Skip to content

Conversation

@darranl
Copy link
Contributor

@darranl darranl commented Apr 30, 2025

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stability-level/default "Default" stability-level label Apr 30, 2025
* HTTP Programmatic

The wrapper will be applied automatically by the `elytron` subsystem, it will be possible to override the
default behaviour by setting the following realm specific system properties:
Copy link

@OndrejKotek OndrejKotek May 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would it be useful to have also global settings for all security realms to be configurable at once? (E.g. just by omitting [REALM NAME].)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@OndrejKotek I have been thinking about this and IMO we should not add a global option.

The system property approach we are taking here is a short term configuration option until we are ready to add management attributes to configure this - once we add those attributes they will be on a realm by realm basis so we will not have a global equivalent.

We could consider a global management option but we don't really do that for other resources so I think I would prefer to keep per realm unless we receive end user requests for a global config option.

a defined period of time after a defined number of failed authentication attempts. The failed authentication
attempts will be tracked in an in-memory cache.

The utility will be enabled by default for the following security realms:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How are we going to handle realms referencing these basic security realm? (For example failover-realm, distributed-realm, aggregate-realm.) Will it be possible to apply the configuration properties also to those? If so, which configuration would have precedence? Or will those security realms rather only let the protection on the wrapped realms?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am adding a clarification to the analysis but IMO we should not apply it to these realms so we don't need to worry about precendence and instead will apply it just to the realm that actually handles the raw identities.

@github-actions github-actions bot added stability-level/default "Default" stability-level and removed stability-level/default "Default" stability-level labels Jan 9, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

stability-level/default "Default" stability-level

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants