I'm integrating with a 3rd party and for the claims configuration, they recommended we create sAM-Account-Name to Name ID, and keep getting this error in the SAML response:
<samlp:Status>
<samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Requester">
<samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:InvalidNameIDPolicy" />
</samlp:StatusCode>
</samlp:Status>
So I assumed I was not sending the correctly formatted NameID. In the SP's metatdata, they have this listed:
<NameIDFormat>
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:transient
</NameIDFormat>
Rightly so, I assume I'm supposed to use the transient NameID format. However, that doesn't work either, and the vendor insists they expect our SAML response to use urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified as the Name ID format. From what I understand, that's default for ADFS.
As a test, I followed the steps here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/card/2010/02/17/name-identifiers-in-saml-assertions/ and was able to get a bogus NameID (transient) to pass to the vendor's site, where it then displayed back in the browser that the username was not valid, so at least I got something which makes me believe I'm on the right track and their authentication server is expecting transient while their application is not.
I would try the steps here, but I don't want to affect my whole claims provider: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/4038.ad-fs-2-0-how-to-request-a-specific-name-id-format-from-a-claims-provider-cp-during-saml-2-0-single-sign-on-sso.aspx
We're running Server 2012 R2 for our ADFS server. This isn't the first Relaying Party Trust we've configured, and our setup is working well with our other vendors. I however, am relatively new to managing ADFS, so I may have missed something simple.
Any thoughts or guidance would be appreciated.
If the claims mapping in ADFS for your relying party includes Active Directory samAccountName to SAML NameID, the "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:transient" specified by the service provider's metadata doesn't really make a lot of sense as this value isn't transient.
As per the SAML v2.0 specification, the optional NameIDPolicy in the SAML authn request "specifies constraints on the name identifier to be used to represent the requested subject".
In practice, it's simpler to either not include a NameIDPolicy so it defaults to "urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:unspecified" or explicitly use this value.
Given the above, the NameIDFormat in the service provider's metadata can be safely ignored and NameIDPolicy not included in the authn request.
The the SP can deny a claim based on its format, which is ultimately the issue. The solution then is the SP should either change their requirements, or one must send the claim in the required format.
In this case, the SP is requiring the claim to be transient, even though they verbally require unspecified (default). Verbal claim requirements don't count when dealing with systems!
To get ADFS configured with this SP, one simply needs to:
Create a transform rule, with the rule template: Send LDAP Attributes as Claims
LDAP attribute is SAM-Account-Name
Outgoing Claim Type is whatever you want it to be (custom text, not from the dropdown)
Create another transform rule with the rule template: Transform an Incoming Claim
The incoming claim type is whatever your Outgoing Claim Type was previous.
The Outgoing claim type is then Name ID with the format as Transient Identifier.
This will allow the sAM-Account-Name to be sent to the SP with a transient format, even though we know that attribute is by definition, not transient.
See screenshots:
Related
I am looking for a way to tie the SAML request I make to an IDP to the SAML Assertion it sends back. Is there a way to do that?
One idea I had was to use the SessionIndex. I have found that in practice, in some cases the SessionIndex can be used to do this, because some SAML servers return the ID from the initial request as the SessionIndex in the SAML Assertion, but I have also found that is not done universally / does not seem to be required by the spec. It seems like the intention of the SessionIndex is just to tie together the SAML Assertion with subsequent calls, e.g. logout attempts, so there's no requirement that it be tied to the initial request. I draw that conclusion from this post, which says "At least one assertion containing an MUST contain a element with at least one element containing a Method of urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer. If the identity provider supports the Single Logout profile, defined in Section 4.4, any such authentication statements MUST include a SessionIndex attribute to enable per-session logout requests by the service provider." I have also reviewed this post, which breaks down the use of SessionIndex and I think supports the same conclusion.
I don't see anything else in the spec that seems promising, but I am hoping I may be missing something - is there any reliable way to pass data to the IDP in a SAML request and get it back in the SAML Assertion?
