The first one is the Identity Provider that is configured automatically when signing up to TrustBuilder. Its code name is
IDHUB_IDP_UP. This IDP will look up the subject in the user repository (database). The settings of this IDP cannot be changed, with the exception of "Page Setting"
Other types of Internal IDP will delegate the Authentication to a workflow.
Configure a custom Internal IDP
From the admin portal, go to Identity Providers tab > Custom Internal IDP.
The display name of the Identity Provider
Not used, for informative use only.
User specified description of the Identity Provider
Select a workflow that will be executed after the Authentication is complete. The workflows can be used, for instance, to provision users in a user database.
Primary attribute that is used to identify the Subject
You can manage certificates from the Certificates configuration page. You can also add or import certificates from the Identity provider configuration.
Select the workflow that will handle the user authentication.
Token Validation Workflow
Select the workflow that will handle the token validation.
Only for the built-in IDP (
This determines the page that is presented to the user to log into the TrustBuilder IDP.
Make sure the location or template is functional. Otherwise, you may not be able to log back into TrustBuilder.
The internal IDP needs a workflow. That workflow is called in two occasions:
In case of an authentication request
When the user posts his credentials.
Below is explained how you can make that workflow.
The input of the workflow is a SimpleValueRequest which contains the following parameters:
type: "authenticationRequest" or "userInputHandlingRequest"
In case of a userInputHandlingRequest the input also contains the query parameters.
In case of a backchannel request the parameters field contains the parameters "username" and "password".
The response must be a SimpleValueResponse. The expected fields are:
type: "assertion", "page" or "error"
The expected structure for the "value" field depends on the "type" field.
As you can see the internal idp workflow can give three type of responses. Here we will discuss them all and explain the corresponding expected structure for the "value" field.
You have the possibility to respond with an assertion. In this case the "value" field needs to contain the following fields:
The attributes field must be an object with as keys the attribute names and as values the corresponding attribute values in an array.
You have the possibility to respond with a page. This would typically be a login page or an error page. In this case the "value" field needs to contain the field:
The following fields are optional (but you will probably want to declare at least one of them because a status on its own won't be very useful):
All of these fields, if declared, must be an object with string keys and string values.
If you create a login page, the credentials must be posted to /idhub/authenticate/internalidp. The parameter "idpCode" is also required. If you want the parameters "relayState" and "authenticationContext" to be present in the userInputHandlingRequest, you will also need to include them in this post.
You have the possibility to respond with an error code known by the system. The error handling functionality of the system will handle the error in the same way it handles the same kind of error encountered with another IDP type (e.g. SAML IDP, OAUTH IDP).
Internal error code
SAML error code
Account is blocked
The responding provider was unable to successfully authenticate the principal.
A required certificate was not found
Installation is not completed, complete installation and retry
Internal server error
Unexpected or invalid content was encountered within a <saml:Attribute> or <saml:AttributeValue> element.
The responding provider cannot or will not support the requested name identifier policy.
There are some parameters with invalid values in the request.
The parsing of a third party message has failed.
There are some parameters missing in the request.
The specified authentication context requirements cannot be met by the responder.
Used by an intermediary to indicate that none of the supported identity provider <Loc> elements in an <IDPList> can be resolved or that none of the supported identity providers are available.
Indicates that the responding provider cannot authenticate the principal passively, as has been requested.
No Gateway Service Provider found
here is no value present for the attribute used as subject for the Service Provider you are trying to access
Used by an intermediary to indicate that none of the identity providers in an <IDPList> are supported by the intermediary.
Indicates that a responding provider cannot authenticate the principal directly and is not permitted to proxy the request further.
The SAML responder or SAML authority is able to process the request but has chosen not to respond. This status code MAY be used when there is concern about the security context of the request message or the sequence of request messages received from a particular requester.
The SAML responder or SAML authority does not support the request.
The SAML responder cannot process any requests with the protocol version specified in the request.
The SAML responder cannot process the request because the protocol version specified in the request message is a major upgrade from the highest protocol version supported by the responder.
The SAML responder cannot process the request because the protocol version specified in the request message is too low.
The resource value provided in the request message is invalid or unrecognized.
The response message would contain more elements than the SAML responder is able to return.
An entity that has no knowledge of a particular attribute profile has been presented with an attribute drawn from that profile.
The responding provider does not recognize the principal specified or implied by the request.
The issuer of a SAML artifact response could not be identified.
The Service Provider is not known to us.
The SAML responder cannot properly fulfill the request using the protocol binding specified in the request.
There was a problem finding the authentication method
Mismatch between logged on user and incoming user