Search Results

Search found 79 results on 4 pages for 'damien wildfire'.

Page 1/4 | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

• Access : Afficher vos données dans des labels, zones de texte, par Jean-Damien Gayot

  Il peut être judicieux, à l'ouverture de l'application, de pouvoir afficher quelques chiffres-clés. On peut tout à fait afficher des résultats dans un simple Label ou dans une Zone de Texte.

  Read the article

• GWT (Google Web Toolkit) - Développez des Applications Internet Riches (RIA) en Java de Damien Picard, critique par Benwit

  Je viens de lire le 3° ouvrage sur GWT en français, celui de Damien PICARD aux éditions ENI. [IMG]http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/2746058308.08.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/IMG] Citation: Ce livre sur GWT (Google Web Toolkit) s'adresse aux développeurs Java souhaitant créer des applications RIA sans passer par JavaScript ou aux développeurs web confirmés (JavaScript/XHTML/CSS) désireux de disposer d'un framework décuplant leur productiv...

  Read the article

• Introduction à CRaSH, un shell pour superviser une machine virtuelle Java, application à la visualisation d'un cache, par Damien Rieu

  Bonjour, Vous trouverez un article sur CRaSH à cette adresse : http://damienrieu.developpez.com/art...hcache_spring/ CRaSH permet de se connecter à une JVM en mode Shell puis d'exécuter des commandes directement sur cette JVM. Ainsi, nous allons accéder à un certain nombre de commandes prédéfinies (exemple la commande thread, jdbc, java?). Une des grandes forces de CRaSH est que l'on peut aussi définir ses propres commandes Shell par programmation (Syntaxe Java ou Groovy). Il est alors possible de réaliser des commandes spécifiques à nos besoins ! Dans cette article, nous allons présenter CRaSH grâce à un cas pratique. Pour cela, nous allons réaliser une comman...

  Read the article

• Why All The Hype Around Live Help?

  - by ruth.donohue

  I am pleased to introduce guest blogger, Damien Acheson today. Based in Cambridge, MA, Damien is the Product Marketing Manager for ATG’s Live Help products. Welcome, Damien!! BY DAMIEN ACHESON Why all the hype around live help? An eCommerce professional recently asked me: “Why all the hype around live chat and click to call?” I already have a customer service phone number that’s available to my online visitors. Why would I want to add live help? If anything, I want my website to reduce the number of calls to my contact center, not increase it!” The effect of adding live help to a website is counter-intuitive. Done right, live help doesn’t increase your call volume; it optimizes it by replacing traditional telephone calls with smarter, more productive, live voice and live chat interactions. This generates instant cost savings, and a measurable lift in sales and customer retention. A live help interaction differs from a traditional telephone call in six radical ways: Targeting. With live help you can target specific visitors at just the exact right time with a live call or live chat invitation based on hundreds of different parameters. For example, visitors who appear to hesitate before making a large purchase may receive a live help invitation, while others may not. Productivity. By reserving live voice to visitors with complex questions, and offering self-service and live chat for more simple interactions, agents with the right domain expertise can handle simultaneous queries and achieve substantial productivity gains. Routing. Live help interactions take into account visitors’ web context to intelligently route queries to the best available agent, thereby lifting first contact resolution. Context. Traditional telephone numbers force online customers to “change channels” and “start over” with a phone agent. With Live help, agents get the context of the web session and can instantly access the customer’s transaction details and account information, substantially reducing handle times. Interaction. Agents can solve a customer’s problem more effectively co-browsing and collaborating with the visitor in real-time to complete online forms and transactions. Analytics. Unlike traditional telephone numbers, live help allows you to tie Web analytics to customer satisfaction and agent performance indicators. To better understand these differences and advantages over traditional customer service, watch this demo on optimizing customer interactions with Live Help. Technorati Tags: ATG,Live Help,Commerce

  Read the article

• Colors are not displayed correctly in GVim on some computers

  - by MARTIN Damien

  I try to use a colorscheme. On my desktop it looks like how it should be : https://github.com/martin-damien/tetrisity-vim/blob/master/tetrisity-vim.png But on my laptop, I have the following colors : http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/8444/errorufl.png Has you can see the most simple and visible point is in comments. The should be grey on black and they finaly are blue on transparent. What could make such errors ?

  Read the article

• ASP.Net Charting Control - Display a Threshold

  - by Damien

  Is it possible to display a static line across a chart which appears at a given point on the Y Axis? So say I have a chart which measures test scores, ranges which 0 to 100 which 70% being the pass mark and therefore displaying a straight line across the chart at this point? Would I have to add a new series or is there a property for such a function? Thanks, Damien

  Read the article

• The whole point of programming is creating abstractions

  - by Damien

  Hullo, this is Damien. I am new to programming and to StackOverflow community. Our professor once said that "the whole point of programming is creating abstractions." His explanation however went right over my head. Please explain the meaning of this sentence in simple words -- something that a noob like me can understand. Thank you!

