Support for X509SubjectName Name ID

[Cantor, Scott]

On 5/15/20, 8:13 AM, "users on behalf of Ullfig, Roberto Alfredo" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of rullfig at uic.edu> wrote:

> So I was working on two of these non-InCommon ones yesterday and both had the same issue - so it seems like there's a
> new pattern to see for some of the new service providers. One was Azure and the other I'm not sure. Anyway, usually in
> the past I have this in relying-party for the non-InCommon ones:

Uh. You realize that's completely insecure? You can do it, and then any SP that doesn't break is known to be fully and totally broken. (An exception is when the metadata signals assertion signing.)

> but in this case they both expected signed responses. Have never seen that before but maybe it's an Azure thing.

Signed responses are the normal best practice in SAML 2 and the default.

-- Scott