Check for an existing LDAP user in SAML Auth

1 Initial Problem

In some scenarios SAML SSO is used along with LDAP Auth. This is not possible with ILIAS, you either have to use SAML and create new account or you use LDAP.

2 Conceptual Summary

Assuming ILIAS uses SAML Auth and LDAP is available, users should be only allowed to log in if they exist in LDAP.

When a user tries to log in via SAML, ILIAS should check if the same user exists in LDAP, only then should the user be able to log in. Following logic is suggested, as it was already implemented in a customer patch.

• User tries to log in via SAML
• Check for existing active LDAP Servers
• Lookup User in LDAP 1..N
• If User found in LDAP 1..N => allow user to log in
• If User is not found in LDAP 1..N => cancel authentication process

3 User Interface Modifications

3.1 List of Affected Views

• … { Please list titles of all views (screens) of ILIAS that should be modified, newly introduced or removed. }

3.2 User Interface Details

{ For each of these views please list all user interface elements that should be modified, added or removed. Please provide the textual appearance of the UI elements and their interactive behaviour. }

3.3 New User Interface Concepts

{ If the proposal introduces any completely new user interface elements, you might consult UI Kitchen Sink in order to find the necessary information to propose new UI-Concepts. Note that any maintainer might gladly assist you with this. }

3.4 Accessibility Implications

{ If the proposal contains potential accessibility issues that are neither covered by existing UI components nor clarified by guidelines, please list them here. For every potential issue please either propose a solution or write down a short risk assessment about potential fallout if there would be no solution for the issue. }

4 Technical Information

{ The maintainer has to provide necessary technical information, e.g. dependencies on other ILIAS components, necessary modifications in general services/architecture, potential security or performance issues. }

5 Privacy

{ Please list all personal data that will need to be stored or processed to implement this feature. For each date give a short explanation why it is necessary to use that date. }

6 Security

{ Does the feature include any special security relevant changes, e.g. the introducion of new endpoints or other new possible attack vectors. If yes, please explain these implications and include a commitment to deliver a written security concept as part of the feature development. This concept will need an additional approvement by the JourFixe. }

7 Contact

• Author of the Request: Hartwig, Alex [hartwig@qualitus.de]
• Maintainer: Seeland, Per Pascal [PerPascalSeeland], Jansen, Michael [mjansen]
• Implementation of the feature is done by: {The maintainer must add the name of the implementing developer.}

8 Funding

Qualitus

9 Discussion

10 Implementation

{ The maintainer has to give a description of the final implementation and add screenshots if possible. }

Test Cases

Test cases completed at {date} by {user}

• {Test case number linked to Testrail} : {test case title}

Privacy

Information in privacy.md of component: updated on {date} by {user} | no change required

Approval

Approved at {date} by {user}.