FYI, the reason why I want this is to support mobile sso login where my mobile device uses an embedded web browser to make an OAuth2 call to my web server, the web server authenticates the user, and then sends back an authorization code to the mobile device with a redirect. I want to use PKCE to secure the OAuth2 flow between the mobile device and the web server, but that requires me to be able to tie the initial request call to the final redirect with a shared code.
There are at least two methods that can be used, so long as the user journey starts where it should, on the page they are trying to get to, making this a service-provider initiated authentication request. As the service provider in a SAML-based federation, you start the process by sending the identity provider an AuthnRequest.
The first method availables comes by tracking the AuthnRequest's ID. In a good SAML implementation, that AuthnRequest's ID is big and random and likely not repeatable in our lifetime. The SAML Profiles spec says on lines 625-626:
If the containing message is in response to an <AuthnRequest>, then
the InResponseTo attribute MUST match the request's ID.
Therefore, as long as you keep track of the ID's that you send out, then you can tie the Request's ID to the Response's inResponseTo.
The second method at your disposal is RelayState. This is an aptly-named element of an AuthnRequest that you can use to transfer state to the Identity Provider an back. This is a field that you can use as you see fit as the service provider, and the responder has to send it back. The Bindings spec says on lines 265-271:
Some bindings define a "RelayState" mechanism for preserving and
conveying state information. When such a mechanism is used in
conveying a request message as the initial step of a SAML protocol, it
places requirements on the selection and use of the binding
subsequently used to convey the response. Namely, if a SAML request
message is accompanied by RelayState data, then the SAML responder
MUST return its SAML protocol response using a binding that also
supports a RelayState mechanism, and it MUST place the exact
RelayState data it received with the request into the corresponding
RelayState parameter in the response.
As such, you can put something in that field, and the IdP must parrot it back untouched. You should make sure that what you put in there doesn't compromise the user or security, so just be mindful of how you use it. It's going to end up in logs somewhere.
I'm reading the SAML specification and experimenting with Keycloak and Shibboleth IdPs and I'm not sure how to implement one feature in an SP-initiated login.
I have a service that traditionally used to have an SP status information displayed on its login page (e.g. application version, status). After switching to using an IdP login page I'd like to keep displaying such per-SP additional information on the login page of the IdP. I'm interested in the data exchange, not in templating the login page itself.
Does SAML 2.0 specification allow for sending arbitrary data to the IdP for the purpose of logging in? If not, what are other options that can be used to decorate IdP login page using SP-generated data?
Sort of. The authentication request from SP to IdP is allowed to have "custom" extensions (the Extensions parent element), the content of the extensions is up to you. From the spec:
[Optional] This extension point contains optional
protocol message extension elements that are agreed on between the
communicating parties. No extension schema is required in order to
make use of this extension point, and even if one is provided, the lax
validation setting does not impose a requirement for the extension to
be valid. SAML extension elements MUST be namespace-qualified in a
non-SAML-defined namespace.
If you're writing your own IdP, you could certainly make use of Extensions and do whatever you wish with it. "Standard" (commercial/OSS) IdPs won't know what to do with your extension. It'd be an interesting test to see if Shibboleth or Keycloak libraries parse the Extensions element and give you the contents.
The other, more standard possibility is using RelayState. This is a spec-compliant way of passing some provider-specific state information around, incl. from SP to IdP:
3.1.1 Use of RelayState Some bindings define a "RelayState" mechanism for preserving and conveying state information. When such a mechanism
is used in conveying a request message as the initial step of a SAML
protocol, it places requirements on the selection and use of the
binding subsequently used to convey the response. Namely, if a SAML
request message is accompanied by RelayState data, then the SAML
responder MUST return its SAML protocol response using a binding that
also supports a RelayState mechanism, and it MUST place the exact
RelayState data it received with the request into the corresponding
RelayState parameter in the response.
Again, all IdPs or downstack libraries will parse RelayState but how they handle it from there depends on their reading of the spec. For one, the spec requires RelayState to be 80 bytes and integrity protection via a signature or "other means". This limitation is often ignored by IdPs and SPs.
