-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Enhancing signature validation in SAML Response #144 #145
Merged
jimlambrt
merged 14 commits into
main
from
VAULT-27387/himran92-enhance-signature-validation-for-saml-response
Dec 30, 2024
Merged
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
14 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c0e0eb0
adding signature for assertion in saml provider, enhancing validation…
himran92 91cd02b
remove duplicate tests
himran92 33fc312
linting done
himran92 340d6e4
small cleanup + small fix to test
himran92 9b4f45e
add helping comment
himran92 3748d22
use cap/saml response types
himran92 5f2819d
making validation of signature of both fields as optional and adding …
himran92 f6c7d7b
changes to inlcude more validateSignature options for SAML
himran92 c9cf0d9
improving / fixing comments and var names
himran92 c4af8fc
improving / fixing comments and var names
himran92 d857fba
improving variable name
himran92 cd6c290
add validation to only allow one validateSignature option at one time
himran92 011ef0c
removing validateBothSignature option
himran92 8fe0cbf
Merge branch 'main' into VAULT-27387/himran92-enhance-signature-valid…
himran92 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For
requireSignatureForResponseAndAssertion
:On the vault usage side i opted for a name
EnableStrictResponseSignatureValidation
as that sounded more user friendly for a user exposed setting. The description will share the impact of the setting. Whereas kept itrequireSignatureForResponseAndAssertion
on cap side thinking of it as more of an internal lib so can have any name.Any preference of using
EnableStrictResponseSignatureValidation
here?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't have a strong preference. Based on my comment about having all 3 options signature validation, it would just be important to think about the general naming pattern:
EnableStrictSignatureValidation
EnableResponseSignatureValidation
?Alternatively, we could use a more explicit naming pattern:
ValidateResponseSignature
ValidateResponseAndAssertionSignatures
I'm ok either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated the name of the setting.