June 2024 - satosa-users - lists3.sunet.se

XML decoding failing for an AuthN Request

by Hannah Short

Hi Satosa users, I’m having trouble with a SAML request being incorrectly inflated/decoded and then failing with the error “invalid signature” (which I think is misleading). I couldn’t see a known issue about this on GitHub. I’m running Satosa 8.2. Has anyone seen this and has a suggestion? Both the good and bad AuthN Requests in the logs below validate fine at https://www.samltool.com/decode.php Example, “bad” encoding from https://sptest.iamshowcase.com/instructions: [1687184930.586361] [2023-06-19 14:28:50] [DEBUG]: read request data: {'SAMLRequest': 'fVFbb4IwFP4rTd/lUrVCIyRsZhmJZkbYHvZWSh1NoGU9ZdvPH6Jm7sXHk+98t3PWwLu2Z9ngGn2Qn4MEh366VgObgAQPVjPDQQHTvJPAnGBFttsy4gWst8YZYVp8Q7nP4ADSOmU0Rk/GCjn5JvjIW5AYoXyTYB7VhNdRTOpFSGkYrZYhJTSIBa9EFR/JPKLVKpSUYpQDDDLX4Lh2CSYBmc8COgvjMlwwErFl8I7RZmykND95Jrhxrgfm+6ruPSGt9kTjn0IT6H0A4/cGHEbZNeSj0TB00hbSfikhXw/bPwno3ajsKd5BY74FB+kJ0/lcwNhjfznMg9K10h/3b1Kdl4A9l+V+tn8pylEBvUkLU+ZxBafrU0o29bUozbNdcTFd+zdIep7+vzP9BQ=='} ... [1687184930.589399] [2023-06-19 14:28:50] [DEBUG]: xmlstr: b'}Q[o\x820\x14\xfe+M\xdf\xe5R\xb5B#$lf\x19\x89fF\xd8\x1e\xf6VJ\x1dM\xa0e=e\xdb\xcf\x1f\xa2f\xee\xc5\xc7\x93\xef|\xb7s\xd6\xc0\xbb\xb6g\xd9\xe0\x1a}\x90\x9f\x83\x04\x87~\xbaV\x03\x9b\x80\x04\x0fV3\xc3A\x01\xd3\xbc\x93\xc0\x9c`E\xb6\xdb2\xe2\x05\xac\xb7\xc6\x19aZ|C\xb9\xcf\xe0\x00\xd2:e4FO\xc6\n9\xf9&\xf8\xc8[\x90\x18\xa1|\x93`\x1e\xd5\x84\xd7QL\xeaEHi\x18\xad\x96!%4\x88\x05\xafD\x15\x1f\xc9<\xa2\xd5*\x94\x94b\x94\x03\x0c2\xd7\xe0\xb8v\t&\x01\x99\xcf\x02:\x0b\xe32\\0\x12\xb1e\xf0\x8e\xd1fl\xa44?y&\xb8q\xae\x07\xe6\xfb\xaa\xee=!\xad\xf6D\xe3\x9fB\x13\xe8}\x00\xe3\xf7\x06\x1cF\xd95\xe4\xa3\xd10t\xd2\x16\xd2~)!_\x0f\xdb?\t\xe8\xdd\xa8\xec)\xdeAc\xbe\x05\x07\xe9\t\xd3\xf9\\\xc0\xd8c\x7f9\xcc\x83\xd2\xb5\xd2\x1f\xf7oR\x9d\x97\x80=\x97\xe5~\xb6\x7f)\xcaQ\x01\xbdI\x0bS\xe6q\x05\xa7\xebSJ6\xf5\xb5(\xcd\xb3]q1]\xfb7Hz\x9e\xfe\xbf3\xfd\x05', relay_state: None, sigalg: None, signature: None Example “good” encoding from https://samltest.id/saml-test/: [1687184991.342228] [2023-06-19 14:29:51] [DEBUG]: read request data: {'SAMLRequest': 'fZHdT4MwFMX/FdL3UejGJs0gwe3BJVPJQB98MaUUaQIt9hY//nv50DgTs7cmPed37j13C6xtOpr0tlYn8doLsM5H2yig00eEeqOoZiCBKtYKoJbTLLk9UuJ6tDPaaq4b5CQAwlip1U4r6FthMmHeJBcPp2OEams7oBiPRDsEuLLEWS2LQjfC1i6AxiOS4PQ+y5GzHyRSsZH265Vl53JhlMvriUOgw6PRiFIawS1yDvsIPa+qDd+EVyUjgR/6q6AI+bJaE1IUPqlKLxhkAL04KLBM2QgRjywX3nrhh7m/oiSkgf+EnPR7r2upSqleLpdQzCKgN3meLuYVHoWBafxBgOLtODCdgs1ZuZex7KdRFP/X3/jG0G3xGXsO6ujdADvsU91I/ukkTaPfd0YwKyLkIxzPlr8nj78A', 'RelayState': 'ss:mem:a06bd083cf6e2d94f28cccd470c97390dc2ccf20657a3be36e36bce4521e8cdd’} ... [1687184991.345231] [2023-06-19 14:29:51] [DEBUG]: xmlstr: b'<samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" AssertionConsumerServiceURL="https://samltest.id/Shibboleth.sso/SAML2/POST" Destination="https://idp.cern.ch/saml2sp/sso/redirect" ID="_4f7c798da2519145b9c3f622bb12fd05" IssueInstant="2023-06-19T14:29:51Z" ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST" Version="2.0"><saml:Issuer xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">https://samltest.id/saml/sp</saml:Issuer><samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="1"/></samlp:AuthnRequest>', relay_state: None, sigalg: None, signature: None Thanks for any help! Hannah

