> So here's how it's an issue:
I don't think so, but maybe I'm not clear on the attack yet...
> So, the Principal somehow browses to BadProvider... BadProvider submits
> an AuthNRequest to IdP claiming he is SP and providing a consumerURL
> that points back to a BadProvider managed location. The IdP sends
> the response back to BadProvider at this location (and in this case
> we are doing a browser-post type operation, not artifact).
Right. And inside the signed assertion is:
<SubjectConfirmationData Recipient="URL submitted by bad provider">
In SAML 1.1, this was a Recipient in the Response, which was signed, but the
basic approach is the same. Limit the location to which the token can be
delivered.
In 2.0, I cast this as "limit the location to which the assertion can be
presented in a profile and still satisfy the bearer confirmation".
ID-FF does not have this mechanism, and therefore this impersonation attack
is dealt with in the manner you describe.
> BadProvider can then act as a *browser* client of SP and submits the
> assertion as a response to the consumer URL of SP and now SP will let
> the BadProvider act as a bad guy on its site.
See above, this won't work.
> So, the IdP shouldn't use a consumer URL unless there is some reason
> for it to trust it (either a signed request from a trusted party, or
> because of some trusted metadata or some other such equivalent).
I agree, but for other reasons, not to prevent impersonation via the SSO
profile.
-- Scott
