feat: cookie parameters in proxy configuration

[peppelinux]

This PR fixes #344 introducing the following paramenters to be optionally handled in the proxy global configuration.

Secure
Now can be disabled via COOKIE_SECURE: no in proxy_conf.yaml.
Default: True
that's only for dev purpose!

HttpOnly
To avoid cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks, cookies set with the HttpOnly directive are inaccessible to the JavaScript Document.cookie API. For example, session cookies don't need to be accessed by JavaScript and should therefore be set with the HttpOnly flag.
Default: True
parameter name eg: COOKIE_HTTPONLY: no

Domain, COOKIE_DOMAIN
Max-Age, COOKIE_MAX_AGE

it come also with some minor code linting and f-strings, few things.

All Submissions:

• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
• Have you added an explanation of what problem you are trying to solve with this PR?
• Have you added information on what your changes do and why you chose this as your solution?
• Have you written new tests for your changes?
• Does your submission pass tests?
• This project follows PEP8 style guide. Have you run your code against the 'flake8' linter?

[peppelinux]

It seems that here we have a collision

SATOSA/src/satosa/frontends/saml2.py

Line 558 in 1def998

cookie = SimpleCookie()

anyway, with my PR I tested in the user-agent debugger and it seems that SATOSA cookie respects the global configuration parameter, instead of the frontend ones.

I think that we should have to decide if keep cookie paramenters in the plugins or move them in the global configuration and refactor/cleanup/reduce all those hardcodings

[c00kiemon5ter]

@peppelinux we will be merging this PR.

The SimpleCookie created by the frontend is a separate one, it has a different purpose and should not conflict the cookie that the proxy is using to store state.

[c00kiemon5ter]

closed by 1206ea5

[peppelinux]

This PR should have been taken

Since the code committed Is equal or similar

There are some cases where a PR Is not perfect but it's 80% good

In these cases the mantainers can add their commits Upon the PR made by the community

This preserves the contribution in the history of the commits, giving a gratification to contributions

If this doesn't happen, what would be the value to contribute in a project?

This Is not project management or product design, this Is social Exchange and I think that our community needs this awareness, then we should be able to apply these mechanisms to gather contributions and value in the projects

[c00kiemon5ter]

@peppelinux you are right and I will try to do that in the future ❤️

[peppelinux]

Even if the priority Is the release (output, the "what") the process to achieve this is important (the how)

I'm Happy of this brand new release, at the same time we may had a pull request to understand the "what" and the "how"

We should also take in account that a release that introduces these features needs testing, because i dont know which Will be the impact of this release on the systems in production and there might be the possibility to test these in a PR/branch, before a release

This Is just for sharing, I look forward with you

Ad maiora