1 month

3
3
0 0

Unknown attribute name when visible in Attribute Statement

by taylorhucker＠gmail.com

I am writing to request assistance with releasing a custom attribute that is not listed as a requested attribute by one of our InCommon Service Providers (SPs). The attribute is present in the IDP response, but it appears that it is not being returned to the InCommon SP. I have attempted to set the attribute as default for all SPs, but I would like to limit its release to specific SP if needed. I have made some changes to the configuration files and observed the following log messages: Filter: ['edupersonprincipalname', 'edupersonaffiliation', 'givenname', 'edupersonscopedaffiliation', 'mail', 'edupersontargetedid'] Attribute Statement: <ns0:AttributeStatement xmlns:ns0="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><ns0:Attribute FriendlyName="mail" Name="urn:oid:0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.3" NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"> <ns0:Attribute FriendlyName="abcID" Name="urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.18941.1.2.1.1" NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"><ns0:AttributeValue xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xsi:type="xs:string">8989898</ns0:AttributeValue></ns0:Attribute> <ns0:NameID Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:persistent">99999</ns0:NameID></ns0:AttributeValue></ns0:Attribute></ns0:AttributeStatement> Unknown attribute name: <ns0:Attribute xmlns:ns0="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" FriendlyName="abcID" Name="urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.18941.1.2.1.1" NameFormat="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:attrname-format:uri"><ns0:AttributeValue xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xsi:type="xs:string">8989898</ns0:AttributeValue></ns0:Attribute> skipped backend attribute ['abcID']: no value found I have made the following changes to the configuration files: Internal_attributes.yaml Added abcid: saml: [abcID] Backend.yaml Added custom_attribute_release: "default": include: ["abcID"] allow_unknown_attributes: true attribute_map_dir: [/etc/satosa/attributemaps] Frontend.yaml -No specific changes made Saml_url.py From area: 'urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.18941.1.2.1.1': 'abcID', To area: 'abcID': 'urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.18941.1.2.1.1', Could you please help me troubleshoot this issue and provide guidance on how to release the custom attribute as needed? Also how could I release this attribute as the NameID for just the specific SP that requires it?

2 months, 3 weeks

3
3
0 0

FW: SATOSA Single Logout Service

by ferdy.mul＠ncr.nstda.or.th

Resend. From: Ferdy Mulyadi <ferdy.mul at ncr.nstda.or.th> Sent: Selasa, 04 Februari 2020 10.15 To: 'satosa-users at lists.sunet.se' <satosa-users at lists.sunet.se> Subject: SATOSA Single Logout Service Hi SATOSA users, Currently, we are working on SSO project which is Zoom SSO service. We use SATOSA proxy in order to connect with our identity federation (one-to-many type), and we have already implemented single sign-on (SSO) service and it's working, however we still require single logout service (SLO). We couldn't find any SATOSA configuration regarding to SLO from SATOSA documentation. Without SLO, although user has already selected and clicked log out from Zoom, the session still there, otherwise user requires to clear the browser cache. Could you explain to us, how to implement SLO in SATOSA? Thank you. ---------------- Best regards, Mr. Ferdy Mulyadi Research Assistant Internet Innovation Research Team (INO - CNWRG) National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC) National Science and Technology Department Agency (NSTDA) Thailand Science Park (TSP) - 112 Phaholyothin Rd., Khlong Nueng, Khlong Luang Pathum Thani, THAILAND ________________________________ Disclaimer: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and proprietary information of the National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), Thailand. They are intended solely for the use of the addressed individuals or entities. If you are not the intended recipient, you are required to immediately delete this e-mail and its contents from your system. Any disclosure, distribution, or action based upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of NSTDA. NSTDA does not accept any responsibility for the content of this message or the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided. NSTDA accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus or malware which may be inserted in this e-mail during transmission.

