I have configured the cas server to communicate with a cas client application by cas protocol and the service ticket is in form of jwt token. I want to make the cas server be able to forward this ticket to a server outside, for example the server which running my own ticket handler instead of the server running the cas client. Is there any possibility to achieve this in a good manner?
Is there any possibility to achieve this in a good manner?
Absolutely not, and this is not a good idea at all. You either need to use proxy tickets, or a proper application of something like OIDC and a relevant profile. Anything else likely is a spaghetti and will lead to a broken implementation.
Related
I have an existing JSF application that is secured by a CAS Server (version 3.5.3).
Due to customizations I am not able to update the CAS Server to a new version. So there are no OIDC, OAuth2 or other state-of-the-art protocols available. Only CAS and an early version of SAML I think.
I would like to establish SSO to an external Keycloak of a service provider. They want me to set up an internal Identity Provider that connects to their external IDP.
I have done this before with Keycloak, but in that old case my internal Keycloak has been the single point of authentication. This time it's CAS.
Is there a way to pass the authentication from CAS 3.5.3 to my internal Keycloak without logging in again?
I have thought of implementing a Custom User Storage Provider SPI to connect to my existing user database. But then I would have to log in again to my Keycloak. Is this true?
Is this achievable by implementing the CAS protocol to my internal Keycloak using an CAS Extension? I think that this allows Keycloak to crate a client using CAS protocol, but not to SSO by an existing CAS server and the user has to login to my Keyloak. Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
Is there a way to pass the authentication from CAS 3.5.3 to my internal Keycloak without logging in again?
No, and if there is one, it will require LOTS and LOTS of coding and development. If you're not able to upgrade, you most likely will not be able to make such changes anyway.
There is an plugin for external SAML2 authentication here, which should allow CAS login requests to be redirected to an external SAML2 IDP:
https://github.com/UniconLabs/cas-saml-auth
If your keycloak supports SAML2, maybe this can work. Note that the plugin has not been touched since 2016, and there is no support for it from anyone. You will be 100% on your own, if you decide to go with it.
I know Central Authentication Service (CAS) and Kerberos both could be utilized to authenticated for establishing the session.The two protocols involves at least three parties,and will create a Ticket Granting Ticket duration authentication,so which differences are there between CAS and Kerberos?
Anyone could help? Thank you!
[UPDATE]
#Fred said (please see reply below)
it(CAS) is a way to proxy authentication services like Kerberos or
LDAP on the Web.
However,JASIG states "CAS then generates a ticket and a transient cookie transmitted over SSL to be stored in Browser memory" (https://wiki.jasig.org/display/CAS/Extended+Authentication+Walkthroughs), so I guess CAS isn't just like a proxy because it itself can generate a ticket. Am I right?
Please shed a light on me, thanks!
CAS is not an authentication service in and of itself, but it is a way to proxy authentication services like Kerberos or LDAP on the Web.
At the time CAS was invented there was little support for kerberos in either the browser or the server. So CAS ( and Stanford WebAuth, and the one Duke wrote and ... ) all came up with various ways to emulate the kind of authentication service Kerberos provides using what was available in the browser. (i.e. stuffing things that look a lot like kerberos service tickets into browser cookies... )
Even now, kerberos support is not uniformly available in all browsers and all servers. Configuring your browser to do kerberos authentication via SPNEGO can vary from completely automatic to next to impossible. If you have a web based application, your best bet is to use something like CAS to do cookie-based authentication. A proxy service like CAS will work with any browser that supports cookies.
Kerberos does not support session key and only use algorithm verification。
I installed PingFederate on an AWS EC2 running Windows_Server-2008-R2_SP1-English-64Bit-Base-2014.04.09. I have a Java application that is using Spring Security for authentication.
I have read about how with PingFederate, I can set up an Identity Provider(IdP) and a Service Provider(SP). I have gathered that the IdP would be the Application User providing login credentials(the Identity) and passing this to the SP which has the Target Application apart of the SP in this diagram on this page here:
http://documentation.pingidentity.com/display/PF66/Service+Providers+and+Identity+Providers
This image also shows the Federated Identity Software on both sides of the IdP and the SP.
I have created an IdP and SP with my local PingFederate server just to see what the configuration options are and I am confused on which parts of this I actually need to be able to have a SSO for my Spring Security application.
My questions are:
Do I need an IdP and SP to implement that I am trying to do.
Right now our usernames and passwords are stored in a SQL Server, would I leverage this for PingFederate to use to authenticate the users?
Should I even be using Spring Security SAML for this or would another route be more appropriate?
Thanks for any help, I have reached out to PingFederate but my Regional Solutions Architect happens to be out until Friday.
I also apologize if I am completely off in my thinking, I am trying to wrap my mind around what is needed.
Presuming your goal is to establish federation between Ping and your application (in order to e.g. externalize authentication or enable single sign-on), your thinking is correct.
The Ping Federate serves as an Identity Provider (IDP) and you can configure it to connect to your SQL server, so that it can authenticate your existing users from there. IDP communicates with other applications which are called Service Providers (SP).
In order to connect to Ping your application therefore needs to be able to act as a SAML 2.0 Service Provider and using Spring SAML is a very good way to enable it to do so.
