RE: [security-services] handling of multiple SP logout

[<robert.philpott@rsa.com>]

> Kyle, one addition to your point, I think that Requester (being
returned from
> the SP that the user logged out locally from), is more likely the
response
> code (as opposed to Responder). I.e., the requester is asking for a
session at
> the SP that no longer exists (as Scott mentioned, the SP does not
maintain
> this). So the LogoutRequest from the IDP is no different than one
where a
> bogus session index is used. I'm not sure why Responder would ever be
the
> error case (if the SP doesn't understand the session index).

[RSP] I strongly disagree with using "Requester".  If the IdP keeps
track of the SP's to which it has provided an assertion for an SSO
session, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the request.  The
fact that an SP might not maintain any state about the user session is a
responder issue... not a requester issue. BTW, some SP's do maintain
state.

We've discussed this in the past...  IIRC the consensus was that a SAML
responder should normally only use the "Requester" error status in a
response if a SAML requester sent it a message that was ill-formed or
was not conformant to SAML request generation rules.  If the message is
well-formed and otherwise "valid" w.r.t. SAML rules, but the responder
cannot satisfy the request, then this is a "Responder" error.

> 
> As for disabling the endoint, this is probably impossible since this
is over a
> redirect binding. The browser would just be stuck trying to contact
the SPb
> SLO endpoint.

[RSP] It's not impossible at all.  If SP-B has no endpoint, then the IdP
should never try to redirect there and there'd be no browser HTTP
request getting stuck.  That is, the IdP should skip that SP as it is
going down the list of SP's to which it needs to send a LogoutRequest.
> 
> Tom.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert.philpott@rsa.com [mailto:robert.philpott@rsa.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:03 PM
> To: kyle@drummondgroup.com; security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [security-services] handling of multiple SP logout
> 
> > In the test group, we had a general agreement that if SP-B returned
an
> error
> > status, the IdP should send Success/PartialLogout to SP-A.
> 
> [RSP] Yes... it's probably obvious, but for completeness you're
missing one
> additional requirement... if SP-B returns an error status to the IdP
in a
> LogoutResponse "AND the IdP successfully logs the user out of the
IdP", then
> that IdP must send Success+PartialLogout to the SP that originated the
> LogoutRequest.  The IdP could somehow fail to log the user out of the
IdP.  If
> so, then it would return an error back to the original SP.
> 
> >
> > The area we chiefly need guidance on was the status returned when
SP-B
> > received a LogoutRequest from the IdP after it had already
terminated
> the
> > session. It appears that either Responder or Success would be
> permissible.
> >
> [RSP] IMO, yes.
> 
> > The purpose of this test scenario was primarily to create a
situation
> so
> > that the IdP did return a PartialLogout status to the originating SP
> and
> > test out that functionality. Perhaps the best method to do that
would
> be to
> > disable the SP-B endpoint so that the IdP is unable to contact it.
> 
> [RSP] Yep - that's how I'd test it.
> 
> >
> > Kyle Meadors
> > DGI
> >
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CONFIDENTIALITY
> > DISCLAIMER This email, including attachments, is confidential and
> > proprietary. It constitutes exclusive communication solely to the
> > addressee. Any
> entity
> > other than the intended addressee is prohibited from use of this
> > communication for any purpose. This email, including attachments,
may
> not be
> > distributed, whole or in part.
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -----Original
> > Message-----
> > From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:12 PM
> > To: robert.philpott@rsa.com; kyle@drummondgroup.com;
> > security-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [security-services] handling of multiple SP logout
> >
> > robert.philpott@rsa.com wrote on 2009-08-03:
> > > See below, but I think we could have an issue in defining the
> "correct"
> > > behavior here w.r.t passing or failing a conformance test...
> >
> > I don't think you can require anything here because the SP isn't
> required to
> > remember a session once it's locally terminated.
> >
> > > The spec isn't really precise on this use case. I personally think
> it's
> > > best to pretend it worked and send "success" because of the spec
> wording
> > > related to #2 below...
> >
> > For the user experience, you absolutely SHOULD do that, but you
can't
> > require it.
> >
> > > To be more precise, the "IdP action" Scott is referring to is
> whether
> > > the IdP is able log out the user's session at the IdP.  It is not
> > > related to what happens at any of the SP's.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > Of course if the IdP receives an error from an SP due to item #1
> above,
> > > technically it has to report back a "PartialLogout" second-level
> status
> > > to the SP that originated the LogoutRequest.
> >
> > Right. That's all spelled out, is my point. Could be clearer, but I
> don't
> > think "clear" and "logout" really belong in the same sentence.
> >
> > -- Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> >
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
> this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>