3 months

3
2
0 0

configuration error: unknown system entity

by Jonas Schwab

Dear all, I am currently trying to set up a saml2-saml2 proxy and have come to an impasse: It seems that I have incorrectly/incompletely set up the frontend. When trying to log in satosa logs "configuration error: unknown system entity <entityID of SP>". I thought the entityID would be set in the frontend plugin configuration through config.idp_config.metadata.local = <file containing SP metadata>. Do I have to set the SP entityID somewhere else? Thank you for your help! Best regards, Jonas Schwab

3 months, 1 week

3
3
0 0

SATOSA Quickstart

by xenophon＠irtnog.org

I want to again say "thanks" to Ioannis, Rainer, Scott, and everyone else for their help and instruction during the various IdentityPython and SATOSA meetings at TIIME this week. Chris Phillips and I were able to get a SATOSA 3.4.8 deployment working in Chris's idp-installer test bed. To that end I want to share my notes from the process, at the end of which an interested party could perform a basic, end-to-end test of the current SATOSA release using SAMLtest (https://samltest.id/) 1. I installed Ubuntu Server 18.04.1; run the following commands as root to install the prerequisites: ```sh apt update apt dist-upgrade -y apt install -y git python3-dev build-essential python3-pip libffi-dev libssl-dev xmlsec1 libyaml-dev libxml2-utils pip3 install --upgrade virtualenv virtualenv -p python3 /opt/satosa /opt/satosa/bin/pip install --upgrade pip setuptools /opt/satosa/bin/pip install SATOSA ``` This is essentially the Docker image build process, only it uses the current SATOSA release (etc.) on PyPI. 2. Copy https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/tree/v3.4.8/docker/attributemap s to /opt/satosa/attributemaps. I'm not sure this is strictly necessary as the built-in pysaml2 attribute maps should be used by default, but it's what the Docker image build process does. 3. Copy https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/tree/v3.4.8/example to /opt/satosa/etc. 4. SATOSA doesn't have a default configuration, so you must provide it yourself. ```sh cp /opt/satosa/etc/proxy_conf.yaml.example \ /opt/satosa/etc/proxy_conf.yaml cp /opt/satosa/etc/internal_attributes.yaml.example \ /opt/satosa/etc/internal_attributes.yaml cp /opt/satosa/etc/plugins/frontends/saml2_frontend.yaml.example \ /opt/satosa/etc/plugins/frontends/saml2_frontend.yaml cp /opt/satosa/etc/plugins/backends/saml2_backend.yaml.example \ /opt/satosa/etc/plugins/backends/saml2_backend.yaml cp /opt/satosa/etc/plugins/microservices/static_attributes.yaml.example \ /opt/satosa/etc/plugins/microservices/static_attributes.yaml ``` 5. You may change the proxy URL (the value of BASE in /opt/satosa/etc/proxy_conf.yaml), but it _must_ be a method plus hostname without any trailing slash or path components, e.g., `https://proxy.example.com`, not `https://proxy.example.com/` nor `https://proxy.example.com/satosa`. SATOSA must be hosted at the root of your web site. 6. Comment out the `idp_blacklist_file` and `disco_srv` settings in /opt/satosa/etc/plugins/backends/saml2_backend.yaml. 7. Generate IdP, SP, metadata signing, and web site keying material: ```sh for i in frontend backend metadata https; do openssl req -batch -x509 -nodes -days 3650 -newkey rsa:2048 \ -keyout /opt/satosa/etc/$i.key -out /opt/satosa/etc/$i.crt \ -subj /CN=proxy.example.com done ``` 8. Download the SAMLtest metadata. ```sh curl https://samltest.id/saml/sp > /opt/satosa/etc/sp.xml curl https://samltest.id/saml/idp > /opt/satosa/etc/idp.xml ``` 9. Generate the proxy metadata. (How you do this changes in future releases of SATOSA.) ```sh . /opt/satosa/bin/activate cd /opt/satosa/etc satosa-saml-metadata proxy_conf.yaml metadata.key metadata.crt --split-frontend --split-backend --dir /opt/satosa/etc xmllint --format /opt/satosa/etc/Saml2IDP_0.xml > /opt/satosa/etc/proxy-idp.xml xmllint --format /opt/satosa/etc/Saml2_0.xml > /opt/satosa/etc/proxy-sp.xml ``` 10. Edit the proxy metadata files to remove the `<ns1:Signature>` element, else SAMLtest will be unable to load them due to an invalid signature. 11. Upload the proxy metadata to SAMLtest (https://samltest.id/upload.php) 12. SAMLtest doesn't release the eduPerson Targeted ID attribute, so you'll need to change the last three lines of /opt/satosa/etc/internal_attributes.yaml to the following (and before anyone says anything, NEVER USE AN EMAIL ADDRESS AS AN IDENTIFIER---this is just a quick hack to get SATOSA working): ``` hash: [mail] user_id_from_attrs: [mail] user_id_to_attr: mail ``` 13. Start SATOSA: ```sh . /opt/satosa/bin/activate cd /opt/satosa/etc gunicorn -b0.0.0.0:443 --keyfile https.key --certfile https.crt satosa.wsgi:app ``` 14. At this point you should be able to perform an IdP test (https://samltest.id/start-idp-test/) by specifying the entity ID of the proxy's front end, e.g., https://example.com/Saml2IDP/proxy.xml. The SAMLtest SP will request authentication by your proxy IdP, causing your proxy SP to request authentication by the SAMLtest IdP. If everything works right, you will end up back at the SAMLtest SP: SAMLtest SP ---AuthnRequest---> SATOSA front end (IdP)/back end (SP) ---AuthnRequest---> SAMLtest IdP SAMLtest SP <---AuthnResponse--- SATOSA front end (IdP)/back end (SP) <---AuthnResponse--- SAMLtest IdP I hope this helps other adopters. If you have any questions, please reply on list so everyone can benefit from the discussion. Best wishes, Matthew -- "The lyf so short, the craft so longe to lerne."

