...
| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Proposal details:
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
The Call for Ideas for the next cycle starting in May is still open. The submission deadline for the next cycle is 08 April 2024. |
| Title | Proposer | Description | Supporter (+1 |
|---|
Scalable testing for insecure SAML signature validation
The SAML 2.0 protocol relies on XML signatures as the foundation of its security. A SAML assertion is signed with XMLDsig and the SP must properly validate this signature. If it does not, basically anyone in the world can trivially provide it with assertions thereby logging in as anyone, which also cannot be easily detected or even seen by the IdP. XMLDsig (and SAML) is notoriously complex and allows for many ways to create one or more signatures for any document. This makes that an implementation can easily fall victim to accepting not properly signed data - and even common implementations in our world like Shibboleth and SimpleSAMLphp have had issues here in the past. Besides these common products, which at least are periodically audited for such problems, a much larger risk is custom implementations that use different or even home grown libraries. Most of the times, the happy path is tested (does login work), but the unhappy path (do invalid assertions fail), not so much.
Some ideas of specific scenarios to test, all of which we've seen in real life to fail:
| ) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Investigate Google WEI & Apple Private Access Tokens | Mihály Héder (KIFÜ/SZTAKI) | Google Web Environment Integrity is a method for websites to verify that the client platform (User Agent a.k.a. browser + operating system) is indeed genuine and has not been "tampered with". https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md The proposal has received strong criticism, the interlocutors mostly claim that it is just a harmful way of achieving DRM. For a summary, see the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity The insight of the CEO of Vivaldi browser is especially interesting: they apparently already need to spoof the user agent string in order to be able to use Google Docs, despite the fact that Vivaldi is based on chromium. https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/27/google_web_environment_integrity/ By the proposers it is purported to be a replacement of browser fingerprint-based anti abuse methods. They also claim that it is a better alternative than Apple's Similar Private Access tokens, another attestation scheme that works between Apple devices and Cloudflare. They also claim in defense of WEI that they may help sunsetting the increasingly useless CAPTCHAs. WEI is already supported by Chrome on Android. The proposal is to explore, try out WEI and write a report for the community. Perhaps the timing of this proposed activity is also a strategic concern - if the WEI proposal will have no good reception then there is no point in wasting resources on it, but if it there is uptake then we should reac. | Janos Mohacsi (KIFÜ) |
Scalable, interoperable revocation | Stefan Liström (SUNET) | Revocation is not only a mandatory privacy enhancing feature for endusers, it is also a core security feature. Both use cases for revocation need to be implemented in a future EUDI wallet ecosystem. There is currently however no clear solution for interoperable, scalable revocation in the EUDI. This activity investigates and describes the possible approaches for scalable, interoperable ways to handle revocation. The activity should try to test at least two of the approaches with respect to requirements on scalability and interoperability as may needed for the EUDI | Marina Adomeit (SUNET) |
Passkey registration to User Profile Page (Shibboleth) | Janne Lauros (CSC) | This proposal is continuation to earlier incubator work where User Profile Page for Shibboleth was implemented as means for the user to view the available user data and the tokens issued on behalf of user (https://github.com/GEANT/shib-idp-profile). Shibboleth project is working on WebAuthn authentication flow and has define the scope for the Passkey management as "The inbuilt flow represents the minimum viable product for implementing such a feature. In the future other plugins may provide this functionality". We propose following task for the next Incubator Cycle to provide additional features for Passkey maangement
| Timo Tunturi (Aalto Uni) Mihály Héder (SZTAKI) |
eduGAIN PoC | Davide Vaghetti (GARR/IDEM & eduGAIN), Niels van Dijk (SURF) | The eduGAIN service activity will set up a POC in order to evaluate the new OpenID Federation (OIDfed) standard and wants to eventually create an official eduGAIN Technology Profile to extend the current service. The Trust and Identity Incubator has over the years build considerable experience with developing tooling, and implementing OpenID Fed in various products and languages, as well as evaluating e.g. REFEDs specifications in the context of OIDfed. This activity seeks to contribute to the eduGAIN PoC by:
The incubator will work on these in close collaboration with the eduGAIN PoC team. | |
Implement OpenID Federation into SimpleSAMLphp and Shibboleth IdP | SCRE, CSC, Niels van Dijk, SURF | Related to the above eduGAIN OpenID Federation Pilot, we would like to add OpenID Federation capabiliteis to Commonly used software in our ecosystem. This activity will complete the work on implementing OpenID Federation into SimpleSAMLphp, as well as start with an implementation for Shibboleth IdP. |
- Signature not checked at all, modified message accepted
- Modified message with signature rejected, but message without any signature accepted
- Multiple signatures on the same message/signature wrapping attacks
- Correctly signing a part of the message but unsigned part with attributes accepted.
Peter Brand (ACOnet)
Automation of
deployment and
configuration
of initial set of SPs
for new federations
Reale
(GÉANT)
While supporting new federations in setting up their infrastructures, IdPs and SPs, generally speaking, we still do not have much automation in place. All is done, still very manually, and takes much time. Talking specifically of the SPs, both for the installation and configuration of the services themselves, and the required operations to federate them, and make them fully functional SAML2 Service Providers, in order to be able to provide them in a federated (e.g.eduAGAIN) fashion.
It would be useful to enhance the level of support we provide to them with the aim of quickly being able to deploy an initial set of services, the ones which could de-facto start to attract users towards the newly deployed federation infrastructure and the federated IdPs.
The idea here is to propose a new cycle of T&I incubator task activities aimed at the following tasks:
This proposal is about using a full Incubator cycle to develop an initial solution, work on it, and add some work to design in a clear way how things can be made sustainable after the T&I cycle would be over.