  Read the article

• AuthnRequest Settings in OIF / SP

  - by Damien Carru

  In this article, I will list the various OIF/SP settings that affect how an AuthnRequest message is created in OIF in a Federation SSO flow. The AuthnRequest message is used by an SP to start a Federation SSO operation and to indicate to the IdP how the operation should be executed: How the user should be challenged at the IdP Whether or not the user should be challenged at the IdP, even if a session already exists at the IdP for this user Which NameID format should be requested in the SAML Assertion Which binding (Artifact or HTTP-POST) should be requested from the IdP to send the Assertion Which profile should be used by OIF/SP to send the AuthnRequest message Enjoy the reading! Protocols The SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1 and OpenID 2.0 protocols define different message elements and rules that allow an administrator to influence the Federation SSO flows in different manners, when the SP triggers an SSO operation: SAML 2.0 allows extensive customization via the AuthnRequest message SAML 1.1 does not allow any customization, since the specifications do not define an authentication request message OpenID 2.0 allows for some customization, mainly via the OpenID 2.0 extensions such as PAPE or UI SAML 2.0 OIF/SP allows the customization of the SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest message for the following elements: ForceAuthn: Boolean indicating whether or not the IdP should force the user for re-authentication, even if the user has still a valid session By default set to false IsPassive Boolean indicating whether or not the IdP is allowed to interact with the user as part of the Federation SSO operation. If false, the Federation SSO operation might result in a failure with the NoPassive error code, because the IdP will not have been able to identify the user By default set to false RequestedAuthnContext Element indicating how the user should be challenged at the IdP If the SP requests a Federation Authentication Method unknown to the IdP or for which the IdP is not configured, then the Federation SSO flow will result in a failure with the NoAuthnContext error code By default missing NameIDPolicy Element indicating which NameID format the IdP should include in the SAML Assertion If the SP requests a NameID format unknown to the IdP or for which the IdP is not configured, then the Federation SSO flow will result in a failure with the InvalidNameIDPolicy error code If missing, the IdP will generally use the default NameID format configured for this SP partner at the IdP By default missing ProtocolBinding Element indicating which SAML binding should be used by the IdP to redirect the user to the SP with the SAML Assertion Set to Artifact or HTTP-POST By default set to HTTP-POST OIF/SP also allows the administrator to configure the server to: Set which binding should be used by OIF/SP to redirect the user to the IdP with the SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest message: Redirect or HTTP-POST By default set to Redirect Set which binding should be used by OIF/SP to redirect the user to the IdP during logout with SAML 2.0 Logout messages: Redirect or HTTP-POST By default set to Redirect SAML 1.1 The SAML 1.1 specifications do not define a message for the SP to send to the IdP when a Federation SSO operation is started. As such, there is no capability to configure OIF/SP on how to affect the start of the Federation SSO flow. OpenID 2.0 OpenID 2.0 defines several extensions that can be used by the SP/RP to affect how the Federation SSO operation will take place: OpenID request: mode: String indicating if the IdP/OP can visually interact with the user checkid_immediate does not allow the IdP/OP to interact with the user checkid_setup allows user interaction By default set to checkid_setup PAPE Extension: max_auth_age : Integer indicating in seconds the maximum amount of time since when the user authenticated at the IdP. If MaxAuthnAge is bigger that the time since when the user last authenticated at the IdP, then the user must be re-challenged. OIF/SP will set this attribute to 0 if the administrator configured ForceAuthn to true, otherwise this attribute won't be set Default missing preferred_auth_policies Contains a Federation Authentication Method Element indicating how the user should be challenged at the IdP By default missing Only specified in the OpenID request if the IdP/OP supports PAPE in XRDS, if OpenID discovery is used. UI Extension Popup mode Boolean indicating the popup mode is enabled for the Federation SSO By default missing Language Preference String containing the preferred language, set based on the browser's language preferences. By default missing Icon: Boolean indicating if the icon feature is enabled. In that case, the IdP/OP would look at the SP/RP XRDS to determine how to retrieve the icon By default missing Only specified in the OpenID request if the IdP/OP supports UI Extenstion in XRDS, if OpenID discovery is used. ForceAuthn and IsPassive WLST Command OIF/SP provides the WLST configureIdPAuthnRequest() command to set: ForceAuthn as a boolean: In a SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest, the ForceAuthn field will be set to true or false In an OpenID 2.0 request, if ForceAuthn in the configuration was set to true, then the max_auth_age field of the PAPE request will be set to 0, otherwise, max_auth_age won't be set IsPassive as a boolean: In a SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest, the IsPassive field will be set to true or false In an OpenID 2.0 request, if IsPassive in the configuration was set to true, then the mode field of the OpenID request will be set to checkid_immediate, otherwise set to checkid_setup Test In this test, OIF/SP is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 IdP Partner, with the OOTB configuration. Based on this setup, when OIF/SP starts a Federation SSO flow, the following SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest would be generated: <samlp:AuthnRequest ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST" ID="id-E4BOT7lwbYK56lO57dBaqGUFq01WJSjAHiSR60Q4" Version="2.0" IssueInstant="2014-04-01T21:39:14Z" Destination="https://acme.com/saml20/sso">   <saml:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity">https://sp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>   <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="true"/></samlp:AuthnRequest> Let's configure OIF/SP for that IdP Partner, so that the SP will require the IdP to