Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Decide on RequesterID scoping feature #1214

Open
thijskh opened this issue Dec 16, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Decide on RequesterID scoping feature #1214

thijskh opened this issue Dec 16, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
proposed-removal Discussion whether given functionality should be removed

Comments

@thijskh
Copy link
Member

thijskh commented Dec 16, 2022

A feature exists in EB where it can sub-scope the available IdPs for an SP if this SP passes it as a RequesterID in the authentication request and we know this remote SP: the allowed IdPs of this remote SP are then used to filter the allowed IdPs for the authenticating SP. The feature actually loops over all supplied RequesterIDs not just the last one.

This is a subset of the later introduced trusted proxy feature. A trusted proxy can do this plus more powers (ARP, PDP etc on behalf of the other SP.

The question is whether this is a useful feature to keep (as is), or if trusted proxy has superseeded it and it's obsolete. The code is not very problematic (unchanged for 10 years, has tests) but on the other hand is ran on every authentication so if it's not needed it should probably be cleaned up.

You are using this feature if you add SPs to Manage that are not directly connected but are behind other (connected) SP's. Or more concretely, if you run EB >= 6.9.1 and you log info level messages and you have the following messages in your log: SP passes RequesterID '$requesterId', using it to sub-scope the available IdPs

@thijskh thijskh added the proposed-removal Discussion whether given functionality should be removed label Apr 28, 2023
@tvdijen
Copy link
Contributor

tvdijen commented Dec 19, 2023

I never noticed this issue before, but we heavily rely on this. Our peers use it to suppress the WAYF whenever they can.

@thijskh
Copy link
Member Author

thijskh commented Dec 20, 2023

just to check, you are seeing the log message?

@tvdijen
Copy link
Contributor

tvdijen commented Dec 20, 2023

Yes, I do

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
proposed-removal Discussion whether given functionality should be removed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants