zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. deatha+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-07-30 18:22:33
> Add to that the very often the people you're integrating with have no concept of SAML, its workflows, its payloads, etc., much less the capabilities of their own stack in regards to SAML. So you get to train them (and learn about their system) at the same time.

This is true of a great many protocols, unfortunately. I've seen this with IPSec, HL7v2, … CSV.

IPSec was perhaps the most … scarring. Always sort of feeling your stomach turn to acid as you wonder to yourself "will we be able to integrate with the other end?" when you're trying to work with "network engineers" who cannot establish a TCP connection to test if the VPN tunnel is alive. And yeah, it's learn their system as fast as humanly possible to then determine if their setup is correct, and to hunt where the inevitable integration problems lie. (…in the firewall. It was always a firewall, somewhere.) Why other systems feel the need to take the standard terms and reinvent new words for them is beyond me to this day. "Enterprise" junk is particularly guilty of it. Most of the learning is just building a mental Rosetta stone of what does the other end's "appliance" call this term or that term.

replies(2): >>double+5h >>bearja+go
2. double+5h[view] [source] 2024-07-30 19:59:07
>>deatha+(OP)
SAML and IPsec both make my eye twitch, and I too have struggled where the person on the other end has no idea.

One of my favourites was the time I was trying to figure out a SAML integration with a client, and before the person on the client's "SSO team" could figure it out, I installed a demo of their SSO solution, integrated with my own dev AD, and found the checkbox.

Yay enterprise! The Q in enterprise is for quality.

replies(1): >>Aeolun+SM
3. bearja+go[view] [source] 2024-07-30 20:44:21
>>deatha+(OP)
HL7v2, the protocol of "we just put all the data in this one random field".
replies(2): >>fhub+ax >>tyingq+Mw1
◧◩
4. fhub+ax[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-07-30 21:53:35
>>bearja+go
As a base64’d pdf
replies(1): >>bearja+VI
◧◩◪
5. bearja+VI[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-07-30 23:51:58
>>fhub+ax
It's amazing how normalized this is, I was baffled many years ago and I have just accepted it at this point.
◧◩
6. Aeolun+SM[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-07-31 00:36:59
>>double+5h
Yeah, I’ve done this too. On the one hand, it’s crazy annoying. On the other hand, at least they _had_ a docker image I could use.
◧◩
7. tyingq+Mw1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-07-31 11:47:25
>>bearja+go
Delimited with ^, |, ~ and &, which is sure to never create issues.
[go to top]