Implement IProvideUserSecretBackend compatibility for per-user encryption#697
Implement IProvideUserSecretBackend compatibility for per-user encryption#697summersab wants to merge 1 commit into
IProvideUserSecretBackend compatibility for per-user encryption#697Conversation
summersab
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2835706 to
cd0c669
Compare
|
@blizzz, you look like one of the top contributors to this repo. Is the CI check broken? |
Only partly, it should be green up to and including stable25. We're working on getting it back for 26 and master. |
|
Hey, this is just our yearly reminder that we are still testing this patch in our instance. In fact I just applied this new PR to the newest released nextcloud version and it works perfectly well and is stable enough that we can still decrypt the data from 2.5 years ago when we initially proposed this patch :) We are still eagerly awaiting upstream adoption... |
summersab
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
from
cd0c669 to
d5e4825
Compare
summersab
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
from
d5e4825 to
17b1210
Compare
summersab
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
2 times, most recently
from
becfef3 to
f5de408
Compare
summersab
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
from
f5de408 to
128a9d3
Compare
|
Any news, when it will be supported, readlly want to use saml for server-side encryption |
blizzz
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
from
128a9d3 to
6e1548a
Compare
blizzz
left a comment
blizzz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for your contribution! Rebased (CI is repaired since) and left a first review.
|
@summersab @immerda is this still a thing? |
|
I mean... it should have been. I had to shift away from my NC plans, but this is a feature that provides some advanced encryption capabilities. I wish it would have been merged when I was more active with the project to be honest. |
|
Understandably 😓 |
CarlSchwan
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
from
6e1548a to
3112f62
Compare
CarlSchwan
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
from
3112f62 to
0cf1aca
Compare
|
btw this is now rebased and cleaned up. @summersab if you still have your test setup for this, it would be great if you could give it a try and confirm that it still works |
CarlSchwan
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
from
0cf1aca to
d27578f
Compare
Signed-off-by: summersab <18727110+summersab@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Summers <18727110+summersab@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Carl Schwan <carlschwan@kde.org>
CarlSchwan
force-pushed
the
IProvideUserSecretBackend
branch
from
d27578f to
371646d
Compare
|
Actually this will need nextcloud/server#60898 otherwise there is no real way to make this feature optional. Now the logic is as following: Feature enabled: returns either a non-empty-string or throws a HintException |
5 participants
This PR is intended to implement the functionality from PR #537. The upstream code changed enough that it was easier to close the original PR and submit a new one.
Now that the
IProvideUserSecretBackendclass has been added to the Nextcloud core with PR nextcloud/server#24837 / nextcloud/server#27929, this PR adds the necessary logic to support per-user SAML provided secrets.