3:36 a.m.
This is an interesting case. Could you in the first place create a JIRA and
attach some example to it? Feel free to remove any sensitive information
from the SAML document and/or set the JIRA as security-sensitive issue so
that the attachments remain confidential.
Patch that would ignore any dsig:Signature that occurs below Advice tag -
just like you mentioned - would be most likely the one to follow but I'd
like to inspect the SAML document first to understand the context fully.
We don't provide patches to older upstream versions though, the patch would
land into the newest version only.
Thanks
--Hynek
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:41 PM Sebastian Laskawiec <slaskawi(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hey Arjan,
Long time no see! I hope you're well!
More comment inlined.
Thanks,
Sebastian
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Arjan Lamers <a.lamers(a)first8.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are running KeyCloak 3.4.3-Final for a client and are running into
> trouble with an identity provider (the dutch eHerkenning) that is using
> SAML Advice tags.
>
> We were running an older version of KeyCloak and recently that identity
> provider started to use <saml:Advice> tags in their responses. We found
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/KEYCLOAK-5644, adding support for the
> Advice tag and that made us upgrade to 3.4.3. However, this patch does not
> seem to be complete.
>
> The patch there ignores the Advice tag when parsing the document. This is
> fine. However, in our case, the Advice contains two Assertions, both of
> which are signed (have a Signature tag). The document verification seems to
> also validate these signatures. This is a problem, since we do not have the
> keys for these advices, hence the validation fails.
>
> We have been advised to fully ignore the Advice tag, including the
> underlying signatures. I am not a SAML expert but that feels a bit wrong.
> Any thoughts on that?
>
Perhaps Hynek or Stian could correct me here but the spec says the
`Advice` elements can be completely ignored:
"The <Advice> element contains any additional information that the SAML
authority wishes to provide.
This information MAY be ignored by applications without affecting either
the semantics or the validity of
the assertion."
[1] Page 26
https://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-core-2.0-os.pdf
>
> However, if we do want to go down this road, we would probably patch this
> in
>
> org.keycloak.saml.processing.core.util.XMLSignatureUtil.validate(Document
> signedDoc, final KeyLocator locator)
> by skipping over nodes that have an ‘Advice’ parent.
>
This situation seems to be very tricky here. Looking through the spec I
found that `Advice` tags need to be validated using lax XML validation
(just as a reminder, lax validation doesn't fail if the schema is not
found) [2]:
"<Advice> and AdviceType: In addition to SAML-native elements, allows
elements from other
namespaces with lax schema validation processing."
There's also a note on signature verification [3]:
"The SAML assertion MAY be signed, which provides both
authentication of the issuer and integrity protection.
If such a signature is used, then the <ds:Signature> element MUST be
present, and a relying party
MUST verify that the signature is valid (that is, that the assertion has
not been tampered with) in
accordance with [XMLSig]. If it is invalid, then the relying party MUST
NOT rely on the contents of the
assertion. If it is valid, then the relying party SHOULD evaluate the
signature to determine the identity and
appropriateness of the issuer and may continue to process the assertion in
accordance with this
specification and as it deems appropriate (for example, evaluating
conditions, advice, following profile specific
rules, and so on)."
So to sum it up:
- Advice tag can be ignored completely
- Advice tag needs only lax validation, so it just needs to be a well
formed XML, and that's basically it.
- If a verifier finds a signature, it needs to validate it. If the
signature doesn't pass the validation, we can not rely on the assertion.
From this point, I guess patching the SignatureUtil to skip verification
of signatures located in `Advice` element, seems not to violate anything.
That's what we should do in my opinion.
[2] Page 75
https://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-core-2.0-os.pdf
[3] Page 16
https://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-core-2.0-os.pdf
>
> Would that be an appropriate approach? Would you be interested in such a
> patch?
>
Yes, definitely! Let's start with a patch for master branch and later on,
we could cherry-pick it to 3.x if needed.
>
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Arjan Lamers
> Software Architect
> +31 (0)6 23 82 24 05
>
>
>
> a.lamers(a)first8.nl
> https://www.first8.nl <http://www.first8.nl/>
> Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/arjanl <
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/profiel-id>
> Kerkenbos 1059b
> 6546 BB Nijmegen
>
> Bekijk hier de algemene voorwaarden van Conclusion <
> https://www.conclusion.nl/kleine-lettertjes/algemene-voorwaarden>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-user mailing list
> keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user