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
*Idpy meeting 23 April 2024*
Attendees: Shayna, Ivan, Hannah
0 - Agenda bash
1 - Project review
a. General -
b. OIDC libraries - https://github.com/IdentityPython (idpy-oidc,
JWTConnect-Python-CryptoJWT, etc)
- Roland has an MR that has been approved.
- https://github.com/IdentityPython/idpy-oidc/pull/99
- Comes with some changes that break certain deployments (core AI
- but has been fixed)
- Move forward and then have new release of idpy-oidc
- There has been some focus on federations and supporting
capabilities of open id federations. Most of the work is in Roland's
personal repo for fedservice.
- https://github.com/rohe/fedservice - Roland is working in a wider
context around wallets, but everything binds together through the
federations.
- Ivan is working with Nicos L to import certain capabilites to
the front end that is being built for the Géant Core AAI platform.
Currently uses idpy-oidc and will now also use fedservice for
federation
capabilities.
- There are a few items that need to be revisited: client
notification methods - private keyjwt and how it is handled internally in
the library; how to keep public keys from the metadata, how to
refresh, how
often - Ivan needs to discuss with Roland - these capabilities
are needed.
c. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA
- Ivan is now getting back to this project. There are outstanding items
pending:
- merged an MR on master that introduces exception cases that have
wrong variable names - error handler is then crashing. Fixes
need to be
done to address this.
- Roland's open PR to fix the dependencies and how they are
checked - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/442 -
missing checks of whether idpy-oidc and other libraries are
in dependencies
- Ivan needs to fix these parts and merge, then have a new release
- There is pending work around routing workaround paths -
https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/451 - instead of
running at example.com, you could have SATOSA running at
example.com/satosa. This is useful not only for deployments that
need it but also for separating out what the paths mean. Then
there can be
separate controllers and handlers for different paths. Looking into
changing the framework. PR needs some work - Kristof B is
aware. There was
a previous PR that was more complex, so this one was created
to specify the
problem in a clearer way and move forward.
- Ali and Hannah's work with the logout is very important.
- https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/444 - logout from
idp side
- https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/pull/431 - logout
from service side and propagates to other entities.
- important to decide how to organize keeping state on the
server side. The cookie can not hold any more information.
- Some other issues: How to handle claims for oidc -
https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/issues/457 - mapping of
what the standard oidc claims should be - including
multi-valued which can
be represented as an array, a space separated string, etc.
What about a
non-standard claim? Certain profiles for EduPerson for example. Map an
internal claim - single value as a string, not a list. There will be
discussion on this. Main idea is to extend internal attributes mapping
file, making a more complex structure which indicates how
these values can
be compared to other values, how many items to exist, what types they
should be, etc.
d. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2
- https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/pull/924
- Main concern - what to do with XMLsec1. Should there be a move to a
different way of encrypting/decrypting/signing/verifying SAML payloads?
- With which algorithms should the payload be signed or encrypted?
Which algorithms do we accept as valid for signatures to
allow decryption?
- Ivan plans to focus on this soon.
- Ivan knows people are waiting on some answers on other issues
and he is trying to get them.
- Ongoing issue: Python and its support for temporary files on the
Windows platform- Ivan has a small patch locally. Another user has a
proposed solution for checking temporary files and deleting
afterward. but
it is not a long-term solution. Ivan would prefer it to be automatic if
possible. Ivan's patch is a workaround. He will post it, but this needs
further discussion. With Linux WSL the temporary file deletion
just works,
but Windows breaks. Few users are affected, but it does come up.
- https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/pull/951 - bug fix for
domain validation - in practice everyone sets properties in the SAML
response that specify where the response came from as an IP address. This
only affects domain names. User has suggested a fix but it includes the
port. Strictly, the port is not part of the domain. Ivan has made
suggestions on the PR.
e. Any other project (pyFF, djangosaml2, pyMDOC-CBOR, etc)
- There is a new release of the pyMDOC-CBOR library.
- There was a change to support more algorithms used to serialize
payload.
- https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyMDOC-CBOR/pull/6
2 - AOB
- Next meeting May 14 due to Greek holidays.
Dear colleagues,
The InCommon Technical Advisory Committee wants your help bringing a “good
practice” approach to research and education (R&E) identity federation.
Would you please join me on Tuesday, May 7, at 1:00 PM UTC, to plan how we
might accomplish this? We will rough out a regular meeting schedule and
set some immediate goals for the Federation Readiness Check working group
then. (See below/attached for meeting details.)
A significant roadblock for new R&E community members is validating their
identity provider (IdP) or service provider (SP) deployments. Current good
federation practice involves an overwhelming variety of expectations,
standards, entity categories, frameworks, profiles, and more. There exists
no single, comprehensive resource for operational guidance and integration
testing. What documentation or test resources exist are difficult to find
even for experienced IAM professionals, are typically restricted to
federation members, and are focused almost exclusively on IdPs. While the
decentralized nature of R&E federation allows it to scale far beyond
current commercial offerings, that same decentralization makes enacting
meaningful change to IdP, SP, or federation operations seemingly
impossible. A scorecard would be a powerful tool for change.
Federation Readiness Check Working Group membership is open to the public.
Please feel free to forward this invitation to anyone you think would be
interested. Our initial meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, at
1:00 PM UTC via Zoom (
https://researchdata-us.zoom.us/j/81548511164?pwd=Uzh3UTXMdmldUWMK3pPWd85mr…)
We will continue the discussion on the fedtestwg mailing list (
https://lists.incommon.org/sympa/info/fedtestwg) and the
#inc-fed-ready-check-wg Slack channel (https://internet2.slack.com/)
Working group materials will be posted to the Internet2 Confluence wiki (
https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/inctac/federation-readiness-check-wg
).
Please note that as an Internet2 Activity, the Internet2 Intellectual
Property Policy applies the working group (
https://internet2.edu/community/about-us/policies/internet2-intellectual-pr…)
Please direct any Internet2 policy questions to legal(a)internet2.edu.
Best wishes,
Matthew
--
Matthew X. Economou, Vice President of Engineering
Research Data and Communication Technologies
P.O. Box 81 Garrett Park, MD 20896 USA
Office: +1 (301) 760-7383 x813
Mobile: +1 (513) 445-2323
Email: meconomou(a)researchdata.us
Hello,
I have two questions, if you don't mind:
1. I have a *LogoutResponse* via redirect (HTTP GET) as follows:
*/logout?SAMLResponse=...&Signature=...&SigAlg=...
*. This type of message originates from EntraID (formerly Azure).
This *SAMLResponse* does not internally contain a signature. How can I
check the signature since *parse_logout_request_response* doesn't accept
SigAlg and Signature parameters, unlike *parse_logout_request*?
2. Secondly, if my *LogoutResponse* is like */logout?SAMLResponse* (without
SigAlg or Signature parameters), how can I be sure that it contains a valid
signature? Can I rely on *want_assertions_or_response_signed*, which is
used in *AuthnResponse*, but not in *LogoutResponse(StatusResponse)*?
Thank you,