re-challenge the user, even if the user is already authenticated: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the configureIdPAuthnRequest() command:configureIdPAuthnRequest(partner="AcmeIdP", forceAuthn="true") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After the changes, the following SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest would be generated: <samlp:AuthnRequest ForceAuthn="true" ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST" ID="id-E4BOT7lwbYK56lO57dBaqGUFq01WJSjAHiSR60Q4" Version="2.0" IssueInstant="2014-04-01T21:39:14Z" Destination="https://acme.com/saml20/sso">   <saml:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity">https://sp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>   <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="true"/></samlp:AuthnRequest> To display or delete the ForceAuthn/IsPassive settings, perform the following operatons: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the configureIdPAuthnRequest() command: To display the ForceAuthn/IsPassive settings on the partnerconfigureIdPAuthnRequest(partner="AcmeIdP", displayOnly="true") To delete the ForceAuthn/IsPassive settings from the partnerconfigureIdPAuthnRequest(partner="AcmeIdP", delete="true") Exit the WLST environment:exit() Requested Fed Authn Method In my earlier "Fed Authentication Method Requests in OIF / SP" article, I discussed how OIF/SP could be configured to request a specific Federation Authentication Method from the IdP when starting a Federation SSO operation, by setting elements in the SSO request message. WLST Command The OIF WLST commands that can be used are: setIdPPartnerProfileRequestAuthnMethod() which will configure the requested Federation Authentication Method in a specific IdP Partner Profile, and accepts the following parameters: partnerProfile: name of the IdP Partner Profile authnMethod: the Federation Authentication Method to request displayOnly: an optional parameter indicating if the method should display the current requested Federation Authentication Method instead of setting it delete: an optional parameter indicating if the method should delete the current requested Federation Authentication Method instead of setting it setIdPPartnerRequestAuthnMethod() which will configure the specified IdP Partner entry with the requested Federation Authentication Method, and accepts the following parameters: partner: name of the IdP Partner authnMethod: the Federation Authentication Method to request displayOnly: an optional parameter indicating if the method should display the current requested Federation Authentication Method instead of setting it delete: an optional parameter indicating if the method should delete the current requested Federation Authentication Method instead of setting it This applies to SAML 2.0 and OpenID 2.0 protocols. See the "Fed Authentication Method Requests in OIF / SP" article for more information. Test In this test, OIF/SP is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 IdP Partner, with the OOTB configuration. Based on this setup, when OIF/SP starts a Federation SSO flow, the following SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest would be generated: <samlp:AuthnRequest ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST" ID="id-E4BOT7lwbYK56lO57dBaqGUFq01WJSjAHiSR60Q4" Version="2.0" IssueInstant="2014-04-01T21:39:14Z" Destination="https://acme.com/saml20/sso">   <saml:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity">https://sp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>   <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="true"/></samlp:AuthnRequest> Let's configure OIF/SP for that IdP Partner, so that the SP will request the IdP to use a mechanism mapped to the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 Federation Authentication Method to authenticate the user: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setIdPPartnerRequestAuthnMethod() command:setIdPPartnerRequestAuthnMethod("AcmeIdP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After the changes, the following SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest would be generated: <samlp:AuthnRequest ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST" ID="id-E4BOT7lwbYK56lO57dBaqGUFq01WJSjAHiSR60Q4" Version="2.0" IssueInstant="2014-04-01T21:39:14Z" Destination="https://acme.com/saml20/sso">   <saml:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity">https://sp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>   <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="true"/>   <samlp:RequestedAuthnContext Comparison="minimum">      <saml:AuthnContextClassRef xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">         urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509      </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>   </samlp:RequestedAuthnContext></samlp:AuthnRequest> NameID Format The SAML 2.0 protocol allows for the SP to request from the IdP a specific NameID format to be used when the Assertion is issued by the IdP. Note: SAML 1.1 and OpenID 2.0 do not provide such a mechanism Configuring OIF The administrator can configure OIF/SP to request a NameID format in the SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest via: The OAM Administration Console, in the IdP Partner entry The OIF WLST setIdPPartnerNameIDFormat() command that will modify the IdP Partner configuration OAM Administration Console To configure the requested NameID format via the OAM Administration Console, perform the following steps: Go to the OAM Administration Console: http(s)://oam-admin-host:oam-admin-port/oamconsole Navigate to Identity Federation -> Service Provider Administration Open the IdP Partner you wish to modify In the Authentication Request NameID Format dropdown box with one of the values None The NameID format will be set Default Email Address The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:emailAddress X.509 Subject The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName Windows Name Qualifier The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:WindowsDomainQualifiedName Kerberos The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:kerberos Transient The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:transient Unspecified The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified Custom In this case, a field would appear allowing the administrator to indicate the custom NameID format to use The NameID format will be set to the specified format Persistent The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:persistent