Anthony,
Does surrogate+username / password approach work, or is it only the surrogate
selection that does not work?
If I use surrogate+ with a service that requires MFA, it goes through the mfa
flow for username and then to service as surrogate. But I do not have any
groovy scripts running.
Ray
On Tue, 2023-07-25 at 10:31 -0700, Anthony Oslund wrote:
Notice: This message was sent from outside the University of Victoria email
system. Please be cautious with links and sensitive information.
Start by stating current deployment uses 6.6.6 with DBMS authentication, not
LDAP.
Deployment uses the groovy approach for triggering simple MFA.
Based on much testing and researching of this archive determined that if simple
MFA is activated through groovy script that CAS will bypass surrogate
selection. From researching this archive others have run into the same
limitation (at least for 6.6.6 and earlier, not sure about later versions).
For surrogate logging in using the +username / pass approach and then selecting
surrogate from drop down.
Surrogate process functions correctly, but only if MFA not selected by the
groovy script. This is true even if MFA not required in that exact login
instance, having been satisfied by recent/previous login/MFA. For example,
groovy script determines that MFA is required for +username... system examines
recent MFA cache... regardless if MFA required/not required at this moment....
surrogate process bypassed and authenticated/released parameters are for
original +username.
Current deployment's security requirements restrict surrogate to internal use
only, while only requiring MFA externally so at this time not an issue as both
MFA and surrogate are working within their separate external/internal scopes.
Future requirements may likely require MFA internally as well, which with
current deployment would conflict with internal scope surrogate process.
Looking at attached groovy scripts from other posts it appears they are
potentially using other MFA ("mfa-gauth", "mfa-webauthn"). Perhaps issue with
our deployment is a default web flow issue specific to simple MFA.
Simple MFA currently works in all instances, but does not flow to surrogate.
If groovy script below returns null for MFA then flow to surrogate selection
works as intended.
import java.util.*
class SampleGroovyProviderSelection {
def String run(final Object... args) {
def service = args[0]
def authentication = args[2]
def request = args[3]
def logger = args[4]
def mfa = null
def email = authentication.principal.attributes['email']
def phone = authentication.principal.attributes['phone']
def mfaMode = authentication.principal.attributes['mfa_mode']
logger.info('Groovy script for mfa')
logger.info(mfaMode)
logger.info(email)
logger.info(phone)
/*
If user lacks both email and phone then bypass MFA
If plan is to prevent the user from authenticating if
they cannot use MFA, that should be handled further upstream
through the DBMS view. It can simply prevent them from
ever authenticating (if that is the desired outcome), in
which case they will never even get to this point
*/
if (mfaMode && (email || phone)) {
if (mfaMode.contains("Y")) {
mfa = ["mfa-simple"]
}
}
return mfa
}
}
--
- Website: https://apereo.github.io/cas
- Gitter Chatroom: https://gitter.im/apereo/cas
- List Guidelines: https://goo.gl/1VRrw7
- Contributions: https://goo.gl/mh7qDG
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CAS
Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to cas-user+unsubscr...@apereo.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/apereo.org/d/msgid/cas-user/20272de383073f777e3a1ee94e936bbeb5d0d816.camel%40uvic.ca.
