Search Results

Search found 80 results on 4 pages for 'saml'.

Page 1/4 | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

• Looking for feedback on a first SAML implementation.

  - by morgancodes

  Hello, I've been tasked with designing a very simple SSO (single sign-on) process. My employer has specified that it should be implimented in SAML. I'd like to create messages that are absolutely as simple as possible while confirming to the SAML spec. I'd be really grateful if some of you would look at my request and response messages and tell me if they make sense for my purpose, if they include anything that doesn't need to be there, and if they are missing anything that does need to be there. Addionally, I'd like to know where in the response I should put additional information about the subject; in particular, the subject's email address. The interaction needs to work as follows: 1) User requests service from service provider at this point, the service provider knows nothing about the user. 2) Service provider requests authentication for user from identity provider 3) User is authenticated/registered by identity provider 4) Identity provider responds to Service provider with authentication success message, PLUS user's email address. Here's what I think the request should be: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" ID="abc" IssueInstant="1970-01-01T00:00:00.000Z" Version="2.0" AssertionConsumerServiceURL="http://www.IdentityProvider.com/loginPage"> <saml:Issuer xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"> http://www.serviceprovider.com </saml:Issuer> <saml:Subject> <saml:NameID Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:transient">3f7b3dcf-1674-4ecd-92c8-1544f346baf8</saml:NameID> </saml:Subject> Here's what I think the response should be: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <samlp:Response xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" Destination="http://www.serviceprovider.com/desitnationURL" ID="123" IssueInstant="2008-11-21T17:13:42.872Z" Version="2.0"> <samlp:Status> <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/> </samlp:Status> <saml:Assertion xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion" Version="2.0"> <saml:Subject> <saml:NameID Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:transient">3f7b3dcf-1674-4ecd-92c8-1544f346baf8</saml:NameID> <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:profiles:SSO:browser"> <saml:SubjectConfirmationData InResponseTo="abc"/> </saml:SubjectConfirmation> </saml:Subject> <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2008-11-21T17:13:42.899Z"> <saml:AuthnContext> <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport</saml:AuthnContextClassRef> </saml:AuthnContext> </saml:AuthnStatement> </saml:Assertion> </samlp:Response> So, again, my questions are: 1) Is this a valid SAML interaction? 2) Can either the request or response xml be simplified? 3) Where in the response should I put the subject's email address? I really apprecaite your help. Thanks so much! -Morgan

  Read the article

• NameClaimType in ClaimsIdentity from SAML

  - by object88

  I am attempting to understand the world of WIF in context of a WCF Data Service / REST / OData server. I have a hacked up version of SelfSTS that is running inside a unit test project. When the unit tests start, it kicks off a WCF service, which generates my SAML token. This is the SAML token being generated: <saml:Assertion MajorVersion="1" MinorVersion="1" ... > <saml:Conditions>...</saml:Conditions> <saml:AttributeStatement> <saml:Subject> <saml:NameIdentifier Format="EMAIL">4bd406bf-0cf0-4dc4-8e49-57336a479ad2</saml:NameIdentifier> <saml:SubjectConfirmation>...</saml:SubjectConfirmation> </saml:Subject> <saml:Attribute AttributeName="emailaddress" AttributeNamespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims"> <saml:AttributeValue>[email protected]</saml:AttributeValue> </saml:Attribute> <saml:Attribute AttributeName="name" AttributeNamespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims"> <saml:AttributeValue>bob</saml:AttributeValue> </saml:Attribute> </saml:AttributeStatement> <ds:Signature>...</ds:Signature> </saml:Assertion> (I know the Format of my NameIdentifier isn't really EMAIL, this is something I haven't gotten to cleaning up yet.) Inside my actual server, I put some code borrowed from Pablo Cabraro / Cibrax. This code seems to run A-OK, although I confess that I don't understand what's happening. I note that later in my code, when I need to check my identity, Thread.CurrentPrincipal.Identity is an instance of Microsoft.IdentityModel.Claims.ClaimsIdentity, which has a claim for all the attributes, plus a nameidentifier claim with the value in my NameIdentifier element in saml:Subject. It also has a property NameClaimType, which points to "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/05/identity/claims/name". It would make more sense if NameClaimType mapped to nameidentifier, wouldn't it? How do I make that happen? Or am I expecting the wrong thing of the name claim? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Reading SAML Attributes from SAML Token

  - by Shani

  I am loading SAML Token from XML file. string certificatePath = @"D:\Projects\SAMLDemo\Server.pfx"; X509Certificate2 cert = new X509Certificate2(certificatePath, "shani"); string samlFilePath = @"D:\Projects\SAMLDemo\saml.xml"; XmlReader reader = XmlReader.Create(samlFilePath); List<SecurityToken> tokens = new List<SecurityToken>(); tokens.Add(new X509SecurityToken(cert)); SecurityTokenResolver outOfBandTokenResolver = SecurityTokenResolver.CreateDefaultSecurityTokenResolver(new ReadOnlyCollection<SecurityToken>(tokens), true); SecurityToken securityToken = WSSecurityTokenSerializer.DefaultInstance.ReadToken(reader, outOfBandTokenResolver); SamlSecurityToken deserializedSaml = securityToken as SamlSecurityToken; How can I read the SAML attributes from deserializedSaml ? I need string values for the attributes.

