Date
1 - 12 of 12
UAA, SAML, and LDAP questions
|
Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
We're investigating converting our UAA from a custom fork that integrates
with our organization's SSO to the stock UAA using SAML and/or LDAP. We would like to maintain SSO functionalities for our web tools but after doing some reading SAML for the CLI might not work the way we expect it. In order to log into the CLI when using SAML does it require the user to go to a web page and get a one time login token? cf login --sso? If so, I don't think that will work for our and some CLI deployment automation we do. Is it possible to configure UAA to use both SAML and LDAP? The CLI could use LDAP and the web use SAML? Thanks, Mike |
|
|
|
Filip Hanik
yes, it is entirely possible to run both SAML (as many providers as you
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
need) and LDAP (single provider). we are keeping an eye on the SAML ECP profile to make it easier to handle password grants as well as the CLI itself. Filip On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We're investigating converting our UAA from a custom fork that integrates |
|
|
|
Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
Great! I'll dig in and give it a try then. Thanks Filip!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Mike On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Filip Hanik <fhanik(a)pivotal.io> wrote:
yes, it is entirely possible to run both SAML (as many providers as you |
|
|
|
Aaron Huber
Would the same user logging in via SAML and LDAP result in two different UAA
user objects with different sources, so that the user would have two different sets of orgs/spaces/apps? Aaron -- View this message in context: http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/cf-dev-UAA-SAML-and-LDAP-questions-tp62p65.html Sent from the CF Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
|
|
Filip Hanik
yes, it would result in two different shadow accounts, differentiated by
the value of the user's origin field On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM, aaron_huber <aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com> wrote: Would the same user logging in via SAML and LDAP result in two different |
|
|
|
Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
Well, that's a bummer. Is there any way around that? Our SAML is backed
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
by the same LDAP so they are the same user. We can provide a unique ID to correlate SAML with LDAP users. Mike On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Filip Hanik <fhanik(a)pivotal.io> wrote:
yes, it would result in two different shadow accounts, differentiated by |
|
|
|
Aaron Huber
That’s the main concern we have as well – we currently need LDAP for the CLI since SAML doesn’t work in that case, but we’d like SAML for web-based interactions (SSO in a portal, etc.). But at present it seems like that’s not possible without the user having to deal with effectively two separate accounts.
Aaron From: Mike Youngstrom [mailto:youngm(a)gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:34 PM To: Filip Hanik Cc: Huber, Aaron M; CF Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [cf-dev] UAA, SAML, and LDAP questions Well, that's a bummer. Is there any way around that? Our SAML is backed by the same LDAP so they are the same user. We can provide a unique ID to correlate SAML with LDAP users. Mike On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Filip Hanik <fhanik(a)pivotal.io<mailto:fhanik(a)pivotal.io>> wrote: yes, it would result in two different shadow accounts, differentiated by the value of the user's origin field On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM, aaron_huber <aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com<mailto:aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com>> wrote: Would the same user logging in via SAML and LDAP result in two different UAA user objects with different sources, so that the user would have two different sets of orgs/spaces/apps? Aaron -- View this message in context: http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/cf-dev-UAA-SAML-and-LDAP-questions-tp62p65.html Sent from the CF Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ cf-dev mailing list cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org> https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev _______________________________________________ cf-dev mailing list cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org> https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev |
|
|
|
Sree Tummidi
Hi Aaron,
You could potentially use the access token (similar to a personal access token used for GitHub API ) to achieve the CLI automation. The access token can either be retrieved via an authentication to the CLI itself or via UAAC. Regular users would still continue to use the -sso option. Thanks, Sree Tummidi Sr. Product Manager Identity - Pivotal Cloud Foundry On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Huber, Aaron M <aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com> wrote: That’s the main concern we have as well – we currently need LDAP for the |
|
|
|
Mike Youngstrom <youngm@...>
Possibly, though I think regular user authentication would still be a
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
concern for our users since security forces a rather short TTL for our access tokens. I'll have to take a look and try a few things. We may decide to just use LDAP and forget about the SSO integration for now. Mike On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Sree Tummidi <stummidi(a)pivotal.io> wrote:
Hi Aaron, |
|
|
|
Filip Hanik
The problem with SAML is that we never see the username. We only receive
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
the username in form of an email address from the SAML IDP. This would not correspond to the username you would log in to LDAP with. The use case you describe would indicate we want two different authentication sources represent the same authentication source. I believe the correct solution here is to implement the SAML ECP profile. At that point you'd have an option to go LDAP or SAML rather than trying to mix both. Filip On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Possibly, though I think regular user authentication would still be a |
|
|
|
Aaron Huber
In our case we use email address as the username via LDAP as well (UPN actually, but same thing) so it would be the same. Is there a timeline for the ECP profile support?
