4:32 p.m.
Hi,
On 10-07-18 15:56, Heather Flanagan wrote:
1. Satosa Security review
Team in GEANT is offering to do a security review of Satosa and is
looking for guidance on where to start. Ivan’s suggestion: “SATOSA
only connects frontends to backend (and vice versa), with
some intermediate logic that defines the internal representation of the
information it has collected, plus the metadata and configuration.
The "heavy lifting" is left to the libraries that actually implement
the standards. IMHO, the tricky bits are there; in the libs. So, my
vote would be yes, but lets start with the shell (SATOSA) and see if
we can move towards the core (libs) later.”
Note that SATOSA will evolve over time, so some of what gets reviewed
will change. Should we hold off on doing this until the code settles a
bit? It could help prioritize, and the GN4 project does have extra
budget now. Could do a lightweight evaluation now, and more in-depth
next year. Ask Niels if this is a one-off thing; if it can be
repeated, then go ahead and do it now.
The intent is indeed to have multiple iterations. My proposal is in line
with what Ivan suggests: do a lightweight version now to set a baseline,
that either GEANT project or others can then use to work on top of.
I appreciate the software evolves (It should!) We should perhaps make
some considerations on when we feel it is needed to have a security review.
Based on Ivans comments I could imagine a new full version of SaToSa
might be such an event, but more likely a new version of either the
pySAML or the pyOIDC library I think. (which by itself might be a reason
to also bumb the version number of SaToSa)
Cheers,
Niels
--
Niels van Dijk Technical Product Manager Trust & Security
Mob: +31 651347657 | Skype: cdr-80 | PGP Key ID: 0xDE7BB2F5
SURFnet BV | PO.Box 19035 | NL-3501 DA Utrecht | The Netherlands
www.surfnet.nl www.openconext.org