4 months

5
5
1 0

Different discovery service for different SPs

by xenophon＠irtnog.org

Dear all, Is it possible to use a different discovery service depending on the SP that sent a SAML AuthnRequest to SATOSA, or do I have to do that in the discovery service's frontend somehow? Best wishes, Matthew -- "The lyf so short, the craft so longe to lerne."

1 year

3
3
0 0

oidc client registration

by peter.schober＠univie.ac.at

Not knowing whether my satosa instance is fully working yet (see my other thread) I'm now continuing to try to get the application (eduMEET) to work with satosa's oidc frontend, as per the app's published config example: https://github.com/havfo/multiparty-meeting/blob/master/server/config/confi… So I've made up a client_id and client_secret on the RP side and provided the client with an issuerURL (base URL of satosa), let it request all the scopes in the world and set its own redirect_uri. With those all set I do see requests to satosa's .well-known endpoints from the application in satosa logs, e.g. Found registered endpoint: module name:'oidc', endpoint: .well-known/openid-configuration (And of course accessing the endpoint myself I can see that it works and produces JSON with its config.) Now on the OP side (satosa oidc frontend) I haven't done any setup for the client yet, so I guess the error in the log is to be expected: Error in authn req: Unknown client_id Now what would be the next steps to register that client? The request from the client (according to satosa's logs) has these query parameters (where cid and csec are the correct client_id and client_secret, respectively): client_id=cid&scope=openid+email+profile&response_type=code&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.org%2Fauth%2Fcallback&state=e30%3D&client_secret=csec My plugins/frontends/openid_connect_frontend.yaml looks like the published example, essentially: module: satosa.frontends.openid_connect.OpenIDConnectFrontend name: oidc config: signing_key_path: /etc/satosa/oidc-provider.key #db_uri: mongodb://db.example.com # optional: only support MongoDB, will default to in-memory storage if not specified client_db_path: /etc/satosa/oidc-clients.json provider: client_registration_supported: True response_types_supported: ['code', 'token', 'id_token'] subject_types_supported: ['public', 'pairwise'] scopes_supported: ['openid', 'email', 'profile'] Only that I tried to enable pretty much everything (all repose and subject types, all scopes, client registration) since I had no idea what the RP side wants, yet. (Seems I can remove all response types except 'code', as per the log shown above.) I don't have MongoDB set up yet since the comment above suggests an in-memory store would be used, which is fine for my current testing. And looking at _create_provider() at frontends/openid_connect.py the code would use the file referenced by client_db_path if db_uri isn't set even before falling back to storing it in a variable. The file referenced in client_db_path exists, is writable by the user satosa runs as, and currently contains only '{}' (without the quotes). So IMO that should be sufficient. Any hints on how to register the application? The documenation is a bit sparse here https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/blob/master/doc/README.md#frontend… only mentioning that *without* dynamic client registration (which I have enabled for now, but maybe the RP doesn't support it) I'd have to manually create the data structures in MongoDB (or the file in client_db_path) for my client, as per the oidc spec for Client Registration Responses. Could someone share a json sample to put into the file referenced by client_db_path (if that's how it's supposed to work)? Cheers, -peter

