Failed to process saml message cause invalid signatureOn 23.03.2021 by Nikoshura
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account. I'm following the example here. My code is:. The response has a signed message and encrypted assertion:. I've verified that the xcert and privateKey are correct. I'm new to SAML2, so I'm hoping it's something simple : Thank you in advance and please let me know if you need more information. Signature validation is something complex, a simple extra space can invalidate your XML.
In order to check the signature, the toolkit first decrypt the EncryptedAssertion and later try to find an Assertion signed in order to validate it. Maybe the issue is related to some problem in this step, maybe some namespace problem. Is there a way to ignore that particular check in python-saml? I'm not sure how much, if any, control I have over what the IdP uses from the Issuer!
Okay, I think I understand! If I know the cert that is being used by the IdP, can I just add the missing elements into the original response? I will be able to review it and merge. I'm pretty busy until the holidays, but I should have some time to work on a PR over the break. I'm actually excited to learn more about this topic!GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. Already on GitHub?
Sign in to your account. We're having some issues getting passport-saml setup with an Okta IDP. We are getting a response back from our IDP, but the validation is failing. Debugging into the code, all the way into the XMLCryptoI'm finding that it is failing when the digests don't match. If we comment out the assertion validation, we are getting all the expected data so I'm pretty sure that SAML response is formatted properly.
I added in a console. One thing that concerns is me the ' ' line endings, yet in the console we are also getting the line feeds and other whitespace. Another thing we're wondering is if our configuration on the provider side has anything to do with digest and signature aside from the cert.
For example, all the code examples we've seen have 'passport-saml' as the issuer, but we used our own issuer that we created basically at random and gave to our IDP. We assumed that was just a placeholder for our own issuer. Unfortunately, my team isn't in charge of the IDP so we don't really have much control over it, and we're also the first in our org to try to use Node. It certainly seems possible that there is a problem in the cannonicalization, but I would think that crlfs would be common enough that we'd have seen it if they caused problems.
I also use the library with Okta regularly myself and haven't had issues I do find that you have to pay attention to compression settings with Okta, but that doesn't seem relevant here. Validations all pass. So somewhere in between the body parser and the validatePostResponse we are adding a CR character.
The only other middleware we have running is cookie-parser, method-override, and express-session. We are using Express 4. After some more playing around, I'm pretty sure that the issue is not the base64 string itself, but that there are CR characters in the encoded XML text.
So either the XML DOM parse is not correctly handling these characters, or the c14n canonicalization used by xml-crypto during the validation is not correctly handling the DOM. I drilled down all the way into validateReferences method in the signed-xml module of xml-crypto and looked at the canon XML.
If I read the above correctly, it sounds like either there is something wrong with your inputs to passport-saml, or else something going on in xml-crypto, maybe a cannonicalizaiton issue there. I am definitely a bit confused though since you mentioned that this is coming from Okta and I know that Okta assertions are normally fine.
I think those should be harmless, but they definitely seem odd, and I wonder if whatever issue is introducing those might be somehow introducing the extra characters into the xml as well?
The dark mode beta is finally here. Change your preferences any time. Stack Overflow for Teams is a private, secure spot for you and your coworkers to find and share information. We have application using spring saml auth, in combination with VMWare Horizon. We have been successfully using the application, but with the migration to new Horizon Workspace 2. Below is the debug log from catalina. We already installed horizon certificate in tomcat java keystone hosting our SP, but no effect.
Any help is appreciated. You can find details in the manual chapter 9. The configuration is done by changing the context provider bean to e.
Learn more. Asked 5 years, 9 months ago. Active 5 years, 9 months ago. Viewed 3k times. DEBUG org. HttpConnection - Open connection to gateway-va. HttpMethodDirector - Closing the connection. HttpMethodDirector - Method retry handler returned false. HttpConnection - Releasing connection back to connection manager.
ADFS/IdS Troubleshooting and Common Problems
A new one will be created. StandardSessionFacade FilterSecurityInterceptor - Previously Authenticated: org. AffirmativeBased - Voter: org. ExceptionTranslationFilter - Access is denied user is anonymous ; redirecting to authentication entry point org. AccessDeniedException: Access is denied at org. ExceptionTranslationFilter - Calling Authentication entry point. Saml20Saas - No encryption certificates provided, encrypted attribute password not included in SAML We already installed horizon certificate in tomcat java keystone hosting our SP, but no effect.
Vladimir Fedorov. Vladimir Fedorov Vladimir Fedorov 53 2 2 silver badges 6 6 bronze badges. Logging has been improved since RC2 and it will now include the whole exception.Users cannot log in to cybozu. Log in to cybozu. Administrator Help. Getting Started for Administrators. Types and Management of Administrators.
Domain Management and Mobile Access. User Administration. Managing Users. Managing Departments. Managing Job Titles. Managing Groups or Roles. Tentative Reorganization. Managing Departments and Members with a Tentative Structure.
Managing Job Titles with a Tentative Structure. Applying a Tentative Structure. Configuring Department Access Control.
Department Administrators and Their Allowed Actions. Actions Allowed to Department Administrators. For Department Administrators: Managing Users.
The dark mode beta is finally here. Change your preferences any time. Stack Overflow for Teams is a private, secure spot for you and your coworkers to find and share information.
An essential part off course is the verification of the signature. Here is the signature part of a sample SAML from our partner company asserting party :. I mean usually I get a certificate from the company in a secure kind of way, so I know the certificate is from them. And when the verification of the signature succeeds, I know our partner company has signed it.
