Bug Fix: SAML Response Initialize Arguments Passed in the Wrong Order #198
Conversation
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
|
@chris-clifford can you update your branch with the latest master branch? That should fix the test. |
|
@jphenow I think we need to release a minor version with this bug fix (current master branch). Could you please take a look at this PR and the latest master branch and release a new minor version? |
|
v0.16.0 released |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This fixes an issue in the
SamlIdp::Controller#encode_authn_responsemethod where arguments where being passed in the wrong order. This issue was introduced in v0.15.0.In the call to
SamlResponse#initializethe value offalseforsigned_message_optswas, by default, getting passed as the argument forsigned_assertion_optswhich caused SAML Responses to be generated without a signed assertion.This wasn't caught in the tests because signed assertions were not checked when validating the SAML response, so a test was added to confirm that the assertion is being signed by default.
This could present a potential security concern, as SAML assertions are typically signed by default. It is expected that SAML Service Providers (SPs) validate these signatures. However, if a user of this gem upgrades to version 0.15.0 and mistakenly assumes that the assertion signature continues to be transmitted, this could lead to a potential security vulnerability.