Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

shibboleth-dev - RE: wrt user entry of a pointer to their IDP ..or.. "invisible SSO"

Subject: Shibboleth Developers

List archive

RE: wrt user entry of a pointer to their IDP ..or.. "invisible SSO"


Chronological Thread 
  • From: "Josh Howlett" <>
  • To: <>
  • Cc: "Josh Howlett" <>
  • Subject: RE: wrt user entry of a pointer to their IDP ..or.. "invisible SSO"
  • Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:38:34 +0100

Responding to my own post:

> It's been recently pointed out to me that Negotiate (SPNEGO
> over HTTP), which all modern browsers support, is a one-shot
> protocol and so does not support channel bindings or mutual
> authentication of the GSS mechanism (Kerberos, in this case).
> Fixing this would be quite an effort.
>
> Whether or not we care enough about the lack of these
> properties, in this particular context, is another question.

After hitting the 'Send' button, I thought it might be worth expanding
on this point lest that statement comes across as negligent.

The reason I think that the lack of channel bindings and mutual
authentication *might* be moot is that the Kerberos service ticket is
not used for authentication of the principal. The ticket is just be
acting as a discovery cue for boot-strapping a SAML authN assertion
request. In this case, why do channel bindings and mutual authentication
matter?

I am probably going out on a limb here, but it strikes me as analagous
to the way that we don't care about authentication of TLS connection
peers in the front-channel bindings; these aren't part of the trust
fabric that matters.

josh.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page