January 2020 - Idpy-discuss

pyFF: Pipes for additional output formats

by rainer＠hoerbe.at

Hi Leif, I added 2 pipes to buildin.py: - publish_html creates static HTML views of IDPs and SPs, using XSLT based on Peter Schober’s alternative to MET; - publish_split: similar to store, but added validUntil and creates signed XML-file per EntityDescriptor. This can be consumed dynamically by ADFS in an IDP role. I put it directly into buildin.py because it shares some code with the sign pipe. Is this viable from your PoV - if yes, I would make an PR. Cheers, Rainer

2 days, 6 hours

3
2
0 0

Agenda: idpy Developers call, 16 May 2019

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Date: Tuesday, 16 May 2018 Time: 06:00 PT | 09:00 ET | 15:00 GMT https://bluejeans.com/163562895 Agenda: 0. Agenda bash 1. Governance update a. Commons Conservancy b. Note Well and licensing by repository vs license in each file 2. Code releases - speed vs stability? a. Resources (do we have enough if we use them well? If not, what are we asking the idpy Board for?) 3. GitHub review a. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2 b. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA c. pyFF - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyFF d. ... 4. AOB Thanks! Heather

2 days, 7 hours

2
2
0 0

Project licensing within IdentityPython

by ivan.kanak＠gmail.com

Hi all, being part of Commons Conservancy brought up yet another subject, which is whether we should add a header with license information in every file in the projects under idpy. This is not something done in an abstract way, there is a specific format modelling this information (see https://spdx.org/ and https://reuse.software/ - more specifically https://reuse.software/practices/2.0/) Still, I find it problematic. We want to open up the question to the wider community and consider their thoughts on this. The forwarded message below is discussing this subject. You can see the question we posed, the answer we got and my comments. Feel free to tell us what you think on this. ---------- Forwarded message --------- Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 at 09:56 > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: May 8, 2019, 8:15 AM -0700 > > > Why does CC think having a single license file per project is > > insufficient? Our thought is that if we can avoid adding a header to > > every single file, that would be nice, esp. given we already have this > > info in the license file and we have the Note Well. > > > this is not just our opinion, but something that is an industry and > community standard for legal compliance these days. When companies like > Siemens, Samsung or Honeywell use some code in one of the hundreds or > thousands of devices and systems in their product line, they need to be > able to provide the correct license and a download of the exact version. > This means machine readability too. > I've actually observed the opposite of that. Communities abandon the "license in every file" model, and just use a single LICENSE file in the root of the project. The LICENSE file contains license information, that is, it is not a single license but it has exception sections and so on. > To quote from https://reuse.software/practices/2.0/ : > > Scroll to the section "2. Include a copyright notice and license in each > file"... > > "Source code files are often reused across multiple projects, taken from > their origin and repurposed, or otherwise end up in repositories where > they are separate from its origin. You should therefore ensure that all > files in your project have a comment header that convey that file’s > copyright and license information: Who are the copyright holders and > under which license(s) do they release the file? > Continuing from above, the standardization of package-management formats and tools has helped exactly with that: to avoid distribution of single files, and instead provide packages and modules. It is bad practice and considered a hack to copy files. Nobody liked that model and everyone is moving away; it is unstructured, it becomes unmanageable and it will cause problems. > It is highly recommended that you keep the format of these headers > consistent across your files. It is important, however, that you do not > remove any information from headers in files of which you are not the > sole author. > > You must convey the license information of your source code file in a > standardised way, so that computers can interpret it. You can do this > with an SPDX-License-Identifier tag followed by an SPDX expression > defined by the SPDX specifications." > > (the text goes on for a while after this, to clarify the point but this > is the basic gist of it) > > There is a nice Python tool to check: > > https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool > > I hope this makes sense > Well, it does not make complete sense. We're talking about licensing a project. A project is not just code; there are data files (html, xml, yaml, json files), binary files (archives/zip, images, audio, video, etc), text files (configs, ini-files, etc) all "not-code". How do you mark those files? Does the LICENSE file need a license-header? The json format does not define comments, how do you add a header there? If a binary file does not get a license header, why should a file with code get one? I would expect there to be a way to have the needed information unified. If the files themselves cannot provide this information it has to be external; thus the LICENSE file. If someone is worried about somebody else re-using single files that do not have license information (a python file, a png image, etc) there is really nothing you can do (the DRM industry has been trying to solve for a long time; and still your best bet is "social DRM"). Since, we're developing on open source with a permissive license, even if someone does that, should we be happy that someone is actually using what we built or sad that the files they copied did not have a license header? And if they include the license information of that copied file in their project's LICENSE file, is this solved? Having pointed these contradictions, I am thinking that the "license in every file" model seems to be a step backwards. It is introducing overhead and does not really solve the problem, while at the same time it enables a culture of bad practice (copying files around). Cheers, -- Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3

