managing untrusted metadata

[Cantor, Scott]

On 4/27/18, 3:30 PM, "users on behalf of Tom Scavo" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of trscavo at gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I'm wondering if there's any value to running this metadata
> management system off-IdP. Not for you perhaps but in general.

Well, I don't run it *on* the IdP. My staging system is separate. I run a dev IdP mirror instance there for my own use, but that's incidental. I always stage everything I do and it gets pushed over with rsync into production.
 
> That's exactly the kind of example I was looking for. Instead of
> configuring an exception, one could filter the encryption certificate
> from the metadata (assuming the tools exist). Wouldn't that be
> preferable?

Well, in the abstract yes, but that option to disable encryption that way is something I've certainly had cause to reconsider due to the importance of encryption again. As it stands now, yes, I'd prefer it, but I might end up reverting that option so removing the key wouldn't turn off encryption, it would just result in an error.

> Taking this to its logical conclusion, most (if not all) integrations
> boil down to metadata manipulation. Even attribute release can be
> controlled by metadata (add the necessary RequestedAttribute elements
> and tag the entity as "locally vetted" or something like that). Is
> this a goal?

https://wiki.shibboleth.net/confluence/display/IDP30/MetadataDrivenRelyingPartyConfiguration

-- Scott