  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

• 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

• Moving between sites using SAML

  - by System Down

  I'm tasked with developing an SSO system, and was guided towards using the SAML spec. After some research I think understand the interaction between a Service Provider and an ID Provider and how a user's identity is confirmed. But what happens when I redirect the user to another Service Provider? How do I ascertain the user's identity there? Do I send his SAML assertion tokens along with the redirect request? Or does the second Service Provider need to contact the ID Provider all over again?

  Read the article

• Attributes of attributevalue element in SAML 2 Attribute Statement

  - by AJ

  I am building a web service that receives a SAML attribute query and responds with an attribute statement. I know I can return one or multiple values of a SAML attribute. I have some values that are dependent on the other attribute values. I need to show that relationship. Let us say, the query is for the Subject Dave and the return values are his company and job title. Dave can work at multiple companies with job title at each company. I have two options of sending this data back: Send this as a complextype by defining an attribute organization and return xml within that attribute. <saml:Attribute name="company"> <saml:AttributeValue> <company name="company1" jobtitle="CIO"/> <company name="company2" jobtitle="VP"/> </saml:AttributeValue> Try to send multiple values of attributes somehow sending a reference in attributevalue element. <saml:Attribute name="company"> <attributeValue>company1</attributeValue> <attributeValue>company2</attributeValue> </saml:Attribute> <saml:Attribute name="jobTitle> <attributeValue company="company1">CIO</attributeValue> <attributeValue company="company2">VP</attributeValue> </saml:Attribute> Which approach will you prefer? Why? I am biased towards second approach as it does not require client to know about any schema. It does require them to know about non-standard attribute company in the attribute value.

  Read the article

• WCF, Rampart, ADFS2 and SAML Interop issue

  - by user317647

  Hi, I'm working on establishing interoperability between .NET WCF 3.5 and Axis2/Rampart using ADFS2 as the STS and using SAML authentication. Initially I used Axis 1.4.1/Rampart 1.4 but in an attempt to rule out issues relating to WS-* standards compatbility have also created a duplicate environment running Axis 1.5.1/Rampart 1.5. Both envionment use Eclipse 3.5.1 (Galileo)/Tomcat 5.5 for the Java service side. My objective is: WCF-ADFS2-SAML token-Axis2/Rampart Using Kerberos authentication to obtain a SAML token from ADFS2 and propagating this to Rampart. Much progress has been made so far, but the error I'm now getting on Rampart is as follows (on both versions 1.4 & 1.5): [ERROR] General security error (SAML token security failure) org.apache.axis2.AxisFault: General security error (SAML token security failure) Caused by: org.apache.ws.security.WSSecurityException: General security error (SAML token security failure) at org.apache.ws.security.saml.SAMLUtil.getSAMLKeyInfo(SAMLUtil.java:169) at org.apache.ws.security.saml.SAMLUtil.getSAMLKeyInfo(SAMLUtil.java:73) at org.apache.ws.security.processor.DerivedKeyTokenProcessor.extractSecret(DerivedKeyTokenProcessor.java:170) at org.apache.ws.security.processor.DerivedKeyTokenProcessor.handleToken(DerivedKeyTokenProcessor.java:74) at org.apache.ws.security.WSSecurityEngine.processSecurityHeader(WSSecurityEngine.java:326) at org.apache.ws.security.WSSecurityEngine.processSecurityHeader(WSSecurityEngine.java:243) at org.apache.rampart.RampartEngine.process(RampartEngine.java:144) After building source versions for Rampart (just 1.4 so far) I've traced this problem to the following source code: SAMUtil.java Element e = samlSubj.getKeyInfo(); X509Certificate[] certs = null; try { KeyInfo ki = new KeyInfo(e, null); if (ki.containsX509Data()) { X509Data data = ki.itemX509Data(0); XMLX509Certificate certElem = null; if (data != null && data.containsCertificate()) { certElem = data.itemCertificate(0); } if (certElem != null) { X509Certificate cert = certElem.getX509Certificate(); certs = new X509Certificate[1]; certs[0] = cert; return new SAMLKeyInfo(assertion, certs); } } The line ki.containsX509Data() above return false and fails. The value from the Element e is as follows: CN=Root Agency -147027885241304943914470421251724308948 JMYzUkmrT13JoYj2pGN5o/vxpGq8bKFXI1m18iEFu+5rF0wA4MYURGIEWE9/zg1apgjElQHus5qb4ZRCzg7IHyENCGq7um2w1SXxPzstoMsZ7oZ83Uq08lDdNV51QGzCCOdCi+YizKT7AJ1B6gaplxMnFEJ8TlnzFBCavMxSCho= The attempt to obtain the X509 data above is failing even when it appears in the message? (IssuerSerial). All references I've seen so far indicate that the style of X509 reference is supported by Rampart and WSS4J (default?!). This key reference is the certificate that ADFS2 has used to encrypt the message. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated! Thanks Jason