I selected Email Address in this example Save WLST Command To configure the requested NameID format via the OIF WLST setIdPPartnerNameIDFormat() command, perform the following steps: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setIdPPartnerNameIDFormat() command:setIdPPartnerNameIDFormat("PARTNER", "FORMAT", customFormat="CUSTOM") Replace PARTNER with the IdP Partner name Replace FORMAT with one of the following: orafed-none The NameID format will be set Default orafed-emailaddress The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:emailAddress orafed-x509 The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName orafed-windowsnamequalifier The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:WindowsDomainQualifiedName orafed-kerberos The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:kerberos orafed-transient The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:transient orafed-unspecified The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified orafed-custom In this case, a field would appear allowing the administrator to indicate the custom NameID format to use The NameID format will be set to the specified format orafed-persistent The NameID format will be set urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:persistent customFormat will need to be set if the FORMAT is set to orafed-custom An example would be:setIdPPartnerNameIDFormat("AcmeIdP", "orafed-emailaddress") Exit the WLST environment:exit() Test In this test, OIF/SP is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 IdP Partner, with the OOTB configuration. Based on this setup, when OIF/SP starts a Federation SSO flow, the following SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest would be generated: <samlp:AuthnRequest ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST" ID="id-E4BOT7lwbYK56lO57dBaqGUFq01WJSjAHiSR60Q4" Version="2.0" IssueInstant="2014-04-01T21:39:14Z" Destination="https://acme.com/saml20/sso">   <saml:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity">https://sp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer> <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="true"/></samlp:AuthnRequest> After the changes performed either via the OAM Administration Console or via the OIF WLST setIdPPartnerNameIDFormat() command where Email Address would be requested as the NameID Format, the following SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest would be generated: <samlp:AuthnRequest ForceAuthn="false" IsPassive="false" ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST" ID="id-E4BOT7lwbYK56lO57dBaqGUFq01WJSjAHiSR60Q4" Version="2.0" IssueInstant="2014-04-01T21:39:14Z" Destination="https://acme.com/saml20/sso">   <saml:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity">https://sp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer> <samlp:NameIDPolicy Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:emailAddress" AllowCreate="true"/></samlp:AuthnRequest> Protocol Binding The SAML 2.0 specifications define a way for the SP to request which binding should be used by the IdP to redirect the user to the SP with the SAML 2.0 Assertion: the ProtocolBinding attribute indicates the binding the IdP should use. It is set to: Either urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST for HTTP-POST Or urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:Artifact for Artifact The SAML 2.0 specifications also define different ways to redirect the user from the SP to the IdP with the SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest message, as the SP can send the message: Either via HTTP Redirect Or HTTP POST (Other bindings can theoretically be used such as Artifact, but these are not used in practice) Configuring OIF OIF can be configured: Via the OAM Administration Console or the OIF WLST configureSAMLBinding() command to set the Assertion Response binding to be used Via the OIF WLST configureSAMLBinding() command to indicate how the SAML AuthnRequest message should be sent Note: the binding for sending the SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest message will also be used to send the SAML 2.0 LogoutRequest and LogoutResponse messages. OAM Administration Console To configure the SSO Response/Assertion Binding via the OAM Administration Console, perform the following steps: Go to the OAM Administration Console: http(s)://oam-admin-host:oam-admin-port/oamconsole Navigate to Identity Federation -> Service Provider Administration Open the IdP Partner you wish to modify Check the "HTTP POST SSO Response Binding" box to request the IdP to return the SSO Response via HTTP POST, otherwise uncheck it to request artifact Save WLST Command To configure the SSO Response/Assertion Binding as well as the AuthnRequest Binding via the OIF WLST configureSAMLBinding() command, perform the following steps: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the configureSAMLBinding() command:configureSAMLBinding("PARTNER", "PARTNER_TYPE", binding, ssoResponseBinding="httppost") Replace PARTNER with the Partner name Replace PARTNER_TYPE with the Partner type (idp or sp) Replace binding with the binding to be used to send the AuthnRequest and LogoutRequest/LogoutResponse messages (should be httpredirect in most case; default) httppost for HTTP-POST binding httpredirect for HTTP-Redirect binding Specify optionally ssoResponseBinding to indicate how the SSO Assertion should be sent back httppost for HTTP-POST binding artifactfor for Artifact binding An example would be:configureSAMLBinding("AcmeIdP", "idp", "httpredirect", ssoResponseBinding="httppost") Exit the WLST environment:exit() Test In this test, OIF/SP is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 IdP Partner, with the OOTB configuration which requests HTTP-POST from the IdP to send the SSO Assertion. Based on this setup, when OIF/SP starts a Federation SSO flow, the following SAML 2.0 AuthnRequest would be generated: <samlp:AuthnRequest ProtocolBinding="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:bindings:HTTP-POST" ID="id-E4BOT7lwbYK56lO57dBaqGUFq01WJSjAHiSR60Q4" Version="2.0" IssueInstant="2014-04-01T21:39:14Z" Destination="https://acme.com/saml20/sso">   <saml:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity">https://sp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>   <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="true"/></samlp:AuthnRequest> In the next article, I will cover the various crypto configuration properties in OIF that are used to affect the Federation SSO exchanges.Cheers,Damien Carru

