From "Zermatt" to the "Geneva Framework" part II
A couple of days ago I've posted about the changes I've had to make to allow my custom STS to work with the updated Geneva framework. there's one more, quite crucial, change that I had to make, which I will try to describe next -
If my understanding is correct (and unfortunately there's all the chances in the world that it is not, so if you know otherwise please do comment) the October Geneva SDK has tightened security a little bit around token validation.
I believe that the previous version of SDK, the RP simply made sure that a token was included with the request, and that this token was signed by a party whose certificate exists on the server (and is accessible); the RP did not check which certificate was used to sign the token.
As far as I can tell the Geneva Framework SDK now behaves differently - if you execute the same code and configuration you had before (baring necessary changes to allow the code to compile on the new version, but these are mostly name changes) you will get the following error from the RP:
"An unsecured or incorrectly secured fault was received from the other party. See
the inner FaultException for the fault code and detail."
Basically the Client gets a token from the STS and attaches it to the request but the RP does not recognise the issuer of the token; in order to instruct the RP to accept tokens signed by a particular STS you need to provide it with a list of issuers you accetps, this can be done using the following configuration for example -
<issuerNameRegistry type="Microsoft.IdentityModel.Tokens.ConfigurationBasedIssuerNameRegistry, Microsoft.IdentityModel, Version=0.5.1.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35">
<add name="STS" thumbprint="7a0671d475673c1ab131ca1c0c804e4fbd385140"/>
This bit of configuration lists all the certificates that are acceptable as STS token signing.
It is interesting to note that this model is completely extensible - you can define your own registry IssuerNameRegistry type that would look and behave differently if you have other means of listing those; the same can also be done via code, which is the example provided with the SDK - you define a custom IssuerNameRegistryClass -
public class TrustedIssuerNameRegistry : IssuerNameRegistry
/// Returns the issuer Name from the security token.
/// <param name="securityToken">The security token that contains the STS's certificates.</param>
/// <returns>The name of the issuer who signed the security token.</returns>
public override string GetIssuerName( SecurityToken securityToken )
X509SecurityToken x509Token = securityToken as X509SecurityToken;
if ( x509Token != null )
//Note: This piece of code is for illustrative purposes only. Validating certificates based on
//subject name is not a good practice. This code should not be used as is in production.
if ( String.Equals( x509Token.Certificate.SubjectName.Name, "CN=STS" ) )
throw new SecurityTokenException( "Untrusted issuer." );
and then when configuring the host for the RP service you provide this as a parameter -
FederatedServiceCredentials.ConfigureServiceHost(host, new TrustedIssuerNameRegistry());
And while I'm on the subject - as this has sent me going in circles - it appears that the framework is not happy with claim-less tokens, so if you're dumb enough (as I was) and end up not adding any claims (I was adding them base on the requested claims in the incoming request, which, at some point, was empty in my configuration) you will get a error, which, after setting the ServiceDebugBehavior would read "A SamlAssertion requires at least one statement. Ensure that you have added at least one SamlStatement to the SamlAssertion you are creating."
I can't decide about this one - does it not make sense to have a scenario in which you just want to get a signed token to indicate that an STS has authenticated the caller, but don't actually need any claims? not that it's a problem to find at least one claim to add (identity, authentication method are two easy examples), but speaking in principal I'm not yet convinced not having any specific claim should be an error.