1 year, 1 month

2
2
0 0

idp discovery and multi-tenancy

by Peter Brand

I have deployed Satosa with a saml2 backend (SP) plugin loading multiple IDPs via remote metadata and oidc "frontend" (OP) plugin with currently one configured RP (client_db_path). Now it seems the ressource/application to be protected (using OIDC) may be more of a multi-tenant system, meaning there are separate application instances (to be connected to the OIDC OP side), exactly one per SAML IDP hooked up to Satosa on the saml2 backend side. I.e., each SAML IDP has its own OIDC RP. So a given application instance / OIDC RP would send an OIDC authn req to Satosa as OP (single frontend, configured and shared across all RPs) and that would invoke a single saml2 backend to send SAML authn reqs to the various IDPs known via remote metadata. It seems to me that a single Satosa instance with a single oidc frontend and a single saml2 backend should be able to handle this just fine, by merely adding all applications as individual OIDC RPs (and all IDPs to the remote metadata)? There's nothing "multi-tenanty" about such a setup, yet: Just multiple OIDC RPs and SAML IDPs sharing a single protocol converting proxy. I think the next piece missing then would be avoiding SAML IDP Disovery, since this information could already be derived from each application/RP/client_id, so asking the subject should be avoided. Would anyone have a suggestion on how to achieve this? I can assign client_id values as needed so with carefully chosen values (for automated mapping probably string/regex comparison, for manual/explicit/static mapping a dictionary object) it should be possible to get from OIDC RP (client_id) to SAML IDP (entityID) without having to involve the subject? Best regards, -peter

2 years, 3 months

1
1
0 0

avoiding saml idp discovery w/ multiple idp remote metadata

by Peter Brand

Can I (pre-)select a single/specific IDP to use with a saml2 backend plugin even if that backend loads multiple IDPs from remote metadata? The documentation[1] seems to say that I can't avoid IDP Discovery whenever multiple IDPs are available: > To allow the user to choose which target provider they want to > authenticate with, the configuration parameter disco_srv, must be > specified if the metadata given to the backend module contains more > than one IdP. (Why load multiple IDPs from remote metadata then when you want to avoid IDP Discovery? Because those IDPs may be available in remotely managed and regularly re-signed metadata. And there's no MDQ service available to hand out an up-to-date, signed copy of only a single IDP for Satosa to consume.) Related to this question: Setting the 'idp' configuration parameter in service -> sp within the saml2 backend plugin (as shown in the pysaml2 docs[2]) resulted in no observable change for Satosa (running 8.4.0 from the official docker image). Is that to be expected? Other parameters from pysaml2 are included in Satosa's saml2 backend plugin at the same level as the 'idp' parameter, e.g. 'authn_requests_signed'. But maybe I'm imagining a relationship here between Satosa and pysaml2 config parameters that doesn't exist? ```yaml``` module: satosa.backends.saml2.SAMLBackend name: sp config: sp_config: service: sp: idp: ['https://idp.example.org/entity'] ``` Anyway, here's the behaviour I (don't) see: With exactly one IDP as list member (as in the YAML above and also the pysaml2 docs[2]) this did not circumvent IDP Discovery as I had expected and would have been useful: With only a single IDP allowed there's no point in offering other IDPs to the subject. (See above for why it may be useful to have multiple IDPs known via metadata but still circumvent IDP discovery by configuration.) But also when configuring one IDP (still as per above) and picking *another* IDP during IDP Discovery access to the configured RP (oidc frontend) was granted just the same. I.e., I could not determine how the selected IDP was somehow "not allowed to be used" (as per the pysaml2 docs, not Satosa's). So unless I'm Doing Things Wrong™ it seems there's no use being made of the 'idp' parameter within the SAML SP config (saml2 backend plugin) within Satosa? If so, could or should there be? Best, -peter [1] https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA/blob/master/doc/README.md#use-a-di… [2] https://pysaml2.readthedocs.io/en/latest/howto/config.html#idp

2 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

satosa-users June 2024