  Read the article

• Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

  - by Damien Carru

  This article is a continuation of my previous entry where I explained how OIF/IdP leverages OAM to authenticate users at runtime: OIF/IdP internally forwards the user to OAM and indicates which Authentication Scheme should be used to challenge the user if needed OAM determine if the user should be challenged (user already authenticated, session timed out or not, session authentication level equal or higher than the level of the authentication scheme specified by OIF/IdP…) After identifying the user, OAM internally forwards the user back to OIF/IdP OIF/IdP can resume its operation In this article, I will discuss how OIF/IdP can be configured to map Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes: When processing an Authn Request, where the SP requests a specific Federation Authentication Method with which the user should be challenged When sending an Assertion, where OIF/IdP sets the Federation Authentication Method in the Assertion Enjoy the reading! Overview The various Federation protocols support mechanisms allowing the partners to exchange information on: How the user should be challenged, when the SP/RP makes a request How the user was challenged, when the IdP/OP issues an SSO response When a remote SP partner redirects the user to OIF/IdP for Federation SSO, the message might contain data requesting how the user should be challenged by the IdP: this is treated as the Requested Federation Authentication Method. OIF/IdP will need to map that Requested Federation Authentication Method to a local Authentication Scheme, and then invoke OAM for user authentication/challenge with the mapped Authentication Scheme. OAM would authenticate the user if necessary with the scheme specified by OIF/IdP. Similarly, when an IdP issues an SSO response, most of the time it will need to include an identifier representing how the user was challenged: this is treated as the Federation Authentication Method. When OIF/IdP issues an Assertion, it will evaluate the Authentication Scheme with which OAM identified the user: If the Authentication Scheme can be mapped to a Federation Authentication Method, then OIF/IdP will use the result of that mapping in the outgoing SSO response: AuthenticationStatement in the SAML Assertion OpenID Response, if PAPE is enabled If the Authentication Scheme cannot be mapped, then OIF/IdP will set the Federation Authentication Method as the Authentication Scheme name in the outgoing SSO response: AuthenticationStatement in the SAML Assertion OpenID Response, if PAPE is enabled Mappings In OIF/IdP, the mapping between Federation Authentication Methods and Authentication Schemes has the following rules: One Federation Authentication Method can be mapped to several Authentication Schemes In a Federation Authentication Method <-> Authentication Schemes mapping, a single Authentication Scheme is marked as the default scheme that will be used to authenticate a user, if the SP/RP partner requests the user to be authenticated via a specific Federation Authentication Method An Authentication Scheme can be mapped to a single Federation Authentication Method Let’s examine the following example and the various use cases, based on the SAML 2.0 protocol: Mappings defined as: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapped to LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication BasicScheme urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 mapped to X509Scheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication Use cases: SP sends an AuthnRequest specifying urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 as the RequestedAuthnContext: OIF/IdP will authenticate the use with X509Scheme since it is the default scheme mapped for that method. SP sends an AuthnRequest specifying urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the RequestedAuthnContext: OIF/IdP will authenticate the use with LDAPScheme since it is the default scheme mapped for that method, not the BasicScheme SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with BasisScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the FederationAuthenticationMethod SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with LDAPScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the FederationAuthenticationMethod SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with BasisSessionlessScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with BasisSessionlessScheme as the FederationAuthenticationMethod, since that scheme could not be mapped to any Federation Authentication Method (in this case, the administrator would need to correct that and create a mapping) Configuration Mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. Authentication Schemes As discussed in the previous article, during Federation SSO, OIF/IdP will internally forward the user to OAM for authentication/verification and specify which Authentication Scheme to use. OAM will determine if a user needs to be challenged: If the user is not authenticated yet If the user is authenticated but the session timed out If the user is authenticated, but the authentication scheme level of the original authentication is lower than the level of the authentication scheme requested by OIF/IdP So even though an SP requests a specific Federation Authentication Method to be used to challenge the user, if that method is mapped to an Authentication Scheme and that at runtime OAM deems that the user does not need to be challenged with that scheme (because the user is already authenticated, session did not time out, and the session authn level is equal or higher than the one for the specified Authentication Scheme), the flow won’t result in a challenge operation. Protocols SAML 2.0 The SAML 2.0 specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for SAML 2.0 flows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:unspecified urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:InternetProtocol urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Telephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileOneFactorUnregistered urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PersonalTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PreviousSession urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileOneFactorContract urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Smartcard urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:InternetProtocolPassword urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:TLSClient urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PGP urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SPKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:XMLDSig urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SoftwarePKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Kerberos urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SecureRemotePassword urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:NomadTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:AuthenticatedTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileTwoFactorUnregistered urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileTwoFactorContract urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SmartcardPKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:TimeSyncToken Out of the box, OIF/IdP has the following mappings for the SAML 2.0 protocol: Only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport is defined This Federation Authentication Method is mapped to: LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication FAAuthScheme BasicScheme BasicFAScheme This mapping is defined in the saml20-sp-partner-profile SP Partner Profile which is the default OOTB SP Partner Profile for SAML 2.0 An example of an AuthnRequest message sent by an SP to an IdP with the SP requesting a specific Federation Authentication Method to be used to challenge the user would be: <samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" Destination="https://idp.com/oamfed/idp/samlv20" ID="id-8bWn-A9o4aoMl3Nhx1DuPOOjawc-" IssueInstant="2014-03-21T20:51:11Z" Version="2.0">  <saml:Issuer ...>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Issuer>  <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="false" Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified"/>  <samlp:RequestedAuthnContext Comparison="minimum">    <saml:AuthnContextClassRef xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">      urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>  </samlp:RequestedAuthnContext></samlp:AuthnRequest> An example of an Assertion issued by an IdP would be: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                    urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> An administrator would be able to specify a mapping between a SAML 2.0 Federation Authentication Method and one or more OAM Authentication Schemes SAML 1.1 The SAML 1.1 specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for SAML 1.1 flows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:unspecified urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:HardwareToken urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:X509-PKI urn:ietf:rfc:2246 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:PGP urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:SPKI urn:ietf:rfc:3075 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:XKMS urn:ietf:rfc:1510 urn:ietf:rfc:2945 Out of the box, OIF/IdP has the following mappings for the SAML 1.1 protocol: Only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password is defined This Federation Authentication Method is mapped to: LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication FAAuthScheme BasicScheme BasicFAScheme This mapping is defined in the saml11-sp-partner-profile SP Partner Profile which is the default OOTB SP Partner Profile for SAML 1.1 An example of an Assertion issued by an IdP would be: <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Note: SAML 1.1 does not define an AuthnRequest message. An administrator would be able to specify a mapping between a SAML 1.1 Federation Authentication Method and one or more OAM Authentication Schemes OpenID 2.0 The OpenID 2.0 PAPE specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for OpenID 2.0 flows: http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/multi-factor http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/multi-factor-physical Out of the box, OIF/IdP does not define any mappings for the OpenID 2.0 Federation Authentication Methods. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. An example of an OpenID 2.0 Request message sent by an SP/RP to an IdP/OP would be: https://idp.com/openid?openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=checkid_setup&openid.claimed_id=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.identity=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.realm=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_request&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.if_available=attr0&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.max_auth_age=0 An example of an Open ID 2.0 SSO Response issued by an IdP/OP would be: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP for the various protocols, to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods.Cheers,Damien Carru

