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

SAML logout request signature does not function as expected #4048

Closed
omindu opened this issue Nov 27, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

SAML logout request signature does not function as expected #4048

omindu opened this issue Nov 27, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@omindu
Copy link
Member

omindu commented Nov 27, 2018

Logout request signature validation is skipped at [1] due to logoutReqIssuer not being populated properly.

The logoutReqIssuer information is retrieved base on what's stored during the authentication at [2]. The created SAMLSSOServiceProviderDO lacks information which requires to validate SAML logout response (eg: logout validation config, SP certificate, etc). Need to check the feasibility of using the SAMLSSOServiceProviderDO object created at [3] instead of creating a new object.

[1] - https://github.com/wso2-extensions/identity-inbound-auth-saml/blob/ee338982c1add8f75f1132a6b3bacb30cee7989b/components/org.wso2.carbon.identity.sso.saml/src/main/java/org/wso2/carbon/identity/sso/saml/processors/SPInitLogoutRequestProcessor.java#L130
[2] - https://github.com/wso2-extensions/identity-inbound-auth-saml/blob/master/components/org.wso2.carbon.identity.sso.saml/src/main/java/org/wso2/carbon/identity/sso/saml/processors/SPInitSSOAuthnRequestProcessor.java#L142
[3] - https://github.com/wso2-extensions/identity-inbound-auth-saml/blob/master/components/org.wso2.carbon.identity.sso.saml/src/main/java/org/wso2/carbon/identity/sso/saml/processors/SPInitSSOAuthnRequestProcessor.java#L54

@isharak
Copy link
Member

isharak commented Apr 22, 2021

Thank you for your contribution!
We are closing this issue since it has not been prioritized for a long time. Chances are that it has already been solved in more recent versions. If not, we will be re-evaluating this when it becomes a priority.

@isharak isharak closed this as completed Apr 22, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants