Shibboleth Identity Provider Version 3 Scott Cantor The

Shibboleth Identity Provider Version 3 Scott Cantor The Ohio State University Marvin Addison Virginia Tech

A Bit of History • Version 1 – 2003 – 2008 • SAML 1, inventing a lot of concepts on the fly • SAML 2, harmonizing two protocols • Version 2 – 2008 – 2015 • Version 3 – 2015 - ? • Focus on design, deployability, and sustainability over features 2

Why Upgrade? • Compelling reasons for you • Easier UI and login customization, error handling, simpler clustering, attribute release consent, easier handling of vendor quirks, much improved update process, CAS protocol support • Compelling reasons for us • Up to date library stack, much easier to deliver future enhancements, V 2 maintenance is a drain on limited resources • A practical reason • V 2 maintenance and user support is very finite; you don't have to upgrade, but you can't stay here 3

User Interface • Leverages "views" from Spring Web Flow • • Views can be Velocity templates, JSP pages, potentially others Most views are Velocity by default so they can be modified on the fly, including example login/logout/error templates • Spring message properties • • Reusable macross views (e. g. , logo paths, titles, organization names, etc. ) Can be internationalized to a browser's primary language 4

Error Handling • Web. Flow is event-driven, so most errors are "events", e. g. , "Message. Replay" • Events can be classified by you as Local or non -Local, local meaning "don't issue a response back to requester" • Error view(s) under your control, an example view is provided using message properties to map events into different error content • You can reuse example, roll your own, map events to different views, etc. 5

Clustering • Ding-dong, Terracotta's dead • With one exception, all short/long-term persistent state relies on a Storage. Service API • • • in-memory cookie (*) JPA / database memcache Web Storage (TBD) • Defaults allow zero-effort clustering with most critical features supported 6

Consent • New first-order concept: interceptor flows • • Security/policy checks run this way invisibly Also have “post-authentication” hook for running flows after user identified, several built-in examples • u. Approve-style attribute release consent and terms of use flows (former is on by default on new installs), has an enhanced mode of approving each attribute individually • Context-checking flow that can halt processing if expected conditions aren’t met, such as attributes or specific values available 7

Vendor Quirks • Common use cases for integrating vendor SAML implementations are easier and less invasive • • Security settings like digest algorithms can finally be overridden per-SP or group of SPs Assertion Encryption can be made “optional” so it turns on whenever possible and off when not (based on metadata) Setting up custom Name. ID formats in a dedicated place Attaching custom SAML encoder rules to attribute definitions and limiting them to specific SPs 8

Safe Upgrades • • Simpler, safer, robust upgrade process: • • • Review release notes Stop service Unpack, install over top Rebuild warfile to add back local changes Start service Clearly delineated “system” and “user” config files Local warfile overlay to prevent losing webapp changes or additions On Windows, Jetty can be installed and managed for you in simple deployments, Unix TBD 9

CAS Protocol • Major technical goal for redesign was to facilitate non-SAML / non-XML protocol integration • CAS was a natural candidate to work on and help prove out the design 10

Speaking with Developer “Hat” ● CAS application developer since ≈ 2005 ● CAS server committer since ≈ 2010 ● CAS server module lead (LDAP, X. 509) ● Occasional CAS server release engineer ● Middleware contributed to a number of CAS clients (Java, . NET, mod_auth_cas) 11

Id. P+CAS Background ● Virginia Tech has both CAS and Shibboleth o Both are essential 24 x 7 99. 98 systems o One FTE for development and support of both ● Rumors of Id. Pv 3 multi-protocol support ● Approach Shib dev team with proposal o CAS protocol support deemed feasible o VT contributes feature to ship with Id. P 3. 0 ● One system to rule them all 12

Protocol Design Goals ● Provide essential features of CAS protocol o Renew+gateway o Proxy (PGT/PT) o Attribute release o Logout/Single Logout (SLO) ● Drop-in compatibility with popular CAS clients ● Leverage Id. Pv 3 design for new capabilities 13

Protocol Status ● CAS protocol v 2 compliant o With attribute release “extension” o Without logout support ● CAS-flavored SAML 1. 1 ● Logout w/SLO slated for Id. P 3. 2. 0 ● Beta status o Apache, Java, . NET, and PHP clients tested o VT production deployment planned o Evaluators needed 14

Protocol Requirements ● Server-side Id. P storage o Memory. Storage. Service o Memcached. Storage. Service o JPAStorage. Service ● Configure metadata for relying parties o Service registry is familiar facility o CAS analogue of SAML metadata ● (Optional) Proxy trust configuration 15

Switching gears… 16

Speaking with Deployer “Hat” ● Virginia Tech adopted CAS circa 2003 ● Virginia Tech adopted Shib circa 2006 ● CAS gets the majority of resources ● Our Id. Pv 2 infrastructure needs some love ● We have considered consolidating on a single SSO platform for years ● Attribute release policy is a pain 17

Compelling Reasons to Upgrade ● Consent engine solves policy headaches ● SSO platform consolidation ● Enhanced system architecture ● Improved security policy machinery 18

Consent: #1 Driver for V 3 19

Business Case for Consent ● User consent solves FERPA morass ● Accelerates service integration o Presently >30 days on average o Target <7 days on average o Friction-free integration with In. C R&S services ● Simplifies attribute release policy ● Improves R&S compliance ● CAS ecosystem benefits as well 20

Consolidate and Save ● Time ● Money ● Headaches If you are a CAS+Shib school like Virginia Tech, there’s an obvious case to be made for a single SSO service at your school. 21

Current SSO ● Two separate but integrated systems ● 2 n everything ○ ○ ○ Development Patches Policy** ● Complexity is the enemy 22

Ideal SSO ● One system, two protocols ● Obvious Cost Benefits ● Capabilities++ ● ● Consent Attribute engine 2 -factor authn SLO 23

IDPv 3 Does HA Better ● Terracotta was never a tenable option ● New Storage. Service API o More choices o Known, capable technologies o Fits any size deployment 24

Current Id. P (2. x) Arch.

Planned Id. P (3. x) Arch.

Security Policy Enhancements 27