What SP-specific information are you trying to display on IdP login page?
The only thing that an SP can send to the IdP is the Subject (see lines 585-589 of the spec).
I!ve a question similar to How To Become a SAML Service Provider, but it misses some part I would like to clear up.
The SAML SSP profile spec describes several possible bindings, and states that the usage depends on SP and IdP setups.
The SAML Conformance and Profiles specifications identify the SAML
bindings that can legally be used with these two messages.
Specifically, an Authentication Request message can be sent from an SP
to an IdP using either the HTTP Redirect Binding, HTTP POST Binding,
or HTTP Artifact Binding. The Response message can be sent from an IdP
to an SP using either the HTTP POST Binding or the HTTP Artifact
Binding. For this pair of messages, SAML permits asymmetry in the
choice of bindings used. That is, a request can be sent using one
binding and the response can be returned using a different binding.
The decision of which bindings to use is typically driven by
configuration settings at the IdP and SP systems. Factors such as
potential message sizes, whether identity information is allowed to
transit through the browser (if not the artifact binding may be
required) , etc. must be considered in the choice of bindings.
The first question I have: as a Service Provider, am I free to choose any one of the SP -> IdP bindings, and it will work with any IdP out there, or I should make this configurable in my implementation and support all the bindings? (Nota bene: I will probably integrate an existing saml library to help my life, but I should know what configuration options should I allow and support on my interfaces.)
The second question is about the SamlResponse coming back from the IdP upon successful authentication. As far as I understand, SAML just tells me that the user suucessfully authenticated with the IdP. As a result I would expect to give me back some user identifiers in the Response, like a uid, username or e-mail address that I can query from a local user db or LDAP and run app-specific authorization logics.
How can I ask the IdP the user identifier I need and how/where will it be returned? I can't see anthing related to this in the Wikipedia example
Depending on what bindings your SAML-IdP and SP server supports, you can choose any combination of binding pair. Typically all major SAML-IdP supports most of binding specified in SAML-spec. Also you have to take security and performance considerations. Artifact is more secure but take two round-trips to complete SAML-Authn process, because it make back-end call communication (unlike POST or Redirect) while sending and receiving SAML messages. If your SAML-IdP and SP server supports binding configuration, then you use those bindings in runtime.
NameID format identifies user between IdP and SP, which is sent in SAML Assertion by IdP. It can be emailAddress, unspecified, transient, persistent and few others. Check Section (8.3) Name Identifier Format Identifiers from SAML Spec for more details. Also you could request IdP to send user attributes (that exist in IdP identity-store) in SAML Assertion.
I've seen a bunch of flow chart on how it is passed around between Identity Provider (IdP), Service Provider (SP), and Browser via Redirects. However it seems unnecessary to me right now, so i know i'm missing something.
Can someone provide me a use case where a SAML Artifact is required (or very useful) compared to not using one?
Thank you.
Typically, the intent of the artifact binding is to reduce the flow of SAML messages through the browser itself. This could be due to browser restrictions (browsers that have limits on query string / POST payload size) or no support for JavaScript (for auto-submitted forms), or even to improve the security model of how the SAML messages are transported. By using artifacts, sensitive data carried through the SAML Assertion / Attribute Statement is not passed through the browser, so it can be hidden from the end user or attackers between your site and the end user. This confidential data would only be directly resolved between sites through a back channel lookup.
Section 3.6.2 of the SAML 2.0 Bindings specs summarizes it best:
The HTTP Artifact binding is intended for cases in which the SAML
requester and responder need to communicate using an HTTP user agent
as an intermediary, but the intermediary's limitations preclude or
discourage the transmission of an entire message (or message exchange)
through it. This may be for technical reasons or because of a
reluctance to expose the message content to the intermediary (and if
the use of encryption is not practical). Note that because of the need
to subsequently resolve the artifact using another synchronous
binding, such as SOAP, a direct communication path must exist between
the SAML message sender and recipient in the reverse direction of the
artifact's transmission (the receiver of the message and artifact must
be able to send a request back to the artifact
issuer). The artifact issuer must also maintain state while the
artifact is pending, which has implications for load-balanced
environments.
