When comparing a partner identity provider integration with a non-partner identity management solution for GitHub Enterprise Managed Users, which statement is Correct?

Question

Options

• AThe non-partner identity provider integrations can utilize OIDC for authentication.
• BThe non-partner identity provider integrations require manual configuration of SAML 2.0 details.
• CThe partner identity provider integrations support fewer GitHub-supported authentication methods.
• DThe partner identity provider integrations rely on the partner to support the application on the

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  94% (31)
• C
  3% (1)

Explanation

Option B is correct because non-partner identity providers (IdPs) lack pre-built application connectors for GitHub Enterprise Managed Users (EMU), so administrators must manually enter all SAML 2.0 details - including the SSO URL, issuer, and signing certificate - to establish the integration.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is wrong - OIDC support in GitHub EMU is exclusive to partner IdPs (like Azure AD/Entra ID and Okta). Non-partner IdPs are restricted to SAML 2.0 only, making this the opposite of true.
• C is wrong - Partner IdP integrations actually support more authentication methods (both SAML and OIDC), not fewer. They are the feature-rich option.
• D is wrong (and incomplete) - While partner integrations do rely on the partner to maintain the application connector, this is an advantage, not a drawback; it reduces the configuration burden on the admin.

Memory tip: Think of it as "Partner = Plug-and-play, Non-partner = Manual SAML setup." Partner IdPs come with a pre-configured app in their catalog, so setup is automated. Non-partner IdPs have no such app, so you're doing the wiring yourself - manually, with SAML 2.0.

No community discussion yet for this question.