  Read the article

• How to implement SAML SSO

  - by A_M

  How is SAML SSO typically implemented? I've read this about using SAML with Google Apps, and the wikipedia entry on SAML. The wikipedia entry talks about responding with forms containing details of the SAMLRequest and SAMLResponse. Does this mean that the user has to physically submit the form in order to proceed with the single sign on? The google entry talks about using redirects, which seems more seemless to me. However, it also talks about using a form for the response which the user must submit (although it does talk about using JavaScript to automatically submit the form). Is this the standard way of doing this? Using redirects and JavaScript for form submission? Does anyone know of any other good resources about how to go about implementing SSO between a Windows Domain and a J2EE web application. The web application is on a separate network/domain. My client wants to use CA Siteminder (with SAML).

  Read the article

• SAML Identity Provider based on Active Directory

  - by Jarret

  I have a 3rd party program that supports web SSO using SAML 1.1 (it is ready to serve as the Service Provider, in other words). We would like to implement this SSO for our intranet users based on their Active Directory credentials. In other words, they've already logged on to their system, so let's simply use those credentials to facilitate an SSO. I am a little overwhelmed at where to begin, though. My initial thought is that IIS / Active Directory could easily serve as the Identity Provider since IIS gives us "Integrated Windows Authentication" abilities. I would think we could just create a .NET web app that requires Integrated Authentication which simply extracts the current user ID, builds the SAML response, and re-directs the user back to the Service Provider with this SAML response to complete the SSO. But then, my problem is that I simply have no real idea of how to go about creating this SAML response, the X.509 certs involved, etc... I am wondering if I am in over my head on this, or if creating this SAML response should be relatively easy. Note this SSO is to be used by intranet users only, so no need to worry about federating with other companies / domains.

  Read the article

• SAML with .NET 2.0

  - by mjmcinto

  I've been given the task of working with SAML to implement an SSO solution between my company and a third party provider. My only issue is that I can't seem to find how to implement SAML in C# 2.0. I've been able to find a few examples for .Net 3.0 and 3.5, but none for 2.9 (and the classes they use don't appear to be available in 2.0). Does anyone know of any oline examples using SAML and C# 2.0?

  Read the article

• Relative security of SAML vs Kerberos

  - by Robert Gowland

  Does anyone have any info/links on the relative security of SAML vs Kerberos. I believe I grasp the differences between the two, and what they mean for my particular application, but to decided between the two, knowing which is more secure, if either, would be a valuable bit of info.

  Read the article

• Can SAML use saleforce login information to log into another system inside a view?

  - by steve

  I want my sales people, whom use salesforce every day, to be able to view orders in a ecommerce system through a dashboard view in salesforce. The ecom is built and sitting on my web server but the sales reps dont like to log into too many things in one day so they are not using what I built them. I read recently that salesforce can use SAML but it was unclear as to what you can do with it. What I'd like, is to make a new dash board view that will open up the ecom inside of salesforce. The ecom uses a login system but if it is inside of saleforce would SAML automatically log into the ecom?

