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
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
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
*Attendees: Ivan, Shayna, Giuseppe0 - Agenda bash1 - Project review a.
GeneralGiuesppe discussed this wallet project for onboarding and trust
anchor demo: -
https://github.com/italia/spid-cie-oidc-django/tree/main/examples/wallet_tr…
<https://github.com/italia/spid-cie-oidc-django/tree/main/examples/wallet_tr…>This
is to be used in Italy with the OIDC federation for the two national
identity systems, SPID and CIE. This includes a quick tutorial on how to
get an entity onboarded, and also how to use customizable templates. The
good news in this project is that using federation for the wallets doesn’t
break anything with the federation - federation works as is.Giuseppe also
discussed this project:
https://github.com/italia/eudi-wallet-it-python/tree/dev
<https://github.com/italia/eudi-wallet-it-python/tree/dev>SATOSA is already
being used for the interop requirements between the vanilla saml2
implementation and the implementation profiles pertaining to SPID and CIE.
They have decided to implement a SATOSA backend on top of this to support
the implementation profile they have published :
https://italia.github.io/eudi-wallet-it-docs/versione-corrente/en/
<https://italia.github.io/eudi-wallet-it-docs/versione-corrente/en/>. In
the Relying Party Solutions section they give guidance about implementation
profiles and also some normative examples. This works with any SATOSA,
although they are forced to work with Giuseppe’s fork in Italy regarding
pysaml2 for the namespaces - since in Italy the namespaces are
normative.Ivan suggested having a more focused meeting between SUNET and
Giuseppe about these projects.Giuseppe and Roland have been talking about
the requirements in our community to have a credential issue in python. Is
there something on the way in the form of SimpleSAML frontend or django?
Ivan says they are in discussion with organizations like
https://github.com/sicpa-dlab <https://github.com/sicpa-dlab/> to be
aligned and move forward together. They have a big system with many
interfaces. The idea is to be aligned on the APIs. They have some things in
python re: credentials that we can use and then they will probably be using
the MDOC that Giuseppe has created. Ivan has been thinking about a
framework - using django is not a bad idea. It is much more mature than
other choices. He has been thinking about using django in general as a base
for SATOSA. Giuseppe talked about developing djangosaml2 - he put out the
original release and it has grown to v1.7.0 (
https://github.com/IdentityPython/djangosaml2/releases/tag/v1.7.0
<https://github.com/IdentityPython/djangosaml2/releases/tag/v1.7.0>) with
little effort on his part. He credits django with increasing productivity
for the community working on it. Ivan says the hard part is compatibility
with what it is already there.
<https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-architecture-and-ref…>
b.
OIDC libraries - https://github.com/IdentityPython
<https://github.com/IdentityPython> (idpy-oidc,
JWTConnect-Python-CryptoJWT,
etc)https://github.com/IdentityPython/idpy-oidc/pull/72
<https://github.com/IdentityPython/idpy-oidc/pull/72>Refers to how OIDC
checks whether a call to a userinfo endpoint is correct/valid. In order to
call the userinfo endpoint, you need to have an access token that has at
least the openid scope. If the access token is valid (meaning it hasn’t
expired/hasn’t been revoked and has the right scope), you can invoke the
userinfo endpoint and get a response. Idpy-oidc checks an additional thing
- the date the authentication took place, which also has an expiration
time. This should not be done - the access to the userinfo should be based
only on the access token. This additional check breaks certain flows and is
against the spec. This PR removes that additional check. Should talk more
with Roland to get his thoughts. He and Giuseppe have been added as
reviewers. c. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA
<https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA>Ivan wants to make a new release.
Changes were discussed at last meeting. A new backend was introduced that
depends on idpy-oidc. The next step (after release) is to make the saml
parts optional (it’s possible Roland has already done this work). Some
classes will need to be moved. This can be problematic - we need to make
sure there are compatibility fallbacks when we move the base classes
elsewhere. Hopefully no one is using those classes directly. There are also
some smaller changes to be merged. They will be released after the release
with the oidc changes.https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/441
<https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/441> - Ivan has not had time
to look at this yethttps://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/435
<https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/435> - complex MR about
addtng types and type information. This needs some more thought before
being pulled in. https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/431
<https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/431> - from Hannah about
logout. We should have a meeting to discuss this one alone. This introduces
a need for server side state. We will have to use something like Redis and
bind proper identifiers to the logout flow. Once we have that we can do the
same for the communication flows etc. Guiseppe brought up that SATOSA
already has mongoDB as a dependency even just for unit tests. Giuseppes’s
frontend (https://github.com/UniversitaDellaCalabria/SATOSA-oidcop
<https://github.com/UniversitaDellaCalabria/SATOSA-oidcop>) was migrated to
idpy 3 weeks ago and uses mongoDB in order to reuse an existing
requirement. There are some concerns about mongoDB’s limitations in terms
of license - it can be expensive. Its config is complicated. Redis seems
simpler. But we don’t have to choose - we can have an API to work with
both, the user chooses. There is some work around an API in idpy-oidc that
could be reused for this. d. pySAML2 -
https://github.com/IdentityPython/ <https://github.com/IdentityPython/>.
Pysaml2There are some MRs and PRs to look at but Ivan hasn’t had time to
look at them e. Any other project (pyFF, djangosaml2, pyMDOC-CBOR, etc)No
updates.2 - AOB Giuseppe asked are there any resources or experience
related to our community about the implementation of second factor
authentication as a SATOSA backend.Ivan says Peter from DASI has done
something around this and others have also - Ivan thinks the
implementations use a microservice to contact a third party service and
have a flow with the second factor. There is an effort to address this.
The problem comes from licensing - AGPL licenses.Shayna adds this link to a
presentation done at Internet2 TechEx 2022 by Matthew E and Benn O
pertaining to using COmanage Registry, SATOSA, and Privacy Idea to
implement an MFA solution for access to SPs.
https://internet2.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/techex22-info-sec-dynamic-…
<https://internet2.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/techex22-info-sec-dynamic-…>When
are people available for the next meeting? Ivan is away the week before
the next meeting, so not much in terms of updates will be available;
Guiseppe has a deadline so will probably not be there.Thanks, Shayna*