2 days, 7 hours

4
3
0 0

Fwd: T&I Hackathon - 23 March 2020, Stockholm

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

In case you’re not on the REFEDS mailing list... > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Heather Flanagan <hlf at sphericalcowconsulting.com> > Subject: T&I Hackathon - 23 March 2020, Stockholm > Date: January 29, 2020 at 12:48:01 PM GMT > To: refeds at lists.refeds.org > > Hola a todos! > > Are you attending the eduGAIN Town Hall on 24-25 March 2020? Are you interested in kicking off your week with some code development? Perhaps you have some questions on configuration, or ideas to improve documentation. You should join us, then, at the upcoming Trust & Identity Hackathon! > > Date: 23 March 2020 > Location: SUNET offices at Tulegatan (11 floor 3) in Stockholm > > Registration link: https://doodle.com/poll/p9apiwmnyzqq899w <https://doodle.com/poll/p9apiwmnyzqq899w> > > Wiki page: https://wiki.refeds.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44959235 <https://wiki.refeds.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44959235> > > Please register so we know how much coffee, tea, and sandwiches we need to acquire, and note in the registration notes what coding project you are interested in. We’ll organize tables as indicated in the registrations. > > Thanks, and I hope to see you in Stockholm! > > Heather

5 years, 2 months

1
0
0 0

Reminder: idpy dev call, 21 January 2020

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/567481057 <https://bluejeans.com/252755948> Meeting ID 567 481 057 Agenda: 0. Agenda bash 1. Administrivia a. Idpy Board nominations 2. GitHub review a. OIDC - https://github.com/IdentityPython/oidcendpoint b. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA <https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA> c. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2 <https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2> d. pyFF - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyFF <https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyFF> 3. AOB

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Notes: idpy dev (off-week) call, 14 January 2020

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Attendees: Giuseppe, John P., Heather, Ivan, Roland, Scott, Hannah, Alex, Johan L, Christos Notes: 1. Administrivia a. idpy Board nominations

5 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

PySaml2 v5.0.0 - Security release

by ivan.kanak＠gmail.com

Hello everyone, there has been a report on incident-response at idpy.org about a security issue in PySaml2. Alexey Sintsov and Yuri Goltsev from HERE Technologies reached out and reported a XML Signature Wrapping (XSW) vulnerability. The issue affects responses with signed assertions. PySaml2 can be tricked to think that an assertion had been signed and use the assertion information, when in reality the Signature points to another part of the xml document that is controlled by another party. The issue was assigned CVE-2020-5390 and is now fixed in the latest pysaml2 release. The relevant code commit that fixes is the issue: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/commit/5e9d5acbcd8ae45c4e736ac521… Release v5.0.0 contains more changes, including: - Add freshness period feature for MetaDataMDX - Fix ipv6 validation to accommodate for addresses with brackets - Fix xmlsec temporary files deletions - Add method to get supported algorithms from metadata - Add mdstore method to extract assurance certifications - Add mdstore method to extract contact_person data - Start dropping python2 support Pointers to the release with changelog and more information, below: - the relevant release commit: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/commit/f27c7e7a7010f83380566a219f… - the github release: https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/releases/tag/v5.0.0 - the pypi package: https://pypi.org/project/pysaml2/5.0.0/ + + + + + + + + In more detail, regarding the XSW vulnerability: libxml2 follows the xmldsig-core specification. The xmldsig specification is way too general. saml-core reuses the xmldsig specification, but constrains it to use of specific facilities. The implementation of the SAML specification is responsible to enforce those constraints. libxml2/xmlsec1 are not aware of those constraints and thus process the document based on the full/general xmldsig rules. What is happening is the following: - xmldsig-core allows the signature-information and the data that was signed to be in different places. This works by setting the URI attribute of the Reference element. The URI attribute contains an optional identifier of the object being signed. (see "4.4.3 The Reference Element" -- https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/#sec-Reference) This identifier is actually a pointer that can be defined in many different ways; from XPath expressions that need to be executed(!), to a full URL that should be fetched(!) in order to recalculate the signature. - saml-core section "5.4 XML Signature Profile" defines constrains on the xmldsig-core facilities. It explicitly dictates that enveloped signatures are the only signatures allowed. This mean that: * Assertion/RequestType/ResponseType elements must have an ID attribute * signatures must have a single Reference element * the Reference element must have a URI attribute * the URI attribute contains an anchor * the anchor points to the enclosing element's ID attribute xmlsec1 does the right thing - it follows the reference URI pointer and validates the assertion. But, the pointer points to an assertion in another part of the document; not the assertion in which the signature is embedded/enveloped. SAML processing thinks that the signature is fine (that's what xmlsec1 said), and gets the assertion data from the assertion that contains the signature - but that assertion was never validated. The issue is that pysaml2 does not enforce the constrains on the signature validation facilities of xmldsig-core, that the saml-core spec defines. The solution is simple; all we need is to make sure that assertions with signatures (1) contain one reference element that (2) has a URI attribute (3) that is an anchor that (4) points to the assertion in which the signature is embedded. If those conditions are met then we're good, otherwise we should fail the verification. -- Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Reminder: idpy dev off-week call, 14 January 2020

