Shibboleth Identity Provider Version 3

IAM OnlineMarch 11, 2015

Scott Cantor, Shibboleth Development Team

Marvin Addison, Shibboleth Development Team

Tom Barton, University of Chicago and InCommon TAC

The first, and foremost, achievement of the Internet2 Middleware Initiative

Federation technology built on SAML is changing our world

SAML was declared dead before Shib was developed

Revived by Bob Morgan, powered by Scott Cantor

Interfederation is happening, providing the base on which an access management decision can be effective anywhere in the world

Shib IdP v3 is the best tool to manage your organization’s integration with the global access management fabric

2

ShibbolethIdentity ProviderVersion 3

Scott CantorThe Ohio State

University

Marvin AddisonVirginia Tech

A Bit of History• Version 1 – 2003 – 2008

• SAML 1, inventing a lot of concepts on the fly

• Version 2 – 2008 – 2015• SAML 2, harmonizing two protocols

• Version 3 – 2015 - ?• Focus on design, deployability, and sustainability

over features

4

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, V2 maintenance is a drain on limited resources

• A practical reason• V2 maintenance and user support is very finite;

you don't have to upgrade, but you can't stay here

5

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 macros across views (e.g., logo paths,

titles, organization names, etc.)

• Can be internationalized to a browser's primary language

6

Error Handling• WebFlow is event-driven, so most errors

are "events", e.g., "MessageReplay"

• 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.

7

Clustering• Ding-dong, Terracotta's dead

• With one exception, all short/long-term persistent state relies on a StorageService API

• in-memory

• cookie (*)

• JPA / database

• memcache

• Web Storage (TBD)

• Defaults allow zero-effort clustering with most critical features supported

8

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

• uApprove-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

9

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 NameID formats in a dedicated place

• Attaching custom SAML encoder rules to attribute definitions and limiting them to specific SPs

10

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

11

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

12

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)

13

IdP+CAS Background● Virginia Tech has both CAS and

Shibboletho Both are essential 24x7 99.98 systems

o One FTE for development and support of both

● Rumors of IdPv3 multi-protocol support

● Approach Shib dev team with proposalo CAS protocol support deemed feasible

o VT contributes feature to ship with IdP 3.0

● One system to rule them all

14

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 IdPv3 design for new capabilities

15

Protocol Status● CAS protocol v2 compliant

o With attribute release “extension”

o Without logout support

● CAS-flavored SAML 1.1

● Logout w/SLO slated for IdP 3.2.0

● Beta statuso Apache, Java, .NET, and PHP clients tested

o VT production deployment planned

o Evaluators needed

16

Protocol Requirements

● Server-side IdP storageo MemoryStorageService

o MemcachedStorageService

o JPAStorageService

● Configure metadata for relying partieso Service registry is familiar facility

o CAS analogue of SAML metadata

● (Optional) Proxy trust configuration

17

Switching gears…

18

Speaking with Deployer “Hat”

● Virginia Tech adopted CAS circa 2003

● Virginia Tech adopted Shib circa 2006

● CAS gets the majority of resources

● Our IdPv2 infrastructure needs some love

● We have considered consolidating on a single SSO platform for years

● Attribute release policy is a pain

19

Compelling Reasons to Upgrade

● Consent engine solves policy headaches

● SSO platform consolidation● Enhanced system architecture

● Improved security policy machinery

20

Consent: #1 Driver for V3

21

Business Case for Consent

● User consent solves FERPA morass

● Accelerates service integrationo Presently >30 days on average

o Target <7 days on average

o Friction-free integration with InC R&S services

● Simplifies attribute release policy

● Improves R&S compliance

● CAS ecosystem benefits as well

22

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.

23

Current SSO

24

● Two separate but integrated systems

● 2n everything○ Development○ Patches○ Policy**

● Complexity is the enemy

Ideal SSO

25

● One system, two protocols

● Obvious Cost Benefits

● Capabilities++● Consent● Attribute engine● 2-factor authn● SLO

IDPv3 Does HA Better● Terracotta was never a tenable option

● New StorageService APIo More choices

o Known, capable technologies

o Fits any size deployment

26

Current IdP (2.x)

Arch.

Planned IdP (3.x)

Arch.

Security Policy Enhancements

29

Make Plans to Upgrade!

Manage through ever increasing security and trust needs SHA-1 → SHA-2 Categories/Tags Per-entity or entity group 2FA Consent

InCommon encourages you to! Updating Shib training to be v3 focused Updating wiki doc

Baseline practices, participant and federation, to be revised in light of those ever-increasing security and trust needs

30

Evaluation

Please complete the evaluation of today’s webinarhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IAM_Online_March_2015

31

Upcoming Events

April 26-30 – Internet2 Global Summit, Washington, DC

October 4-7 – Technology Exchange, Cleveland, OH

More information at www.internet2.edu

32