  Read the article

• Validate java SAML signature from C#

  - by Adrya

  How can i validate in .Net C# a SAML signature created in Java? Here is the SAML Signature that i get from Java: <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> <ds:SignedInfo> <ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"> </ds:CanonicalizationMethod> <ds:SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"> </ds:SignatureMethod> <ds:Reference URI="#_e8bcba9d1c76d128938bddd5ae8c68e1"> <ds:Transforms> <ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature"> </ds:Transform> <ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"> <ec:InclusiveNamespaces xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#" PrefixList="code ds kind rw saml samlp typens #default xsd xsi"> </ec:InclusiveNamespaces> </ds:Transform> </ds:Transforms> <ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"> </ds:DigestMethod> <ds:DigestValue>zEL7mB0Wkl+LtjMViO1imbucXiE=</ds:DigestValue> </ds:Reference> </ds:SignedInfo> <ds:SignatureValue> jpIX3WbX9SCFnqrpDyLj4TeJN5DGIvlEH+o/mb9M01VGdgFRLtfHqIm16BloApUPg2dDafmc9DwL Pyvs3TJ/hi0Q8f0ucaKdIuw+gBGxWFMcj/U68ZuLiv7U+Qe7i4ZA33rWPorkE82yfMacGf6ropPt v73mC0bpBP1ubo5qbM4= </ds:SignatureValue> <ds:KeyInfo> <ds:X509Data> <ds:X509Certificate> MIIDBDCCAeygAwIBAgIIC/ktBs1lgYcwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwNzERMA8GA1UEAwwIQWRtaW5D QTExFTATBgNVBAoMDEVKQkNBIFNhbXBsZTELMAkGA1UEBhMCU0UwHhcNMDkwMjIzMTAwMzEzWhcN MTgxMDE1MDkyNTQyWjBaMRQwEgYDVQQDDAsxMC41NS40MC42MTEbMBkGA1UECwwST24gRGVtYW5k IFBsYXRmb3JtMRIwEAYDVQQLDAlPbiBEZW1hbmQxETAPBgNVBAsMCFNvZnR3YXJlMIGfMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCk5EqiedxA6WEE9N2vegSCqleFpXMfGplkrcPOdXTRLLOuRgQJ LEsOaqspDFoqk7yJgr7kaQROjB9OicSH7Hhsu7HbdD6N3ntwQYoeNZ8nvLSSx4jz21zvswxAqw1p DoGl3J6hks5owL4eYs2yRHvqgqXyZoxCccYwc4fYzMi42wIDAQABo3UwczAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUkrpk yryZToKXOXuiU2hNsKXLbyIwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBSiviFUK7DUsjvByMfK g+pm4b2s7DAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwEwYDVR0lBAwwCgYIKwYBBQUHAwEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQADggEBAKb94tnK2obEyvw8ZJ87u7gvkMxIezpBi/SqXTEBK1by0NHs8VJmdDN9+aOvC5np4fOL fFcRH++n6fvemEGgIkK3pOmNL5WiPpbWxrx55Yqwnr6eLsbdATALE4cgyZWHl/E0uVO2Ixlqeygw XTfg450cCWj4yfPTVZ73raKaDTWZK/Tnt7+ulm8xN+YWUIIbtW3KBQbGomqOzpftALyIKLVtBq7L J0hgsKGHNUnssWj5dt3bYrHgzaWLlpW3ikdRd67Nf0c1zOEgKHNEozrtRKiLLy+3bIiFk0CHImac 1zeqLlhjrG3OmIsIjxc1Vbc0+E+z6Unco474oSGf+D1DO+Y= </ds:X509Certificate> </ds:X509Data> </ds:KeyInfo> </ds:Signature> I know to parse SAML, i need to validate the signature. I tried this: public bool VerifySignature() { X509Certificate2 certificate = null; XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument(); XmlElement xmlAssertionElement = this.GetXml(doc); doc.AppendChild(xmlAssertionElement); // Create a new SignedXml object and pass it // the XML document class. SamlSignedXml signedXml = new SamlSignedXml(xmlAssertionElement); // Get signature XmlElement xmlSignature = this.Signature; if (xmlSignature == null) { return false; } // Load the signature node. signedXml.LoadXml(xmlSignature); // Get the certificate used to sign the assertion if information about this // certificate is available in the signature of the assertion. foreach (KeyInfoClause clause in signedXml.KeyInfo) { if (clause is KeyInfoX509Data) { if (((KeyInfoX509Data)clause).Certificates.Count > 0) { certificate = (X509Certificate2)((KeyInfoX509Data)clause).Certificates[0]; } } } if (certificate == null) { return false; } return signedXml.CheckSignature(certificate, true); } It validates the signature of a SAML signed in .Net but not of this Java one.

  Read the article

• Performing a SAML Post with C#

  Code performing a SAML Post which can be used for Single Sign On applications

  Read the article

• In WCF How Can I add SAML 2.0 assertion to SOAP Header?

