Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

You could change the login action on the computer login form #998

Closed
angrybrad opened this issue Jan 31, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

You could change the login action on the computer login form #998

angrybrad opened this issue Jan 31, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@angrybrad
Copy link
Member

Created by: Trond A. F. Sørås ([email protected]) on 2015/07/24 09:43:47 +0000
Votes at time of UserVoice import: 6


We would like a client to be able to log in via ldap, and having two login forms is a drag. Would be nice if we could config the post action for the default cp login form.

@angrybrad
Copy link
Member Author

Posted by Joseph Morrill ([email protected]) on 2017/01/07 20:16:17 +0000


Having a pluggable authentication provider would simplify implementing two factor authentication as well. There's a feature request for that here: http://craftcms.stackexchange.com/questions/17256/implementing-two-factor-authentication-totp-for-cp-logins

@angrybrad
Copy link
Member Author

Posted by Anonymous ([email protected]) on 2016/12/02 17:31:39 +0000


Agree with @tijs van Erp, allowing a pluggable authentication provider is much better. It would let users defer to SAML or other Single Sign On systems in place of the local user/pass store in craft.

@angrybrad
Copy link
Member Author

Posted by Trond A. F. Sørås ([email protected]) on 2015/07/24 09:43:47 +0000


The title is supposed to say "control panel login form" just in case anyone gets confused.

@angrybrad
Copy link
Member Author

Posted by Tijs van Erp ([email protected]) on 2016/09/02 08:01:01 +0000


It would even be better if you could just override the default authentication provider. This way it is way less hacky. It just has to adhere to an authentication interface. It's a simple enough class and should be easy to inject.

@angrybrad
Copy link
Member Author

Closing this one in favor of #1471

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant