* Sahil Sharma <
sahilsh...@gmail.com> [2020-12-20 21:28]:
> One of our clients is using Ping as their IdP and they needed a
> Authentication signature/ SAML Certificate for their requests.
That doesn't make any sense:
What should an "Authentication signature/ SAML Certificate" be?
And are "their requests" this should be for?
Except for SLO an IDP does not send requests, it sends reponses.
And even then the key pair or certificate an IDP would use to sign
their SLO requests would be the IDP's task, not yours.
> So I created a certificate for our Service Provider using the
> instructions mentioned here
> (
https://simplesamlphp.org/docs/stable/simplesamlphp-sp#section_1_1).
> This created two files, saml.pem & saml.crt, and I shared the public
> saml.crt with the client, who then uploaded this certificate into
> their Ping IdP and shared their metadata.xml with us.
What party is "their metadata" that is being shared with you here?
The IDP's? Why would the IDP's metadata change as a result of your SP
now having a key pair (and consequently a certificate in *its* metadata)?
> Now when I updated this metadata in our SP application, I am not
> even able to access the Ping login link from our application.
Why update the IDP's metadata when only the SP metadata changed?
> Simplesamlphp breaks while trying to access that page. And in the
> logs I found this message, "Requester: Invalid signature".
I cannot make heads or tails from your earlier descriptions, so am not
in a position to suggest concrete improvements.
What kind of SAML protocol message was this? An Authentication or
Logout request? This determines the possible "Requester" who
reportedly complained about an invalid signature.
Anyway, the simple fix is very likely to put the correct certificates
into all places (i.e., let the IDP have the SP's metadata, let the SP
have the IDP's metadata) and you'll no longer have "invalid signature"
errors.
-peter