  - by Tone

  I'm trying to add the saml 2.0 assertion node from the soap header example below - I came across the samlassertion type in the .net framework but that looks like it is only for saml 1.1. <S:Header> <To xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">https://rs1.greenwaymedical.com:8181/CONNECTGateway/EntityService/NhincProxyXDRRequestSecured</To> <Action xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">tns:ProvideAndRegisterDocumentSet-bRequest_Request</Action> <ReplyTo xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <Address>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</Address> </ReplyTo> <MessageID xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">uuid:662ee047-3437-4781-a8d2-ee91bc940ef0</MessageID> <wsse:Security S:mustUnderstand="1"> <wsu:Timestamp xmlns:ns17="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-secureconversation/200512" xmlns:ns16="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" wsu:Id="_1"> <wsu:Created>2010-05-26T03:51:57Z</wsu:Created> <wsu:Expires>2010-05-26T03:56:57Z</wsu:Expires> </wsu:Timestamp> <saml2:Assertion xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:exc14n="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#" xmlns:saml2="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion" xmlns:xenc="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ID="bd1ecf8d-a6d8-488d-9183-a11227c6a219" IssueInstant="2010-05-26T03:51:57.959Z" Version="2.0"> <saml2:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName">CN=SAML User,OU=SU,O=SAML User,L=Los Angeles,ST=CA,C=US</saml2:Issuer> <saml2:Subject> <saml2:NameID Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName">UID=kskagerb</saml2:NameID> <saml2:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:holder-of-key"> <saml2:SubjectConfirmationData> <ds:KeyInfo> <ds:KeyValue> <ds:RSAKeyValue> <ds:Modulus>p4jUkEUg..gwO7U=</ds:Modulus> <ds:Exponent>AQAB</ds:Exponent> </ds:RSAKeyValue> </ds:KeyValue> </ds:KeyInfo> </saml2:SubjectConfirmationData> </saml2:SubjectConfirmation> </saml2:Subject> <saml2:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2009-04-16T13:15:39.000Z" SessionIndex="987"> <saml2:SubjectLocality Address="158.147.185.168" DNSName="cs.myharris.net"/> <saml2:AuthnContext> <saml2:AuthnContextClassRef>urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509</saml2:AuthnContextClassRef> </saml2:AuthnContext> </saml2:AuthnStatement> <saml2:AttributeStatement> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xspa:1.0:subject:subject-id"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">Karl S Skagerberg</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xspa:1.0:subject:organization"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">InternalTest2</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xspa:1.0:subject:organization-id"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">2.2</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:nhin:names:saml:homeCommunityId"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">2.16.840.1.113883.3.441</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:2.0:subject:role"> <saml2:AttributeValue> <hl7:Role xmlns:hl7="urn:hl7-org:v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" code="307969004" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.96" codeSystemName="SNOMED_CT" displayName="Public Health" xsi:type="hl7:CE"/> </saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xspa:1.0:subject:purposeofuse"> <saml2:AttributeValue> <hl7:PurposeForUse xmlns:hl7="urn:hl7-org:v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" code="PUBLICHEALTH" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.3.18.7.1" codeSystemName="nhin-purpose" displayName="Use or disclosure of Psychotherapy Notes" xsi:type="hl7:CE"/> </saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:2.0:resource:resource-id"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">500000000^^^&amp;1.1&amp;ISO</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> </saml2:AttributeStatement> <saml2:AuthzDecisionStatement Decision="Permit" Resource="https://158.147.185.168:8181/SamlReceiveService/SamlProcessWS"> <saml2:Action Namespace="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:action:rwedc">Execute</saml2:Action> <saml2:Evidence> <saml2:Assertion ID="40df7c0a-ff3e-4b26-baeb-f2910f6d05a9" IssueInstant="2009-04-16T13:10:39.093Z" Version="2.0"> <saml2:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName">CN=SAML User,OU=Harris,O=HITS,L=Melbourne,ST=FL,C=US</saml2:Issuer> <saml2:Conditions NotBefore="2009-04-16T13:10:39.093Z" NotOnOrAfter="2009-12-31T12:00:00.000Z"/> <saml2:AttributeStatement> <saml2:Attribute Name="AccessConsentPolicy" NameFormat="http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/nhin"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">Claim-Ref-1234</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="InstanceAccessConsentPolicy" NameFormat="http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/nhin"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">Claim-Instance-1</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> </saml2:AttributeStatement> </saml2:Assertion> </saml2:Evidence> </saml2:AuthzDecisionStatement> <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> <ds:SignedInfo> <ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> <ds:SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"/> <ds:Reference URI="#bd1ecf8d-a6d8-488d-9183-a11227c6a219"> <ds:Transforms> <ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature"/> <ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> </ds:Transforms> <ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"/> <ds:DigestValue>ONbZqPUyFVPMx4v9vvpJGNB4cao=</ds:DigestValue> </ds:Reference> </ds:SignedInfo> <ds:SignatureValue>Dm/aW5bB..pF93s=</ds:SignatureValue> <ds:KeyInfo> <ds:KeyValue> <ds:RSAKeyValue> <ds:Modulus>p4jUkEU..bzqgwO7U=</ds:Modulus> <ds:Exponent>AQAB</ds:Exponent> </ds:RSAKeyValue> </ds:KeyValue> </ds:KeyInfo> </ds:Signature> </saml2:Assertion> <ds:Signature xmlns:ns17="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-secureconversation/200512" xmlns:ns16="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" Id="_2"> <ds:SignedInfo> <ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"> <exc14n:InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList="wsse S"/> </ds:CanonicalizationMethod> <ds:SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"/> <ds:Reference URI="#_1"> <ds:Transforms> <ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"> <exc14n:InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList="wsu wsse S"/> </ds:Transform> </ds:Transforms> <ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"/> <ds:DigestValue> <Include xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include" href="cid:[email protected]"/> </ds:DigestValue> </ds:Reference> </ds:SignedInfo> <ds:SignatureValue> <Include xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include" href="cid:[email protected]"/> </ds:SignatureValue> <ds:KeyInfo> <wsse:SecurityTokenReference wsse11:TokenType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/oasis-wss-saml-token-profile-1.1#SAMLV2.0"> <wsse:KeyIdentifier ValueType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/oasis-wss-saml-token-profile-1.1#SAMLID">bd1ecf8d-a6d8-488d-9183-a11227c6a219</wsse:KeyIdentifier> </wsse:SecurityTokenReference> </ds:KeyInfo> </ds:Signature> </wsse:Security> </S:Header> I've been researching for days and cannot seem to come up with a straightforward way of doing this in WCF. The web service is running on Glassfish and is soap 1.1, I've tried using all the packaged wcf bindings but have not been able to get them to work. I started down the path of using a MessageInspector, and wrote one but then realized there must be a better way, surely WCF provides some way to insert saml 2.0 assertions. I've made the most progress writing a custom binding - i've been able to get the timestamp and signature nodes in the soap header, but cannot for the life of me figure out the saml assertion. Any ideas? public static System.ServiceModel.Channels.Binding BuildCONNECTCustomBinding() { TransportSecurityBindingElement transportSecurityBindingElement = SecurityBindingElement.CreateCertificateOverTransportBindingElement(MessageSecurityVersion.WSSecurity10WSTrustFebruary2005WSSecureConversationFebruary2005WSSecurityPolicy11BasicSecurityProfile10); TextMessageEncodingBindingElement textMessageEncodingBindingElement = new TextMessageEncodingBindingElement(MessageVersion.Soap11WSAddressing10, System.Text.Encoding.UTF8); HttpsTransportBindingElement httpsTransportBindingElement = new HttpsTransportBindingElement(); SecurityTokenReferenceType securityTokenReference = new SecurityTokenReferenceType(); BindingElementCollection bindingElementCollection = new BindingElementCollection(); bindingElementCollection.Add(transportSecurityBindingElement); bindingElementCollection.Add(textMessageEncodingBindingElement); bindingElementCollection.Add(httpsTransportBindingElement); CustomBinding cb = new CustomBinding(bindingElementCollection); cb.CreateBindingElements(); return cb; }

