New Shibboleth daemon on new server - user/wayf page just reloads over and over

[Johnny Lasker]

You were right, there was a more detailed error when we hit it from the
server itself. 

This was from the shibboleth2.xml using SSO to replace Session Initiator.

<SSO discoveryProtocol="WAYF"
discoveryURL="https://new.educause.edu/user/wayf">
			  SAML2 SAML1
			</SSO>


Error:

An Unexpected Error Occurred (shibsp::ConfigurationException)

The system encountered an error at Tue Sep 17 08:50:03 2013

To report this problem, please contact the site administrator at
support at educause.edu.

Please include the following message in any email:

shibsp::ConfigurationException at
(https://new.educause.edu/Shibboleth.sso/DS)

Shibboleth handler invoked at an unconfigured location.



Does this sound familiar?

Thank you,

Johnny


Johnny Lasker Programmer/Analyst

EDUCAUSE <http://www.educause.edu/>
Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good
282 Century Place, Suite 5000, Louisville, CO 80027
direct: 303.544.5677 | main: 303.449.4430 | educause.edu
<http://www.educause.edu/>





On 9/16/13 5:21 PM, "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:

>On 9/16/13 5:12 PM, "Johnny Lasker" <jlasker at educause.edu> wrote:
>
>>Thank you for your feedback. I tried changing the SSO WAYF value in our
>>modern attempt, but I still get the 500 server error.
>
>If this is IIS, it's lying to you and hiding the message, that's not the
>real error. If not, then you need to explain what the error message
>actually is. The logs usually should indicate something about an error,
>but a 500 means nothing specific, all errors are 500s.
>
>>  The best luck we've
>>had is by using something closer to our original configuration. It allows
>>us to get to the WAYF page, but still redirects back to itself.
>
>That's not really an improvement. I'd say it's worse, given that the 500
>error might actually mean something.
>
>>Still gives us the same 500 error.
>
>Then your next step is to determine the real error.
>
>>In the older version that is currently up, we use SessionInitiator like
>>this:
>
>I looked at it, there's nothing wrong with it necessarily.
>
>>Is our SSO version missing something? Is there anything to change to the
>>older version (attached) that would make it work or do we absolutely have
>>to have a modern version to work with our 2.5.2 install?
>
>You can get a log trace of the old config running, or more advisedly fix
>the new configuration to the point of getting a meaninful log or error
>message out. With any luck the actual error is going to identify what's
>wrong.
>
>-- Scott
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
>users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net