Aaron From: Filip Hanik [mailto:fhanik(a)pivotal.io] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 3:54 PM To: Mike Youngstrom Cc: Sree Tummidi; Huber, Aaron M; CF Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [cf-dev] UAA, SAML, and LDAP questions The problem with SAML is that we never see the username. We only receive the username in form of an email address from the SAML IDP. This would not correspond to the username you would log in to LDAP with. The use case you describe would indicate we want two different authentication sources represent the same authentication source. I believe the correct solution here is to implement the SAML ECP profile. At that point you'd have an option to go LDAP or SAML rather than trying to mix both. Filip On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com<mailto:youngm(a)gmail.com>> wrote: Possibly, though I think regular user authentication would still be a concern for our users since security forces a rather short TTL for our access tokens. I'll have to take a look and try a few things. We may decide to just use LDAP and forget about the SSO integration for now. Mike On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Sree Tummidi <stummidi(a)pivotal.io<mailto:stummidi(a)pivotal.io>> wrote: Hi Aaron, You could potentially use the access token (similar to a personal access token used for GitHub API ) to achieve the CLI automation. The access token can either be retrieved via an authentication to the CLI itself or via UAAC. Regular users would still continue to use the -sso option. Thanks, Sree Tummidi Sr. Product Manager Identity - Pivotal Cloud Foundry On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Huber, Aaron M <aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com<mailto:aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com>> wrote: That’s the main concern we have as well – we currently need LDAP for the CLI since SAML doesn’t work in that case, but we’d like SAML for web-based interactions (SSO in a portal, etc.). But at present it seems like that’s not possible without the user having to deal with effectively two separate accounts. Aaron From: Mike Youngstrom [mailto:youngm(a)gmail.com<mailto:youngm(a)gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:34 PM To: Filip Hanik Cc: Huber, Aaron M; CF Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [cf-dev] UAA, SAML, and LDAP questions Well, that's a bummer. Is there any way around that? Our SAML is backed by the same LDAP so they are the same user. We can provide a unique ID to correlate SAML with LDAP users. Mike On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Filip Hanik <fhanik(a)pivotal.io<mailto:fhanik(a)pivotal.io>> wrote: yes, it would result in two different shadow accounts, differentiated by the value of the user's origin field On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM, aaron_huber <aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com<mailto:aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com>> wrote: Would the same user logging in via SAML and LDAP result in two different UAA user objects with different sources, so that the user would have two different sets of orgs/spaces/apps? Aaron -- View this message in context: http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/cf-dev-UAA-SAML-and-LDAP-questions-tp62p65.html Sent from the CF Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ cf-dev mailing list cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org> https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev _______________________________________________ cf-dev mailing list cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org> https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev _______________________________________________ cf-dev mailing list cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org> https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev |
|
|
|
Sree Tummidi
Hi Aaron,
ECP Support is a roadmap item at this time and doesn't have a set timeline. Apart from adding ECP SAML SP support on the UAA side, the SAML IDP needs to implement and support this profile as well. Thanks, Sree Tummidi Sr. Product Manager Identity - Pivotal Cloud Foundry On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Huber, Aaron M <aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com> wrote: In our case we use email address as the username via LDAP as well (UPN |
|
|