  Read the article

• In a WCF Client How Can I add SAML 2.0 assertion to SOAP Header?

  - by Tone

  I'm trying to add the saml 2.0 assertion node from the soap header example below - I came across the samlassertion type in the .net framework but that looks like it is only for saml 1.1. <S:Header> <To xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">https://rs1.greenwaymedical.com:8181/CONNECTGateway/EntityService/NhincProxyXDRRequestSecured</To> <Action xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">tns:ProvideAndRegisterDocumentSet-bRequest_Request</Action> <ReplyTo xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <Address>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</Address> </ReplyTo> <MessageID xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">uuid:662ee047-3437-4781-a8d2-ee91bc940ef0</MessageID> <wsse:Security S:mustUnderstand="1"> <wsu:Timestamp xmlns:ns17="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-secureconversation/200512" xmlns:ns16="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" wsu:Id="_1"> <wsu:Created>2010-05-26T03:51:57Z</wsu:Created> <wsu:Expires>2010-05-26T03:56:57Z</wsu:Expires> </wsu:Timestamp> <saml2:Assertion xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:exc14n="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#" xmlns:saml2="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion" xmlns:xenc="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ID="bd1ecf8d-a6d8-488d-9183-a11227c6a219" IssueInstant="2010-05-26T03:51:57.959Z" Version="2.0"> <saml2:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName">CN=SAML User,OU=SU,O=SAML User,L=Los Angeles,ST=CA,C=US</saml2:Issuer> <saml2:Subject> <saml2:NameID Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName">UID=kskagerb</saml2:NameID> <saml2:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:holder-of-key"> <saml2:SubjectConfirmationData> <ds:KeyInfo> <ds:KeyValue> <ds:RSAKeyValue> <ds:Modulus>p4jUkEUg..gwO7U=</ds:Modulus> <ds:Exponent>AQAB</ds:Exponent> </ds:RSAKeyValue> </ds:KeyValue> </ds:KeyInfo> </saml2:SubjectConfirmationData> </saml2:SubjectConfirmation> </saml2:Subject> <saml2:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2009-04-16T13:15:39.000Z" SessionIndex="987"> <saml2:SubjectLocality Address="158.147.185.168" DNSName="cs.myharris.net"/> <saml2:AuthnContext> <saml2:AuthnContextClassRef>urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509</saml2:AuthnContextClassRef> </saml2:AuthnContext> </saml2:AuthnStatement> <saml2:AttributeStatement> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xspa:1.0:subject:subject-id"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">Karl S Skagerberg</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xspa:1.0:subject:organization"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">InternalTest2</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xspa:1.0:subject:organization-id"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">2.2</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:nhin:names:saml:homeCommunityId"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">2.16.840.1.113883.3.441</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:2.0:subject:role"> <saml2:AttributeValue> <hl7:Role xmlns:hl7="urn:hl7-org:v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" code="307969004" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.6.96" codeSystemName="SNOMED_CT" displayName="Public Health" xsi:type="hl7:CE"/> </saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xspa:1.0:subject:purposeofuse"> <saml2:AttributeValue> <hl7:PurposeForUse xmlns:hl7="urn:hl7-org:v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" code="PUBLICHEALTH" codeSystem="2.16.840.1.113883.3.18.7.1" codeSystemName="nhin-purpose" displayName="Use or disclosure of Psychotherapy Notes" xsi:type="hl7:CE"/> </saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="urn:oasis:names:tc:xacml:2.0:resource:resource-id"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">500000000^^^&amp;1.1&amp;ISO</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> </saml2:AttributeStatement> <saml2:AuthzDecisionStatement Decision="Permit" Resource="https://158.147.185.168:8181/SamlReceiveService/SamlProcessWS"> <saml2:Action Namespace="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:action:rwedc">Execute</saml2:Action> <saml2:Evidence> <saml2:Assertion ID="40df7c0a-ff3e-4b26-baeb-f2910f6d05a9" IssueInstant="2009-04-16T13:10:39.093Z" Version="2.0"> <saml2:Issuer Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:X509SubjectName">CN=SAML User,OU=Harris,O=HITS,L=Melbourne,ST=FL,C=US</saml2:Issuer> <saml2:Conditions