Skip to main content

ADFS claim rules - Lessons learned

ADFS has the concept of claim rules which allow you to enumerate, add, delete, and modify claims. This is useful when you want for example introduce extra claims (based on data in a database or AD) or transform incoming claims. I wrote about claim rules before but I want to give a heads up about some of the lessons I learned along the way.

Lesson 1 - Claim rules can be configured at 2 levels

There are 2 locations in ADFS where you can configure claim rules. The first one is at the level of the relying party:

The second is at the level of the claims provider:

If you don’t know what either is, a short explanation:

In Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS), a claims provider is the entity that authenticates users and issues claims about them. This can be Active Directory but also another IP-STS.

A relying party is an application or service that relies on the claims provided by the claims provider to make authorization decisions.

Essentially, the claims provider verifies the user’s identity and the relying party uses this information to grant or deny access to its resources.

Lesson 2 -  No claims are passed by default

Every incoming claim goes through a pipeline where it first passes the claims provider rules and afterwards the relying party rules. Important to notice is that no claims are passed by default so you either have to explicitly specify a claim rule for every claim you want to pass on;

Or you create a custom rule that passes all claims(I would not recommend this to avoid unexpected behavior):

 

Lesson 3 -  There is the concept of an input claim set and output claim set

When working with claims both at the claims provider and relying party level, you need to understand that there is an input claim set and an output claim set. That also explains lesson number 2. Incoming claims end up in the input claim set and the example rules we used above copy these claims from the input claim set to the output claim set.

Only the claims in the output claim set are passed on.

The important keyword here is the ‘issue’ keyword:

c:[Type == "http://schemas.microsoft.com/ws/2008/06/identity/claims/windowsaccountname"]
  => issue(claim = c);

This will copy the claim to the output claim set.

It is also possible to add claims to the input claim set that can be used in later rules. To do that we need to use the ‘add’ keyword instead:

c:[Type == "http://schemas.microsoft.com/ws/2008/06/identity/claims/windowsaccountname"]
=> add(claim = c);

Now this claim is accessible in later rules but will not be passed on.

Lesson 4 -  Multiple instances of the same claim type can be returned

If you specify a claim rule with a condition, all claims matching that condition will be returned.

For example if we take a look at the following rule:

This will return a groupsid claim for every group the user is part of in Active Directory.

Remark: Unaware of this behavior I got into trouble when I tried to read a claim value in my application using the following code:

It sometimes returned a different value and I couldn’t understand why until I checked the full list of claims returned and noticed the same claim type being returned multiple times.

Lesson 5 -  There is no if-then-else condition but we can ‘fake’ it

There is no if-then-else construct available out-of-the box, a rule can has a condition, an operator and an issuance statement and that’s it.

The “if statement” condition:

c:[Type ==”http://schemas.microsoft.com/ws/2008/06/identity/claims/windowsaccountname”]

The operator:

=>

The issuance statement:

issue(claim = c);

However you can ‘fake’ an if-then-else condition by first issuing an input claim using a NOT EXISTS check:

Remark: the exact value of the claim doesn’t matter.

And then use this input claim in a second claim rule:

Bonus lesson

As a bonus lesson, I would like to point to the great blogpost by Rory Braybrook who shared a list of tips & tricks that can help you in defining your ADFS claim rules. A must read!

More information

ADFS Claim rules (bartwullems.blogspot.com)

Tips and tricks with ADFS claims rules | by Rory Braybrook | The new control plane | Medium

AD FS 2.0 Claims Rule Language Primer - Microsoft Community Hub

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...