The typical flow of data between SP and IDP for single sign-on is similar to:
User accesses SP application which requires authentication
SP creates an AuthenticationRequest and sends it to IDP (using redirect in user's browser)
IDP processes the request and authenticates the user
IDP responds back to SP with an AuthenticationResponse message
SP processes the response and creates a session for the user based on the included data
There is an assumption being made that you need SAML between your Spring app and PingFederate. That is not true depending on how it is deployed and if you (see Andy K follow-up questions). You should check out the OpenToken Integration Kit for Java or perhaps the ReferenceID Int Kit from Ping as a possible solution. Much simpler to integrate than trying to hack together another SAML solution that may not be needed. However, I would recommend talking to your RSA who can give you the best approach for your scenario.
Our IT staff refuses to install the SiteMinder agent on our application's IIS 6.0 web server, citing security concerns as it is a third-party software, as well as the possibility of high resource utilization impacting application performance.
They suggest that we set up an independent, segregated web server containing only a bare-bones IIS, the SiteMinder Agent, and a "shim" to authenticate login attempts.
This shim would be a single ASPX page marked to be protected by the agent. It would use the SiteMinder agent to authenticate the user ID, look up the user ID in the application's database, and return the user ID and password to the user's browser. A JavaScript function would then POST the user ID and password to the application's existing login page as if they typed it in themselves.
Are their concerns warranted? Why or why not?
Have you ever heard of anyone implementing a similar architecture?
Is their proposed solution good, bad, or ugly?
It does not look like it would work, because the agent manages not only the initial login, but subsequent calls to the application, i.e. authenticated session. The agent examines the cookie, validates it, etc. Your scenario does not describe how that would happen.
In our environment, all internet traffic goes through an Apache reverse proxy before hitting IIS. IIS is behind firewall. The Apache reverse proxy has the SM agent all it does is redirect the traffic to IIS. I suppose it would be feasible to do a similar setup with IIS acting as a reverse proxy.
BTW, tell your IT guy that his proposed shoestring and bubblegum login solution is a much bigger security concern than installing SiteMinder on IIS.
The apache reverse proxy solution will definitely work, but with SiteMinder r12.51, Secure Proxy Server is included, which is basically SiteMinder's version of a reverse proxy (plus a lot more).
SPS will let you configure a single server as a "gateway" for all of your applications that can't or won't install a SiteMinder agent. The web agent is embedded in SPS and a proprietary Java app does the heavy lifting. SPS also has a GUI which follows the look and feel of the r12 WAMUI, which makes configuring it very simple.
Secure Proxy Server also has a Federation Gateway feature, so you don't need to install the web agent option pack if you are doing SAML Federation. All of your fcc pages can also be served by the SPS, so you can reduce the number of webservers needed to support your SSO environment.
I am completely new to SiteMinder and SSO in general. I poked around on SO and CA's web site all afternoon for a basic example and can't find one. I don't care about setting up or programming SM or anything like that. All of that is already done by someone else. I just want to adapt my JS web app to use SM for authentication.
I get that SM will add a HTTP header with a key such as SM_USER that will tell me who the user is. What I don't get is -- what prevents anyone from adding this header themselves and bypassing SM entirely? What do I have to put in my server-side code to verify that the SM_USER really came from SM? I suppose secure cookies are involved...
The SM Web Agent installed on the Web Server is designed to intercept all traffic and checks to see if the resource request is...
Protected by SiteMinder
If the User has a valid SMSESSION (i.e. is Authenticated)
If 1 and 2 are true, then the WA checks the Siteminder Policy Server to see if the user is Authorized to access the requested resource.
To ensure that you don't have HTTP Header injections of user info, the SiteMinder WebAgent will rewrite all the SiteMinder specific HTTP Header information. Essentially, this means you can "trust" the SM_ info the WebAgent is presenting about the user since it is created by the Web Agent on the server and not part of the incoming request.
Because all traffic should pass through Siteminder Web Agent so even if the user sets this header it will be overwritten/removed
All Siteminder architectures do indeed make the assumption that the application just has to trust the "SM_" headers.
In practice, this may not be sufficient depending on the architecture of your application.
Basically, you have 3 cases:
The Web Agent is installed on the web server where your application runs (typical case for Apache/PHP applications): as stated above, you can trust the headers as no requests can reach your application without being filtered by the web agent.
The Web Agent is installed on a different web server than the one where your application runs, but on the same machine (typical case: SM Agent installed on an Apache front-end serving a JEE Application Server): you must ensure that no requests can directly reach your application server. Either you bind your application server to the loopback interface or you filter the ports on the server.
The Web Agent runs on a reverse proxy in front of your application. Same remark. The only solution here is to implement an IP filter on your application to only allow requests that come from your reverse proxy.
SiteMinder r12.52 contains a new functionality named Enhanced Session Assurance with DeviceDNA™. DeviceDNA can be used to ensure that the SiteMinder Session Cookie has not been tampered with. If the Session is replayed on a different machine, or from another brower instance on the same machine, DeviceDNA will catch this and block the request.
Click here to view a webcast discussing new features in CA SiteMinder r12.52
Typical enterprise architecture will be Webserver (Siteminder Agent) + AppServer (Applications)
Say IP filtering is not enabled, and webs requests are allowed directly to AppServer, bypassing webserver and the sso-agent.
If applications have to implement a solution to assert the request headers / cookies are not tampered / injected, do we have any solution simillar to the following?
Send the SM_USERID encrypted in a seperate cookie or encrypted (Sym/Asym) along with SMSESSION id
Application will use the key to decrypt the SMSESSION or SM_USERID to retrive the user id, session expiry status and any other addtional details and authorization details if applicable.
Application now trusts the user_id and do authentication