Expanding on Scott T's answer, the SAML Artifact Profile was designed to improve security. To prevent a user from modifying it's SAML Assertion mid-traffic (such as changing Username, roles, etc), SAML 2.0 suggests that developers sign assertions via XML signatures. XML Signatures though are extremely vulnerable to XML wrapping attacks because of issues in every languages existing XML parsers. Visit https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/breaking-saml-be-whoever-you-want-be to see XML wrapping attacks in action against SAML Assertions.
The SAML Artifact Profile solves this issue by creating a one-time use "artifact" that is passed to the Service Provider by the user (via redirect or post) rather then the SAML Assertion. When the Service Provider receives the one-time use artifact, it sends a SAML Artifact Resolve Request (containing the artifact) to the Identity Provider's Artifact Resolution Service (ARS). The ARS then responses with a SAML Artifact Response (containing the user's SAML Assertion) thereby preventing the SAML Assertion from ever being modified by the user as it is directly received by the Service Provider over a back channel.
A SAML message is transmitted from one entity to another either by value or by reference. A reference to a SAML message is called an artifact. The receiver of an artifact resolves the reference by sending a request directly to the issuer of the artifact, who then responds with the actual message referenced by the artifact.
Refer SAML 2.0,
Without the artifact there is no way to get to the actual message.
Note that this is only required when using HTTP Artifact Binding. (As opposed to the more common HTTP POST Binding which simple sends the SAML message).
Another reason for using HTTP Artifact binding is that you can use SSL to ensure SAML message integrity and confidentiality. The SAML requester and responder do not need to sign, validate, encrypt, and decrypt the SAML message.
it may be considered out of interest nowadays but the artifact profile is also useful if you have a low bandwidth between the user agent and sp & idp servers and a better bandwith between sp & idp. The (heavy) assertion does not circulate from the idp to the ua and from the ua to the sp and it may show better performance in certain circonstances.
I've implemented my Service Provider and Identify Provider following the SAML Profile for Web SSO using HTTP POST Protocol Binding. However, I am a bit confused as to how the Identity Provider will provide an <AuthnStatement> if the HTTP POST coming from the Service Provider is not tied to a session on the Identity Provider.
Could someone enlighten me how one would be able to do this?
The other approach I could use is the HTTP Redirect Binding, but that requires User-Agent intervention (i.e., the browser), often using the User-Agent simply as a pass-thru intermediary to faciliate the Request-Response message exchange. I'd rather use HTTP POST for this reason, because the message exchange occurs server-side, so the user sees nothing happening on their screen.
However, using HTTP Redirect makes more sense to me with respect to how I'd be able to tie a session to a request. Since the HTTP Redirect is facilitated via a User-Agent, the request to the IdP will have a session (if previously authenticated). What I don't get though is how to send an <AuthnRequest> on a HTTP Redirect. Answered by JST
So I'm a bit confused and would love to hear what other people are doing. Here are my questions again:
Using the HTTP POST Protocol Binding with the IsPassive option the <AuthnRequest>, how do I tie a request made by the Service Provider to a session on the Identity Provider? In other words, how does the Identity Provider know who is making the request if the POST is coming from the Service Provider which is technically an anonymous session?
Using the HTTP Redirect Protocol Binding, how do I send an <AuthnRequest> to the Identity Provider if I am using a HTTP Redirect? Answered by JST
UPDATE
Sorry for the confusion if I was unclear in my explanation above. I am implementing both the IdP and SP (via a plugin). The IdP is an existing application for which I want the SP (a third-party system) to use for authentication (i.e., Web SSO). I am developing a simple PoC at the moment. The SP is actually a third-party Spring application for which I am developing a plugin to perform the SAML operations.