NotBefore="2009-04-16T13:10:39.093Z" NotOnOrAfter="2009-12-31T12:00:00.000Z"/> <saml2:AttributeStatement> <saml2:Attribute Name="AccessConsentPolicy" NameFormat="http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/nhin"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">Claim-Ref-1234</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> <saml2:Attribute Name="InstanceAccessConsentPolicy" NameFormat="http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/nhin"> <saml2:AttributeValue xmlns:ns6="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:ns7="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" ns6:type="ns7:string">Claim-Instance-1</saml2:AttributeValue> </saml2:Attribute> </saml2:AttributeStatement> </saml2:Assertion> </saml2:Evidence> </saml2:AuthzDecisionStatement> <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> <ds:SignedInfo> <ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> <ds:SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"/> <ds:Reference URI="#bd1ecf8d-a6d8-488d-9183-a11227c6a219"> <ds:Transforms> <ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#enveloped-signature"/> <ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> </ds:Transforms> <ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"/> <ds:DigestValue>ONbZqPUyFVPMx4v9vvpJGNB4cao=</ds:DigestValue> </ds:Reference> </ds:SignedInfo> <ds:SignatureValue>Dm/aW5bB..pF93s=</ds:SignatureValue> <ds:KeyInfo> <ds:KeyValue> <ds:RSAKeyValue> <ds:Modulus>p4jUkEU..bzqgwO7U=</ds:Modulus> <ds:Exponent>AQAB</ds:Exponent> </ds:RSAKeyValue> </ds:KeyValue> </ds:KeyInfo> </ds:Signature> </saml2:Assertion> <ds:Signature xmlns:ns17="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-secureconversation/200512" xmlns:ns16="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" Id="_2"> <ds:SignedInfo> <ds:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"> <exc14n:InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList="wsse S"/> </ds:CanonicalizationMethod> <ds:SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"/> <ds:Reference URI="#_1"> <ds:Transforms> <ds:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"> <exc14n:InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList="wsu wsse S"/> </ds:Transform> </ds:Transforms> <ds:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"/> <ds:DigestValue> <Include xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include" href="cid:[email protected]"/> </ds:DigestValue> </ds:Reference> </ds:SignedInfo> <ds:SignatureValue> <Include xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include" href="cid:[email protected]"/> </ds:SignatureValue> <ds:KeyInfo> <wsse:SecurityTokenReference wsse11:TokenType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/oasis-wss-saml-token-profile-1.1#SAMLV2.0"> <wsse:KeyIdentifier ValueType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/oasis-wss-saml-token-profile-1.1#SAMLID">bd1ecf8d-a6d8-488d-9183-a11227c6a219</wsse:KeyIdentifier> </wsse:SecurityTokenReference> </ds:KeyInfo> </ds:Signature> </wsse:Security> </S:Header> I've been researching for days and cannot seem to come up with a straightforward way of doing this in WCF. The web service is running on Glassfish and is soap 1.1, I've tried using all the packaged wcf bindings but have not been able to get them to work. I started down the path of using a MessageInspector, and wrote one but then realized there must be a better way, surely WCF provides some way to insert saml 2.0 assertions. I've made the most progress writing a custom binding - i've been able to get the timestamp and signature nodes in the soap header, but cannot for the life of me figure out the saml assertion. Any ideas? public static System.ServiceModel.Channels.Binding BuildCONNECTCustomBinding() { TransportSecurityBindingElement transportSecurityBindingElement = SecurityBindingElement.CreateCertificateOverTransportBindingElement(MessageSecurityVersion.WSSecurity10WSTrustFebruary2005WSSecureConversationFebruary2005WSSecurityPolicy11BasicSecurityProfile10); TextMessageEncodingBindingElement textMessageEncodingBindingElement = new TextMessageEncodingBindingElement(MessageVersion.Soap11WSAddressing10, System.Text.Encoding.UTF8); HttpsTransportBindingElement httpsTransportBindingElement = new HttpsTransportBindingElement(); SecurityTokenReferenceType securityTokenReference = new SecurityTokenReferenceType(); BindingElementCollection bindingElementCollection = new BindingElementCollection(); bindingElementCollection.Add(transportSecurityBindingElement); bindingElementCollection.Add(textMessageEncodingBindingElement); bindingElementCollection.Add(httpsTransportBindingElement); CustomBinding cb = new CustomBinding(bindingElementCollection); cb.CreateBindingElements(); return cb; }