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Meeting URL https://bluejeans.com/672796580 <https://bluejeans.com/252755948> Meeting ID 672 796 580 Agenda: 0. Agenda bash 1. Administrivia a. Idpy Board nominations b. March 23 Hackathon/Workshop in Stockholm 2. OIDC Federation update a. Second Implementer’s Draft of OpenID Connect Federation Specification Approved <https://openid.net/2020/01/08/second-implementers-draft-of-openid-connect-f…> b. Repository status 3. GitHub review a. OIDC implementations: b. Satosa - https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA <https://github.com/IdentityPython/SATOSA> c. pySAML2 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2 <https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2> d. pyFF - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyFF <https://github.com/IdentityPython/pyFF> 4. AOB

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Nominations now open - idpy Board

by hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com

Hola a todos! As described in the Statues of IdentityPython [1], roughly half the seats for the idpy Board are opening for nominations. The following members have completed their one-year terms: Ivan Kanakarakis (current chair) Mike Jones Chris Whalen Roland Hedberg (at-large) They are all eligible to be nominated again for a new board term. The term for these seats is now shifting to a two-year cycle, such that half the board will be up for nomination each year. Participants on the idpy-dev list act as the nominating committee for the idpy board. If you would like to nominate someone (or self-nominate) please contact me directly no later than 24 January 2020. Thank you for your time and consideration, Heather Flanagan [1] Excerpt from the Statutes of IdentityPython (https://dracc.commonsconservancy.org/0024/ <https://dracc.commonsconservancy.org/0024/>) Board of Directors The central decision-making body within IdentityPython is the IdentityPython Board of Directors (in short: the IdentityPython Board). The IdentityPython Board is a committee responsible for making and coordinating decisions on behalf of the user and developer community around IdentityPython, according to the conditions set forth in these Statutes as well as any Regulations established by prior decisions of the IdentityPython Board. The IdentityPython Board is expected to consult and find consensus for decisions with the user and developer community. The IdentityPython Board has a minimum of three, and a maximum of seven natural persons. The founding IdentityPython Board has appointed a number of its constituting Directors to serve a half (12 month) term, and the remainder to serve a regular (24 month) term. Subsequent Directors are elected by the IdentityPython Board to regular 24-month terms according to the procedure set out in these Statutes. The founding Board will select a nominating committee of active developers and other contributors to identify candidates for ongoing Board membership. Directors are permitted to seek office for multiple terms, however, when running against other candidates the amount of terms they have consecutively served is deducted from the votes cast in their favour. This provides a balance between continuity, equal opportunities and renewal of qualities and competences. The IdentityPython Board determines the Programme's structure and processes, and is responsible for maintaining its Statutes and Regulations. The IdentityPython Board is free to make or revise any decision, taking into consideration applicable law as well as any immutable conditions previously established within the Statutes or Regulations. In order to efficiently fulfill its tasks, the Board may establish specialized committees and task forces, as well as assign named roles to qualified individuals to provide advice and assistance on specific issues. The associated qualifications, tasks and responsibilities SHALL be formalised by publication as part of the Regulations of IdentityPython. The IdentityPython Board (and any person, group or organisation mandated by the IdentityPython Board on its behalf) must act in good faith and in the common interest of the developer community and the wider user community of IdentityPython. If significant harm to the organization has been committed by any Director, he or she MAY be removed from the Board by a simple majority vote of the rest of the Board. The IdentityPython Board SHALL convene offline or online at least every twelve (12) months.

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

How far along are we with the proposed hackathon before the EduGAIN Town Hall ?

by roland＠catalogix.se

It was mentioned in the notes from the idpy dev call, 17 December 2019. — Roland The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make enough of them, it's considered to be your style. -Fred Astaire, dancer, actor, singer, musician, and choreographer (10 May 1899-1987)

5 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Idpy-discuss January 2020