| Table of Contents |
|---|
These four scenarios outline diverse delineate distinct approaches to SAML SP testing, each tailored to its respective specific context and purpose and requiring a different type of deployment, necessitating a diverse deployment approach.
SELF - Self-testing by SP for production readiness
Summary description
This scenario enables individual Service Providers (SPs) to internally validate their SAML service configuration internally, focusing with a focus on signature usage. This scenario is While it stands out as the simplest one in terms of technical requirements and legal considerations. However, its chances for a meaningful level of adoption are quite lowpotential for widespread remains modest.
Deployment or configuration
SPs perform independently execute this self-testing independently within their organisationorganisations.
The SP deploys a test IdP, preferably as an easily configurable VM image, container image, or appliance. Alternative (preferred by Niels): Alternatively, the tool is can be deployed at the federation, in which case it necessitates a web interface is required.
Arrangement and execution of tests
Testing is initiated by a service admin or operator and triggered through command-line invocation (preferred by Pavel). The target SP for testing is specified via a command-line parameter. Alternative: The Alternatively, the tool is invoked by the SP through a web UI provided by the federation.
Testing can occur after the service is deployed but before its production use is declared/announced, after configuration changes, or periodically via automated scheduling tools like cron.
The testing tool allows selective execution or suppression of individual tests through command-line options.
Presentation and analysis of test results
Test output verbosity can be configured using a switchset by the user.
Results are presented in plain text, offering both summary and detailed formats of information about the outcome of individual tests, detected issues, and exchanged content.
...
However, problems in both command execution and SP operation are indicated by non-zero exit statuses, facilitating use in scripts.
For test tool deployment within a federation, the web interface may mirror that of the onboarding scenario. However, a notable distinction could be the provision of an option for users to escalate to full onboarding or to contact the federation's support for assistance at the conclusion of the test, if such assistance is made available by the federation.
Relational or contractual arrangements
No formal arrangements are required as the tester and SP belong to the same organisation.
In federation-based tool deployment, preventing bogus self-testing to probe someone else's SP is crucial.
ONBOARDING - Testing of SP deployment by FedOps during onboarding
Summary description
This scenario is applicable during SP onboarding and may involve manual or automated testing. It is initiated Initiated upon the SP's request and integrated , it integrates into the federations' onboarding procedure of the federation. Its benefits include a wider broader outreach without significant legal issues, easy enforcement and a single deployment of testing software deployment per identity federation. It requires availability of a A web user interface is necessary.
Deployment or configuration
The testing tool is deployed by the federation.
Details of SP configuration should be specified in onboarding guidelines.
Arrangement and execution of tests
Initiated It is initiated upon SP request by the SP during onboarding.
Automation is possible as part of the onboarding process.
Specific details on conducted tests are outlined in the onboarding procedure, and this information can be communicated to SPs requesting onboarding. They may be accompanied by corresponding SP configuration guidelines that would increase the SP's chances of passing the tests. Optionally, the SP may be informed about the requirements and tests and be requested to give explicit approval and clearance for tests to be conducted.
Presentation and analysis of test results
For the admin of the onboarded SP, through the web UI, with email notification with and an access link.
Specifics regarding the presentation and analysis of test results should be detailed in the onboarding guidelines.
Relational or contractual arrangements
The testing must probably be integrated into the federation's policy and operational guidelines.
...
The testing process should be allowed/sanctioned into the federation's policy and operational guidelines.
Bogus onboarding, performed with a goal to prove somebody else's SP, should be prevented.
PERIODIC - Periodic testing of
...
SPs by FedOps
Summary description
Periodic testing is conducted by federation operators in predefined intervals aligned with the federation's policy and operational rules, ensuring ongoing compliance. This is an extension of the testing of SPs during onboarding. Ir It requires additional SP selection and scheduling functionalities.
Deployment or configuration
Similar It is similar to the deployment at the FedOp for testing of SPs during onboarding.
Arrangement and execution of tests
Testing execution must be aligned with the federation's policy and operating rules.
Tests across SPs may be spread in time and conducted during predefined high-load or low-load periods.
Presentation and analysis of test results
It requires both overviews for several or all SPs and , search/filtering a detailed view for a single one.
By default, all test results are available for the federation operator to view. If an SP's results are to be made available to its operator, then separate arrangements need to be made on what to make available to whom.
Relational or contractual arrangements
The federationFederation's policy and operating guidelines should must allow or mandate the testing process.
Separate registration and access-granting arrangements are needed if sharing SP results.
COMPLIANCE - Client institution testing for compliance
Summary description
This scenario involves the SP's client institution conducting compliance testing, often as part of broader assessments like GDPR audits or ISO 27001 security controls. It often integrates with broader compliance assessments, introducing additional requirements and may involve specific compliance criteria dictated by the client institution.
Deployment or configuration
To best simulate the regular service usage, the testing platform can be deployed by the client organisation. However, it may also be provided by a third party specialised in compliance audits.
In the latter case, which is more comfortable for clients, additional legal issues may arise.
Arrangement and execution of tests
It is conducted by an individual client organisation to internally validate the validity of contracted SP's SAML service configuration for compliance , by internal or external auditors operating with both the organisation's and SP's approval and SP's support , if needed. However, this testing is usually done without direct involvement of the SP.
How the practical execution of tests and debugging are coordinated and conducted between the client institution and the SP is out of the scope of this description, as the SP does not have to do or deploy anything that would specifically support this testing scenario.
Presentation and analysis of test results
The use of the test by the client institution may necessitate specialised procedures and reporting. The producer report may retire some SLA-styled longitudinal metrics.In a more advanced usage, Advanced usage may involve report signing or 'certificate' issuance may need to be supportedsupport. The produced reports may also require some SLA-styled longitudinal metrics.
Relational or contractual arrangements
Compliance testing, as part of a broader compliance review, is likely to be included in the contractual arrangements between the client institution and the SP, possibly within the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between the client institution and the SP. These arrangements should also address shared or public access to test results.