I should have mentioned that I am trying to do this using the IsPassive option, that meaning the User-Agent doesn't come into play during the message exchange. It is simply the catalyst that gets the SAML-party started. Right? With that in mind, given that the user is anonymous at Step 1, what does the SP send to the IdP to allow the IdP figure out whether the user is already authenticated? Because of IsPassive, the HTTP POST isn't sent via the User-Agent
UPDATE
Question 1 Revised: How does the IdP resolve the Principal when the AuthnRequset is sent with the IsPassive option on?
Straight from the SAML 2.0 Profiles document, page 15, lines 417 to 419:
In step 4, the principal is identified
by the identity provide by some means
outside the scope of this profile.
What I'm really after is an explanation how to implement some means.
The thing to keep in mind is that there's no connection between a session on the IdP and a session on the SP. They don't know about each other, and communicate only through the SAML messages. The general steps for SP-initiated SAML SSO are:
Anonymous user visits resource (page) at SP.
SP identifies that user needs to be authenticated at IdP.
SP constructs AuthnRequest and sends to IdP.
IdP does some sort of authentication, constructs SAML Response and sends to SP.
SP validates Response and, if valid, does whatever is necessary to identify user at SP and get them to originally requested resource.
Yes, there does need to be some way to connect the SP's AuthnRequest to the IdP's Response. That's covered by the SAML spec: the SP's AuthnRequest includes an ID value, and the corresponding response from the IdP MUST include an InResponseTo attribute (on its SubjectConfirmationData element) with that ID value. The Authentication Request Protocol also allows the SP to pass a RelayState parameter to the IdP, which the IdP is then REQUIRED to pass along unchanged with the SAML Response. You (in the SP role) can use that RelayState value to capture state information allowing the user to be relayed to the originally requested resource.
That implies that when you implement an SP, you'll need some mechanism for recording ID and RelayState values, and your Response processing needs to validate InResponseTo and RelayState values it receives. How you choose to create and interpret RelayState values is up to you, but keep in mind that there is a length limit. (We use random GUID values corresponding to locally saved state data, which has the extra advantage of not giving any hint of meaning to the RelayState values.)
How does the IdP know who is making the request? The AuthnRequest must include an Issuer element that identifies the SP. It might also contain an AssertionConsumerServiceURL (the URL to which the Response is to be sent), or the IdP may have a local mapping of the Issuer to the proper URL.
How do you send an AuthnRequest using HTTP Redirect? The only difference between AuthnRequest sent using POST vs. Redirect, besides using GET rather than POST, is that the AuthnRequest XML has to get compressed (using the DEFLATE encoding).
Hope that answers most of your questions.
John,
I might suggest taking a step back and doing some more research before you decide to write your own SAML IDP/SP Implementation. You appear to be mixing Bindings with Profiles, Unsolicited vs Solicited Web SSO as well as the fact that SAML requires that the User Agent (aka Browser) is the bearer of almost all the messages between the IDP and SP. There is also a ton of info in the spec that will will have to implement to ensure your solution is actually secure.
I would suggest starting with our SAML Knowledge Base and then moving on to the OASIS SAML 2.0 Technical Overview for information on these flows.
Alternatively, if you decide to go best-of-breed you can check out our PingFederate product which can enable ALL the SAML IDP/SP use cases for you in < a day.
Hope this helps -
Ian
Unlike Ian, I am not associated with a company producing SAML-related products. However, I'd give somewhat similar advice: step back and identify why you are implementing SP or IdP. Are you really acting as both SP and IdP, or are you really just one or the other? If you're implementing/acting as IdP only, then it's fairly likely that a product like PingFederate or something similar offers all you need through configuration rather than requiring you to write custom code. If you're implementing SP, then such a product MAY be able to help you out, but it depends to a large extent on the characteristics of the system you're integrating it into. I am speaking as a developer who has done both IdP and SP implementations, and evaluated several tools before determining that because of our specific system, clients, and requirements, a custom implementation was our best option. It's been in place for over a year, with several clients using it (including some using varying commercial IdP tools).
If you can identify your use cases in terms of SAML profiles/bindings, then you'll be better equipped to make a buy-vs-build decision.