The only thing I know is that the response hasn't been falsified. You can use the public key to verify that the content of the SAML response matches the key - in other words - that response definitely came from someone who has the matching private key to the public key in the message, and the response hasn't been tampered with.
That just checks that the message is from who it says it is. You need an additional check that the message has come from someone that you trust, and this check is slower - it needs to include revocation and may need to verify a whole chain of certificates.
Then you can check that this message hasn't been tampered with, and is from someone that you trust, so you can authorise the user details supplied in the SAML attributes supplied. You could already have the public key, meaning that the signature shouldn't need to include the public key again, but you could also have multiple possible known senders, or even a chain of known senders.
For instance you may have two trusted providers - in either case you check that the message has not been tampered with before checking whether you trust either provider. If the key isn't in the signature the assertions can be a little smaller, but now you have to know in advance which identity provider the assertion has come from. The reason the key is specified is that the Metadata for the Identity Provider can specify multiple signing keys, and you can specify the key to use by including it with the signature.TUTORIAL: How to verify Digital Signature on downloaded Aadhaar?
SAML 2. Each XML element that is signed can specify which key is used for the signature. However, with the case of SAML 2. If the key supplied with the signature is not trusted not specified in the Metadata in this casethen the SAML system must generate an error when validating the signature. The public part of the signing certificate is in the SAML message. This is used to check the signature for the token itself, and of course to allow receivers to tell who issued the token and treat it accordingly.
Without the certificate how could you tell where the token came from, and how could you validate it?This document will help you in debugging issues related to configurations in Cisco IdS and AD FS, along with the recommended action to resolve them.
The information in this document was created from the devices in a specific lab environment. All of the devices used in this document started with a cleared default configuration. If your network is live, make sure that you understand the potential impact of any command. If the test fails, use the appropriate applications and suggestions given in this guide to resolve the issue.
This will appear under a separate folder metrics. Please look at your windows documentation to see where to find the Event Viewer. The various steps for SSO authentication is shown in the image along with and debugging artifacts at each step in case of a failure in that step. This table gives the details on how to identify failures at each step of SSO in the browser. The different tools and how can they help in debugging is specified as well.
Cisco IdS logs- Indicates the errors which occur while the authcode request is validated and processed. Any failure to process this request will result in an error page being displayed by AD FS server instead of the login page. Any failure to send the response results in an error page being displayed by AD FS server after the valid credentials are submitted.
The API request validation is done to check if it is a request from a registered client. Navigate to Cisco IdS Management console and confirm if the client is registered successfully. If not, then register the clients before proceeding with SSO. Applications should be accessed by the hostname by which they are registered in Cisco IdS. This issue can happen if user accessed an alternate host name that is not registered with Cisco IdS. Navigate to Cisco IdS Management console and confirm if the client is registered with the correct redirect URLand the same is used to access the application.
Idp Metadata is not available in Cisco IdS. For more details see here. Successful processing of this request results in two scenarios:. Note : The main prerequisite for this step is for the AD FS to have the replying party trust configured. If the problem persists, contact the administrator of this site and provide the reference number to identify the problem. Please ensure that the Cisco IdS Certificate is not expired. You can see the status dashboard in Cisco Identity Service Management.
If so, regenerate the certificate in the Settings page. ADFS 2. ADFS 3. This response could contain a status code that indicates Success or Failure. An error response from AD FS results into an error page and the same has to be debugged. Error Code: invalidSignature Message: The signing certificate does not match what's defined in the entity metadata.
Login request fails with error on the browser with the status code: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML Verify IdP configuration and try again. Login request fails with error on the browser with status code:urn:oasis:names:tc:SAMLSetting up video conferencing for remote work? Set up Meet to help your team work remotely. This error indicates that you have not set up single sign-on correctly in your Apps Control Panel.
Please review the following steps to correct the situation:. This problem is almost certainly due to a configuration issue in the Identity Provider. The SAML 2. Check the following table for descriptions and examples for each element. For details of all the required elements, please review the article SSO assertion requirements. Note: this error message may also appear as "This service cannot be accessed because your login request contained invalid recipient information.
Please log in and try again. This error indicates a problem with the certificates that you are using to sign the authentication flow.
Troubleshooting authentication issues
These attributes aren't supported, so can be omitted. For security reasons, the SSO login flow must complete within a certain timeframe, or authentication will fail.
If the clock on your Identity Provider is incorrect, most or all login attempts will appear to be out of the acceptable timeframe, and authentication will fail with the above error message. Professional email, online storage, shared calendars, video meetings and more.
In the Verification certificate field, choose and upload a valid verification certificate file. Click Save changeswait a few minutes for your changes to take effect, and test your integration again.
Diagnose this issue further by capturing HTTP headers during a login attempt. For optimum security and reliability, we recommend that you use one of these existing solutions and cannot offer support for your own custom SSO software. Note: Case sensitive. Ensure that you are using a valid certificate and re-upload it in the SSO setup form. If your Identity Provider is encrypting your SAML Assertion, disable this encrypting and ensure that the Assertion is sent to Google in an unencrypted format so that it is readable by Apps.
Check the clock on your Identity Provider's server. This error is almost always caused by the Identity Provider's clock being incorrect, which adds incorrect timestamps to the SAML Response. Re-sync the Identity Provider server clock with a reliable internet time server.
When this issue suddenly occurs in a production environment, it is typically because the last time sync failed, causing the server time to become inaccurate. Repeating the time sync possibly with a more reliable time server will quickly remedy this issue.
This issue can also occur if you are re-sending SAML from a previous login attempt. Was this helpful? Yes No. Start your free day trial today Professional email, online storage, shared calendars, video meetings and more. Note: element value cannot be empty.