Giuseppe De Marco
Giuseppe De Marco
a PySAML2 SP seems to accept a SAML Response with a missing Destination attribute, like the following ```` ````
This PR adds some checks on assertion element. The first commit is not so clean, due to the previous PR that makes some conflicts, please merge the PR previous to...
a pySAML2 SP seems to accept a Response with a missing Attribute Element as follow ```` ```` even in this way ```` ````
Even if a SP made a AuthnRequest with a proper AuthnContext as follow ```` that-policy ```` if the IDP succesfully reply with a Response with an absent, unvalued, malformed AuthnContext...
It seems that a SP handle pretty well a Response with missing or malformed AuthnContext element, like followings: ```` ```` ```` ```` ```` ````
PySAML2 doesn't validate properly SubjectConfirmationData attributes Recipient ```` ```` NotOnAfter not valued or absent ```` ````
a pySMAL2 SP seems to work properly even if get a Response with an unspecified NameID value, as follow ```` ```` We have the same behaviour even if the NameID...
If a SAML2 Response comes with a unspecified Status statement, like the following ```` [...] [...] ```` we have this exception: ```` saml2/response.py", line 361, in status_ok if not status...
This PR aims to implement a blacklist parameter for xml algs, as discussed here: - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/issues/421 - https://github.com/IdentityPython/pysaml2/pull/626/files Confguration parameter can be declared as follow: ```` SAML_IDP_CONFIG = { 'debug'...
## Draft several spid sdk improvements