Took me a few to get a few different container versions ready, and it looks
like it was a bug. We have been using surrogate for only a few months and
have been using a 'master' branch container as primary on our app
controller for a while and it doesn't occur and fixed in master many moons
ago. See here,
https://github.com/apereo/cas/commit/3a8cb528850d3822dbeba7a73f7e3bf85d3d9abc
, you could switch to latest tag in gradle if you dont want to build off
master, tag is 7.0.0-RC6 ,
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-5 tos...@smythco.com wrote:
> Thanks for your reply John.
>
> Read the docs repeatedly and somehow kept reading that as admin+surrogate
> rather than surrogate+admin.
>
> However, there is still a default "web flow" issue between MFA and
> surrogate.
>
> When tested as +admin with the drop down it triggers simple MFA but
> bypasses surrogate drop down selection.
>
> When tested as you suggested as surrogate+admin (which does correctly
> authenticate), it bypasses MFA and does correctly bring up the surrogate.
>
>
> Should point out that if MFA groovy script returns null it will correctly
> display the surrogate drop down. So If I disable MFA, which is what we
> currently have for our internal logins, then surrogate selection works.
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:32:36 AM UTC-5 John wrote:
>
>> We don't use the surrogate selector at all, the person has to know the
>> account name, and for your login you should be using ` surrogate+adminuser
>> ` and not ` adminuser+surrogate `. Have you turned on debug? Do you have
>> sufficient debug logging messages in your groovy script to track through
>> the whole process? The debug logs can give you a good clue into where or
>> why it would be not working.
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 11:01:59 PM UTC-5 tos...@smythco.com wrote:
>>
>>> Really appreciate the quick responses.
>>>
>>> Currently using
>>> cas.authn.mfa.groovy-script.location=file:/somepath/mfa_trigger.groovy
>>> (script contents same as previous message)
>>>
>>> Oddly the adminuser+surrogate approach does not work at all. It won't
>>> authenticate. That has not presented much of an issue as we have so many
>>> potential surrogates that we use the +adminuser/password approach followed
>>> by the drop down selection of the surrogate.
>>>
>>> MFA within our context is in regards to the original +adminuser, not in
>>> regards to MFA for the surrogate themselves (.... so intent is for MFA to
>>> occur and then surrogate selection).
>>>
>>> Correct in assuming that the what appears to be the failure is the
>>> bypass of the surrogate drop down selection when using the +adminuser
>>> approach if the groovy script returns "mfa-simple". If the groovy script
>>> returns null then surrogate drop down selection works correctly with
>>> +adminuser/password.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:49:50 PM UTC-5 John wrote:
>>>
>>>> We use mfa-simple for database auths as well, which groovy mfa are you
>>>> using? cas.authn.mfa.core.provider-selector-groovy-script OR
>>>> cas.authn.mfa.groovy-script
>>>> which is what we use,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 3:41:02 PM UTC-5 Ray Bon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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/3869f297-caa3-4850-b4fd-0781346b5f71n%40apereo.org.