  Read the article

• Configuring Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

  - by Damien Carru

  In this article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods, based on the concepts introduced in my previous entry. I will show examples for the three protocols supported by OIF: SAML 2.0 SSO SAML 1.1 SSO OpenID 2.0 Enjoy the reading! Configuration As I mentioned in my previous article, mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. WLST Commands The two OIF WLST commands that can be used to define mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes are: addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner Profile, taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner Profile The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() to define a mapping on an SP Partner , taking as parameters: The name of the SP Partner The Federation Authentication Method The OAM Authentication Scheme name Note: I will discuss in a subsequent article the other parameters of those commands. In the next sections, I will show examples on how to use those methods: For SAML 2.0, I will configure the SP Partner Profile, that will apply all the mappings to SP Partners referencing this profile, unless they override mapping definition For SAML 1.1, I will configure the SP Partner. For OpenID 2.0, I will configure the SP/RP Partner SAML 2.0 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 2.0 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use BasicScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map BasicSessionScheme  to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password Federation Authentication Method Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> BasicScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to BasicScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via HTTP Basic Authentication defined in the BasicScheme for AcmeSP. Also, as noted earlier, the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping BasicScheme To change the Federation Authentication Method mapping for the BasicScheme to urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password instead of urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport for the saml20-sp-partner-profile SAML 2.0 SP Partner Profile (the profile to which my AcmeSP Partner is bound to), I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password", "BasicScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via HTTP Basic Authentication, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the AuthnContextClassRef was changed from PasswordProtectedTransport to Password): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner Profile to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of BasicScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner Profile referenced by AcmeSP (which is saml20-sp-partner-profile in this case: getFedPartnerProfile("AcmeSP", "sp") ): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerProfileDefaultScheme("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will now be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme and BasicScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods. As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthnContextClassRef set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To add the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapping, I will execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerProfileAuthnMethod("saml20-sp-partner-profile", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to PasswordProtectedTransport): <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                   urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> SAML 1.1 Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP and is integrated with a remote SAML 1.1 SP partner identified by AcmeSP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Use OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport Federation Authentication Method LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. Also the default Federation Authentication Method mappings configuration maps only the urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password to LDAPScheme (also marked as the default scheme used for authentication), FAAuthScheme, BasicScheme and BasicFAScheme. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to: <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme as Authentication Scheme For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for the SP Partner to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme instead of LDAPScheme. I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for the SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() The user will be challenged via FORM defined in the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme for AcmeSP. Contrarily to LDAPScheme, the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme is not mapped by default to any Federation Authentication Methods (in the SP Partner Profile). As such, OIF/IdP will not be able to find a Federation Authentication Method and will set the method in the SAML Assertion to the OAM Authentication Scheme name. After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme To map the OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password for this SP Partner only, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from OAMLDAPPluginAuthnScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme I will now show that by defining a Federation Authentication Mapping at the Partner level, this now ignores all mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile level. For this test, I will switch the default Authentication Scheme for this SP Partner back to LDAPScheme, and the Assertion issued by OIF/IdP will not be able to map this LDAPScheme to a Federation Authentication Method anymore, since A Federation Authentication Method mapping is defined at the SP Partner level and thus the mappings defined at the SP Partner Profile are ignored The LDAPScheme is not listed in the mapping at the Partner level I will use the OIF WLST setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command and specify which scheme to be used as the default for this SP Partner: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the setSPPartnerDefaultScheme() command:setSPPartnerDefaultScheme("AcmeSP", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an Assertion similar to (see the AuthenticationMethod set to LDAPScheme): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="LDAPScheme">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Mapping LDAPScheme at Partner Level To fix this issue, we will need to add the LDAPScheme  to the Federation Authentication Method urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password mapping for this SP Partner only. I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method: Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeSP", "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to password): <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameIdentifier ...>[email protected]</saml:NameIdentifier>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> OpenID 2.0 In the OpenID 2.0 flows, the RP must request use of PAPE, in order for OIF/IdP/OP to include PAPE information. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. The WLST command will take a list of policies, delimited by the ',' character, instead of SAML 2.0 or SAML 1.1 where a single Federation Authentication Method had to be specified. Test Setup In this setup, OIF is acting as an IdP/OP and is integrated with a remote OpenID 2.0 SP/RP partner identified by AcmeRP. In this test, I will perform Federation SSO with OIF/IdP configured to: Use LDAPScheme as the Authentication Scheme Map LDAPScheme to  the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods (the second one is a custom for this use case) LDAPScheme as Authentication Scheme Using the OOTB settings regarding user authentication in OAM, the user will be challenged via a FORM based login page based on the LDAPScheme. No Federation Authentication Method is defined OOTB for OpenID 2.0, so if the IdP/OP issue an SSO response with a PAPE Response element, it will specify the scheme name instead of Federation Authentication Methods After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would issue an SSO Response similar to: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=LDAPScheme&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D Mapping LDAPScheme To map the LDAP Scheme to the http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant and http://openid-policies/password-protected policies Federation Authentication Methods, I will execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() method (the policies will be comma separated): Enter the WLST environment by executing:$IAM_ORACLE_HOME/common/bin/wlst.sh Connect to the WLS Admin server:connect() Navigate to the Domain Runtime branch:domainRuntime() Execute the addSPPartnerAuthnMethod() command:addSPPartnerAuthnMethod("AcmeRP", "http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant,http://openid-policies/password-protected", "LDAPScheme") Exit the WLST environment:exit() After authentication via FORM, OIF/IdP would now issue an Assertion similar to (see that the method was changed from LDAPScheme to the two policies): https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant+http%3A%2F%2Fopenid-policies%2Fpassword-protected&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will cover how OIF/IdP can be configured so that an SP can request a specific Federation Authentication Method to challenge the user during Federation SSO.Cheers,Damien Carru

  Read the article

• Get a class name with generics information

  - by Damien

  Hello, In a java serialization problem, I want to save some classes name and I have some problems with generic classes. For example : - If I have ArrayList<String> listToDump = new ArrayList<String>(); - If I take the name : listToDump.getName(); or listToDump.getCanonicalName(); - I will have java.util.ArrayList or ArrayList - And I want to have java.util.ArrayList<String> or ArrayList<String> Any ideas on how I can do this? Damien.

  Read the article

• Rails solution for mobile-specific content filter?

  - by Damien Roche

  To note, I'm not interested in simply 'hiding' content for mobile devices, I want to filter out that content completely. I'm also not trying to address the issue by building a mobile specific interface (mob.example.com). There was another question regarding something similar: How do I prevent useless content load on the page in responsive design? The solution, in that post, was to set a session during the initial request, and then use the session to filter content on subsequent requests. I primarily develop in Rails, and I'm wondering if there are any gems or ruby-specific solutions to this problem?

  Read the article

• which default.list should i modify for default applications and what are the differences between the 2

  - by damien

  I would like to add miro to the default application GUI in system settings/default applications.I added ;miro.desktopnext to all rhythmbox.desktop entries eventually discovering if it was not added to audio/x-vorbis+ogg=rhythmbox.desktop as audio/x-vorbis+ogg=rhythmbox.desktop;miro.desktop it would not appear in the system settings/default applications drop down list for audio. I can find default.list in either /etc/gnome/defaults.list or /usr/share/applications/defaults.list modifying either gives me the same results.What is the difference and which is the correct list to modify?

  Read the article

• Temporary website redirect: 3xx or php/meta?

