Mix NTLMv2 & Kerberos SSO in the same policy for different sub-URL
Hello ! I got a special request and couldn't find a solution on how to address this... e.g. Following URL is secured by an APM policy using NTLMv2 as SSO (based on AD Auth) https://acme.domain.com/url Following subURL is requesting KERBEROS https://acme.domain.com/url/suburl For the moment the user need to authenticate 2x. The 2nd time through a Microsoft Popup. With one of the main Issues being: if I logout and login again with a different user, there is no login requested for the kerberos part and the 1st user remains connected. Any idea how I could solve this situation BR S.
Grant access to users from F5 APM based on okta user group
Hi Engineers, We are planning to migrate to F5 APM for remote access solution from pulse VPN. We have integrated F5 APM with okta for SSO and its working as per the plan. But We are unable to grant access to specified user group. In other VPN solution like Pulse and Fortinet or Palo we can directly call okta user group and assign ACL to respective group. But I am unable to do the same with F5 APM. Scenario: Okta has 2 groups, one is Engineering and other is Support. Engineering group should be able to Access Network A and support group should be able to access Network B. We don't want to create access profile for each group. It should be one access profile and based on okta group that user is part , he/she should be able to access the network. My current policy looks like this.
Kerberos SSO to IIS Web Application
We are trying to implement a clientless solution in which a user which is part of the domain, and accessing a web application from a machine in the same domain, would automatically be authenticated without user intervention. I know there are lots of articles out there and I have read some tremendous write-ups on how this all works from Kevin Stewart and we believe we have most of the framework in place. What is happening, it seems, is that a 401 authentication dialog is appearing to the user instead of the client requesting a kerberos ticket from AD and presenting it to the F5 APM to decrypt and process with the installed keytab file. Specifically this is what I have for configuration: Web site: This hostname is represented in DNS and can be resolved both forward/reverse. Client side accounts: bill@synacktek.local - my AD domain account logged into a domain machine for testing. HTTP/sso-test.synacktek.local - account used for keytab file creation, imported to the F5, do I need to set kerberos delegation for this? SSO Side account: HOST/kerberos-server.synacktek.local - SSO account for kerberos. Performed setspn and assigned delegation in AD for this to access web service WINDNS1 (this is where web server is located). F5 SSO configuration which uses this account: APM Policy: Has 401 configured for negotiate, with branch feeding kerberos authentication (client side?) After this I have a couple of message boxes, the kerberos OK feeds a variable assign to help populate the sso side of the proxy configuation. When connecting to the web URL I always get prompted with the 401 authentication. I am certainly missing something here but do not know what it is. Appreciate any help! Thx Bill
Ignore domain cookie for specific sub domains?
Hello All, I am trying to figure out a way to exclude domain cookie SSO for a list of specific sub domains but still allow domain cookie to work on a few others. Current configuration We are a single domain and are using a wildcard cert for SSL to all related sites. I currently use an access profile per virtual server as I like to keep them separate to keep the configuration as linier as possible. I have 3 access policies that I use the domain cookie for SSO all of which are working the way I want. we are running 13.1.07 Issue: If I go to one of the sites (that I have domain cookie enabled) then in another tab try to go to a site that is in the same domain but not using domain cookie, it will fail to run the access policy associated with that site. I will then get an error your session could not be established invalid session ID. I know this is because it is trying to use the domain cookie and the access policy that is tied to that virtual server is not configured for domain cookie and global scope. example: site.domain.com (domain cookie enabled) site1.domain.com (domain cookie enabled) site2.domain.com (don't want to use domain cookie) I have a list of about 8 other sub domains in the same domain that I want to exclude from using domain cookie but retain it for site and site1. What I have tried In my research people say to use multiple domain SSO config which allows me to add a host cookie and allows me to access site2 when going to site but it then breaks domain cookie SSO so not sure how to do both. I also read that you should use one access policy but that seems over complex and to many variables when troubleshooting to have all branches in one large access policy. I have tried a few irules but they seem to be very inconsistent and causing browser to hang so not sure the ones I found are working for me. Thank you for any help you can provide. when HTTP_REQUEST { if { [HTTP::cookie exists "MRHSession"] && ([ACCESS::session exists -state_inprogress] || [ACCESS::session data get "session.policy.result"] == "not_started" ) && ! [string equal "[HTTP::uri]" "/my.policy"] } { log -noname accesscontrol.local1.err "$static::ACCESS_LOG_PREFIX [IP::remote_addr] access [HTTP::uri] with in_progress session, redirecting to logout URI" HTTP::close here you can do whatever you want, easiest option is to simply 302 user to logout URI to delete apm cookie and start over HTTP::respond 302 Location "/my.logout.php3" } }
SSO HTTP Forms with variably uri
Hello, I have an application which does not make SSO SAML and I would like to be able to set up SSO HTTP Forms. However my URI is variable. POST /idp/4NnB0_xVb0A/resumeSAML20/idp/SSO.ping HTTP/1.1 apm sso form-based /Common/LMT_test_auth { form-action "/resumeSAML20/idp/SSO.ping HTTP/1.1" form-field " " form-password password form-username username start-uri /resumeSAML20/idp/SSO.ping How are you to do for this? Thanks for help
Help designing an access policy to work across multiple subdomains in Sharepoint?
I have a working access policy that works great for a pool of Sharepoint servers. My problem is when the user authenticates using username and password to dept1.mine.com they are prompted again when they click a link that goes to dept2.mine.com or dept3.mine.com. All of these sites reside on the same Sharepoint server(s). All of these sites are accessed through one virtual server and one pool of servers. Is there a way to have all the sites accessible after a single login? Logon Page -- AD Auth -- SSO Credential Mapping -- Allow
SAML SSO - IDP INITIATED CONNECTION DETAILS
Hi Experts , I have a simple query , I am building a IDP initiated SSO for a cloud service. In the IDP entity ID , I configure as this : https://idp-xxx.com. Do I need to add /saml/idp/profile/redirectorpost/sso also in the IDP entity ID for a IDP initiated connection? for example : https://idp-xxx.com/saml/idp/profile/redirectorpost/sso I am building an IDP initiated connection . thanks in advance.
APM - Avoid F5 Login Page (Kerberos)
Hi, Can we use Kerberos authentication for seamless access (SSO) to HTTP form based applications ? So That -> No Login Page Webtop will present different apps for each AD group (using kerberos internal users) Application (In webtop) will have sso for (Using user kerberos) regardless of authentcaion method like NTLM, Http form etc. Aim is that : (when user logged on) will skip entering username/password in any portal/webtop/application. ThanksSSO with redirected challenge
Hi friends. I'm having a bit of an issue here with SSO. We have a SSO configuration that works just fine with Portal Access' that authenticate "directly" - the same site performs the challenge. However, we have another portal that, redirects you to another URL, and that site is the one that performs the authentication. We have added both sites as SSO Domains, and both urls as resources in the portal access object, but to no avail. Thank you for your help!