  Read the article

• WCF service consuming passively issued SAML token

  - by Neillyboy

  What is the best way to pass an existing SAML token from a website already authenticated via a passive STS? We have built an Identity Provider which is issuing passive claims to the website for authentication. We have this working. Now we would like to add some WCF services into the mix - calling them from the context of the already authenticated web application. Ideally we would just like to pass the SAML token on without doing anything to it (i.e. adding new claims / re-signing). All of the examples I have seen require the ActAs sts implementation - but is this really necessary? This seems a bit bloated for what we want to achieve. I would have thought a simple implementation passing the bootstrap token into the channel - using the CreateChannelActingAs or CreateChannelWithIssuedToken mechanism (and setting ChannelFactory.Credentials.SupportInteractive = false) to call the WCF service with the correct binding (what would that be?) would have been enough. We are using the Fabrikam example code as reference, but as I say, think the ActAs functionality here is overkill for what we are trying to achieve.

  Read the article

• Are these saml request-response good enough?

  - by Ashwin

  I have set up a single sign on(SSO) for my services. All the services confirm the identity of the user using the IDPorvider(IDP). In my case I am also the IDP. In my saml request, I have included the following: 1. the level for which auth. is required. 2. the consumer url 3. the destination service url. 4. Issuer Then, encrypting this message with the SP's(service provider) private key and then with the IDP's Public key. Then I am sending this request. The IDP on receiving the request, first decrypts with his own private key and then with SP's public key. In the saml response: 1. destination url 2. Issuer 3. Status of the response Is this good enough? Please give your suggestions?

  Read the article

• SAML vs federated login with OAuth

  - by Chung Wu

  What's the difference between SAML and federated login with OAuth? Which solution makes more sense, if a company wants to use a third-party webapp, and but also wants single sign-on and be the authentication authority?

  Read the article

• SAML library/component for .NET

  - by joshb

  Can anyone recommend libraries for generating SAML assertions for a federated sign-on implementation in .NET. It would be ideal if it was integrated with the ASP.NET membership API.

  Read the article

• SAML Authentication Portal

  - by Alvin Jones

  I'd like to develop a portal similar to what a company like OneLogin (http://www.onelogin.com/) has: The user would login with their login credentials then have links to the web resources that their account is associated with. When they see their resources all they need to do is click on them and they'll be automatically login in (SAML authentication). Are there any open source projects out there that have started on this effort? It would be great if there was something that we could use as a base to build on top of with a friendly license (e.g. MIT). Thanks

  Read the article

• How do I implement SAML 2.0 in a WCF Client?

  - by Tone

  I need to implement SAML 2.0 for a WCF client that is talking to a java web service (Glassfish). I know very little about SAML, and after a bit of searching here (and elsewhere) I do not find much about how to implement with WCF. Since WCF abstracts you away from the SOAP layer how can I add SAML assertions to the SOAP header? Will a 3rd party tool like ComponentSpace work best? Or should I roll my own? Other advice?

  Read the article

• SAML Request / Response decoding.

  - by Shawn Cicoria

  When you’re working with Web SSO integration, sometimes it’s helpful to be able to decode the tokens that get passed around via the browser from the various participants in the trust – RP, STS, etc. With SAML tokens, sometimes they’re simply base64 encoded when they’re in the POST body; other times they’re part of the query string, which they end up being base64encoded, deflated, then Url encoded. I always end up putting together some simple tool that does this for me – so, this is an effort to make this more permanent. It’s a simple WinForms application that is using NetFx 4.0. Download

  Read the article

1 2 3 4  | Next Page >