  - by Damien Pirsy

  Hi, I run a (small) news website which has also a forum in a subfolder of the root. I'm planning to give the site a facelift and a code restructuration, so I wanted to put some redirect on the home page that will point directly to forum's index (www.mysite.com -- www.mysite.com/forum) while I tinker with it. And that, given the little free time I have, will take no less than a couple of month. Being a news site I'm pretty sure that would affect it's overall ranking, but I need to do it, so: which is the best way to redirect? I pondered and read here and there about the different means, but I couldn't figure out which is worst for SEO. Do I use a 302 redirect or use "Location:newurl" in page headers using php? Or I just put a meta tag in the html page (or a javascript, what's better). Sorry but I'm not really into these things, I may have said something silly, I know... Thanks

  Read the article

• What is the best practice, point of view of well experienced developers

  - by Damien MIRAS

  My manager pushes me to use his self defined best practices. All of these practices are based on is own assumptions. I disagree with them and I would like to have some feedback of well experienced people about these practices. I would prefer answers from people involved in the maintenance of huge products and people whom have maintained the product for years. Developers with 15+ years of experience are preferred because my manager has that much experience himself. I have 7 years of experience. Here are the practices he wants me to use: never extends classes, use composition and interface instead because extending classes are unmaintainable and difficult to debug. What I think about that Extend when needed, respect "Liskov's Substitution Principle" and you'll never be stuck with a problem, but prefer composition and decoration. I don't know any serious project which has banned inheriting, sometimes it's impossible to not use that, i.e. in a UI framework. Design patterns are just unusable. In PHP, for simple use cases (for example a user needs a web interface to view a database table), his "best practice" is: copy some random php code wich we own, paste and modify it, put html and php code in same file, never use classes in PHP, it doesn't work well for small jobs, and in fact it doesn't work well at all, there is no good tool to work with. Copy & paste PHP code is good practice for maintenance because scripts are independent, if you have a bug somewhere you can fix it without side effects. What I think about that: NEVER EVER COPY code or do it because you have five minutes to deliver something, you will do some refactoring after that. Copy & paste code is a beginners error, if you have errors you'll have the error everywhere any time you have pasted it's a nightmare to maintain. If you repsect the "Open Close Principle" you'll rarely get edge effects, use unit test if you are afraid of that. For small jobs in PHP use at least something you get or write the HTML separately from the PHP code and reuse it any time you need it. Classes in PHP are mature, not as mature as other languages like python or java, but they are usable. There is tools to work with classes in PHP like Zend Studio that work very well. The use of classes or not depends not on the language you use but the programming paradigm you have choosen. I'm a OOP developer, I use PHP5, why do I have to shoot myself in the foot? When you find a simple bug in the code, and you can fix it simply, if you are not working on the code where you have found it, never fix it, even if it takes 5 seconds. He says to me his "best practices" are driven by the fact that he has a lot of experience in maintaining software in production (14 years) and he now knows what works and what doesn't work, what the community says is a fad, and the people advocating such principles as never copy & paste code, are not evolved in maintaining applications. What I think about that: If you find a bug fix it if you can do it quickly inform the people who've touched that code before, check if you have not introduced a new bug, ideally add a unit test for it. I currently work on a web commerce project, which serves 15k unique users per day. The code base has to be maintained and has been maintained this way since 2005. Ideally you include a short description of your position and experience in terms of years effectively maintaining an application which has been in production for real.

  Read the article

• What's the difference between Microsoft's MCSD and MCPD certications?

  - by Damien

  I am looking on the website but the difference between the two isn't explained. To complicate matters a Google search tells me that developers should focus on the MCPD qualifications but an examination of the MCPD section of the site is telling me that the Web Application exams will expire in July 2013! It seems out of date. Meanwhile the MCSD exam seems to be a lot more up to date with references to HTML5/ASP.net 4.5 MVC applications! What's the difference? Are the MCPD certifications going to be updated after July?

  Read the article

• What's the difference between MCSD and MCPD?

  - by Damien

  I am looking on the website but the difference between the two isn't explained. To complicate matters a Google search tells me that developers should focus on the MCPD qualifications but an examination of the MCPD section of the site is telling me that the Web Application exams will expire in July 2013! It seems out of date. Meanwhile the MCSD exam seems to be a lot more up to date with references to HTML5/ASP.net 4.5 MVC applications! What's the difference. Are the MCPD going to be updated after July? Thanks

  Read the article

• Is there a better way to minimize this C# event repetition?

  - by Damien Wildfire

  I have a lot of code like this: public class Microwave { private EventHandler<EventArgs> _doorClosed; public event EventHandler<EventArgs> DoorClosed { add { lock (this) _doorClosed += value; } remove { lock (this) _doorClosed -= value; } } private EventHandler<EventArgs> _lightbulbOn; public event EventHandler<EventArgs> LightbulbOn { add { lock (this) _lightbulbOn += value; } remove { lock (this) _lightbulbOn -= value; } } // ... } You can see that much of this is boilerplate. In Ruby I'd be able to do something like this: class Microwave has_events :door_closed, :lightbulb_on, ... end Is there a similar shorter way of removing this boilerplate in C#?

  Read the article

• Is there a better way to write this repetitive event-declaration code in C# when implementing an int

  - by Damien Wildfire

  I have a lot of code like the following, where I explicitly implement some events required by an interface. public class IMicrowaveNotifier { event EventHandler<EventArgs> DoorClosed; event EventHandler<EventArgs> LightbulbOn; // ... } public class Microwave : IMicrowaveNotifier { private EventHandler<EventArgs> _doorClosed; event EventHandler<EventArgs> IMicrowaveNotifier.DoorClosed { add { lock (this) _doorClosed += value; } remove { lock (this) _doorClosed -= value; } } private EventHandler<EventArgs> _lightbulbOn; event EventHandler<EventArgs> IMicrowaveNotifier.LightbulbOn { add { lock (this) _lightbulbOn += value; } remove { lock (this) _lightbulbOn -= value; } } // ... } You can see that much of this is boilerplate. In Ruby I'd be able to do something like this: class Microwave has_events :door_closed, :lightbulb_on, ... end Is there a similar shorter way of removing this boilerplate in C#? Update: I left a very important part out of my example: namely, the events getting implemented are part of an interface, and I want to implement it explicitly. Sorry for not mentioning this earlier!

