetaDataMDX - Fix ipv6 validation to accommodate for addresses with brackets - Fix xmlsec temporary files deletions - Add method to get supported algorithms from metadata - Add mdstore method to extract assurance certifications - Add mdstore method to extract contact_person data - Start dropping python2 support Pointers to the release with changelog and more information, below: - the relevant release commit: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/commit/f27c7e7a7010f83380566a219f… - the github release: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/releases/tag/v5.0.0 - the pypi package: https://pypi.org/project/pysaml2/5.0.0/ + + + + + + + + In more detail, regarding the XSW vulnerability: libxml2 follows the xmldsig-core specification. The xmldsig specification is way too general. saml-core reuses the xmldsig specification, but constrains it to use of specific facilities. The implementation of the SAML specification is responsible to enforce those constraints. libxml2/xmlsec1 are not aware of those constraints and thus process the document based on the full/general xmldsig rules. What is happening is the following: - xmldsig-core allows the signature-information and the data that was signed to be in different places. This works by setting the URI attribute of the Reference element. The URI attribute contains an optional identifier of the object being signed. (see "4.4.3 The Reference Element" -- https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/#sec-Reference) This identifier is actually a pointer that can be defined in many different ways; from XPath expressions that need to be executed(!), to a full URL that should be fetched(!) in order to recalculate the signature. - saml-core section "5.4 XML Signature Profile" defines constrains on the xmldsig-core facilities. It explicitly dictates that enveloped signatures are the only signatures allowed. This mean that: * Assertion/RequestType/ResponseType elements must have an ID attribute * signatures must have a single Reference element * the Reference element must have a URI attribute * the URI attribute contains an anchor * the anchor points to the enclosing element's ID attribute xmlsec1 does the right thing - it follows the reference URI pointer and validates the assertion. But, the pointer points to an assertion in another part of the document; not the assertion in which the signature is embedded/enveloped. SAML processing thinks that the signature is fine (that's what xmlsec1 said), and gets the assertion data from the assertion that contains the signature - but that assertion was never validated. The issue is that pysaml2 does not enforce the constrains on the signature validation facilities of xmldsig-core, that the saml-core spec defines. The solution is simple; all we need is to make sure that assertions with signatures (1) contain one reference element that (2) has a URI attribute (3) that is an anchor that (4) points to the assertion in which the signature is embedded. If those conditions are met then we're good, otherwise we should fail the verification. -- Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3

5 months, 3 weeks

2
1
0 0

pyFF: Pipes for additional output formats

by rainer＠hoerbe.at

Hi Leif, I added 2 pipes to buildin.py: - publish_html creates static HTML views of IDPs and SPs, using XSLT based on Peter Schober’s alternative to MET; - publish_split: similar to store, but added validUntil and creates signed XML-file per EntityDescriptor. This can be consumed dynamically by ADFS in an IDP role. I put it directly into buildin.py because it shares some code with the sign pipe. Is this viable from your PoV - if yes, I would make an PR. Cheers, Rainer

10 months

3
2
0 0

idpy dev call CANCELED for 28 February 2023

by Heather Flanagan

Hi all! We don’t have a lot of new things to cover and several folks are going to be attending the R&E/FedCM meeting this week in California, so I’m canceling the idpy call. Our next call is scheduled for 14 March 2023. See you then! Thanks! Heather

2 years, 11 months

1
0
0 0

Setup of Many to One instance

by Little, Cody (Education)

UNOFFICIAL Hey All, We're looking at setting up SATOSA as a SAML proxy for a handful (300+) SAML apps (very basic onelogin php-saml apps) to a single Okta SAML2 app. From reading through the documentation a number of times, I'm a bit confused. Few questions: Do I need to create a front-end config for each SP or just append additional metadata URLs to the metadata array? How are the SPs differentiated from one another if not by entity IDs is this where the client-side cookie comes in? If anyone has some insight around the configuration, any help is much appreciated. Regards, Cody

2 years, 12 months

2
2
0 0

Notes: idpy dev call, 14 February 2023

by Heather Flanagan

Attendees Roland, Heather, Scott, Ivan, Matthew Notes: 0 - Agenda bash 1 - Project review a. General [not for public consumption] Security issues - haven't resolved this yet; will be creating a patch and eventually entirely deprecating the affected package. Regarding the recent security issue reported by Shibboleth, we use the same XML parser but it is restricted to a specific set of rules. We do not appear to be affected by the issue. Ivan is still investigating. b. OIDC - https://github.com/IdentityPython (JWTConnect-Python-CryptoJWT, idpy-oidc, fedservice, etc.) Roland has a fork named fedservice that has a number of updates (this is separate from the fedservice package). Roland has tried to condense it, but that hasn't worked well. It is a massive set of changes. Will want people to try to use the package and see if it breaks. If it does, reach out to Roland for assistance. Fedservice the package is almost update to the latest version of the OIDC federation spec. SUNET will run an OIDC federation POC which will provide us with some useful feedback. [not for public consumption] The Swedish government agency dealing with immigration/emigration want to migrate from a SAML federation to an OIDC federation. They are running a Microsoft proxy and Roland has pointed them to Satosa. They are a java shop, but Roland will suggest they donate money to idpy for Satosa support and support it that way. Note that SUNET is starting work on a digital wallet as part of the EU initiative. This may result in additional packages or libraries, and will primarily support OIDC c. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA No update. d. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2 New release has been posted (https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/releases/tag/v7.3.0) Big items include: • used poetry to clean things up, refactored code style • attribute requirements for subject-id Next release will start using mypy, bump the supported python version to 3.9, and support typing. See https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/pull/896 After that, will start looking at the use of pyOpenSSL for certificates and temporary file management for Window. e. Any other project (pyFF, djangosaml2, etc) Note that Matthew is going to package up pyFF and the thiss.io service. If anyone would like to work with him on that, please reach out! 2 - AOB What are the benefits of poetry? • https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/using-poetry-dependency-management-tool-in-py… • https://towardsdatascience.com/lets-jump-on-the-poetry-bandwagon-d0b650de17… Thanks! Heather

2 years, 12 months

1
0
0 0

Reminder: idpy developers call, 14 February 2023

by Heather Flanagan

Tuesday, 14 February 2023, 14:00 UTC Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83378219417?pwd=dWFLdjRHK3BnRkZMa3VSd2lNaElpdz09 Agenda: 0 - Agenda bash 1 - Project review a. General b. OIDC - https://github.com/IdentityPython (JWTConnect-Python-OidcRP, JWTConnect-Python-CryptoJWT, etc) c. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA d. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2 e. Any other project (pyFF, djangosaml2, etc) 2 - AOB Thanks! Heather

3 years

1
0
0 0

Help: How to set up saTosa

by Malathi Deenadayalan

Hi, I am new to this saTOsa set up. Please can you help me to setup saTosa for my idp. Regards, Malathi

3 years

3
5
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Idpy-discuss February 2023