  Read the article

• Updating a C# 2.0 events example to be idiomatic with C# 3.5?

  - by Damien Wildfire

  I have a short events example from .NET 2.0 that I've been using as a reference point for a while. We're now upgrading to 3.5, though, and I'm not clear on the most idiomatic way to do things. How would this simple events example get updated to reflect idioms that are now available in .NET 3.5? // Args class. public class TickArgs : EventArgs { private DateTime TimeNow; public DateTime Time { set { TimeNow = value; } get { return this.TimeNow; } } } // Producer class that generates events. public class Metronome { public event TickHandler Tick; public delegate void TickHandler(Metronome m, TickArgs e); public void Start() { while (true) { System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(3000); if (Tick != null) { TickArgs t = new TickArgs(); t.Time = DateTime.Now; Tick(this, t); } } } } // Consumer class that listens for events. public class Listener { public void Subscribe(Metronome m) { m.Tick += new Metronome.TickHandler(HeardIt); } private void HeardIt(Metronome m, TickArgs e) { System.Console.WriteLine("HEARD IT AT {0}",e.Time); } } // Example. public class Test { static void Main() { Metronome m = new Metronome(); Listener l = new Listener(); l.Subscribe(m); m.Start(); } }

  Read the article

• Is this a good way to generically deserialize objects?

  - by Damien Wildfire

  I have a stream onto which serialized objects representing messages are dumped periodically. The objects are one of a very limited number of types, and other than the actual sequence of bytes that arrives, I have no way of knowing what type of message it is. I would like to simply try to deserialize it as an object of a particular type, and if an exception is thrown, try again with the next type. I have an interface that looks like this: public interface IMessageHandler<T> where T : class, IMessage { T Handle(string message); } // elsewhere: // (These are all xsd.exe-generated classes from an XML schema.) public class AppleMessage : IMessage { ... } public class BananaMessage : IMessage { ... } public class CoconutMessage : IMessage { ... } Then I wrote a GenericHandler<T> that looks like this: public class GenericHandler<T> : IMessageHandler<T> where T: class, IMessage { public class MessageHandler : IMessageHandler { T IMessageHandler.Handle(string message) { T result = default(T); try { // This utility method tries to deserialize the object with an // XmlSerializer as if it were an object of type T. result = Utils.SerializationHelper.Deserialize<T>(message); } catch (InvalidCastException e) { result = default(T); } return result; } } } Two questions: Using my GenericHandler<T> (or something similar to it), I'd now like to populate a collection with handlers that each handle a different type. Then I want to invoke each handler's Handle method on a particular message to see if it can be deserialized. If I get a null result, move onto the next handler; otherwise, the message has been deserialized. Can this be done? Is there a better way to deserialize data of unknown (but restricted) type?

  Read the article

• Continuously reading from a stream in C#?

  - by Damien Wildfire

  I have a Stream object that occasionally gets some data on it, but at unpredictable intervals. Messages that appear on the Stream are well-defined and declare the size of their payload in advance (the size is a 16-bit integer contained in the first two bytes of each message). I'd like to have a StreamWatcher class which detects when the Stream has some data on it. Once it does, I'd like an event to be raised so that a subscribed StreamProcessor instance can process the new message. Can this be done with C# events without using Threads directly? It seems like it should be straightforward, but I can't get quite get my head around the right way to design this.

  Read the article

• Windows Vista: Networking can only connect "local only"

  - by Damien

  I am attempting to debug a problem on a Windows Vista laptop - not mine! Until just recently (last week or so), it was operating normally for about 4 years :) The problem is that I am having issues connecting to the local network (a basic wireless home router; more later) and the internet (via ADSL). This is both for wired [Broadcom chipset] and wireless [Intel chipset]. I will elaborate further later. To detail the network. I have three other clients (HTC phone, Ubuntu 12.04 desktop [wired] and Ubuntu 10.04 laptop [wireless]), all of whom are able to connect to the network and internet normally. A windows 7 virtual machine running on said desktop connects normally. I have tried two different wireless routers - Netgear DG834G and Netgear DGN3500. The same error mode is common to both. Updating the firmware to the latest on both routers does not help. Overall, it seems safe to say it's localised to the laptop in question. I do not have another Vista client to test with. The specific symptoms are as follows: When "connected", it says "Local Only", and says it cannot connect to the internet. This is true for both wired and wireless. It can get an IP address (192.168.0.5), and the router (192.168.0.1) reports that it can see the device. When I try to ping, I get the following results: ping 192.168.0.1 - (router) all packets lost ping 192.168.0.5 - (laptop's address) OK ping 192.168.0.4 - (desktop) all packets lost Pinging from the desktop to the problematic laptop results in "From 192.168.0.4 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable" The most promising "fix" from trawling forums is KB928233 which does not work for me. The problem is persistent across reports (both full shutdown and hibernate) so it appears not to be sleep related. I am not a regular vista user, though I can fumble my way about a bit. Is there any other suggestions as to what I should do? Is there any further information I can provide?

  Read the article

• Mouse is rotated by 90 degrees

  - by Damien

  My mouse has recently started a very strange behaviour in that left = up, right = down, up = right and down = left. i.e. it's like my mouse is rotated by 90 degrees. I have tried uninstalling the mouse, run spybot and still no joy. It's rather frustrating and I'm going loopy - literally.

  Read the article

• Spring Webservices and Json

  - by Damo

  Hi Is it possible to send json and receive json using spring webservices? Thanks Damien

  Read the article

1 2 3 4  | Next Page >