You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 9, 2017. It is now read-only.
So, we're using a somewhat modified IdentityServer as the STS in a multi-app setup, and we've just started using delegation (ie: ActAs tokens) and run into a bit of a surprise: our individual apps get different claims based on what sorts of permissions they have, but when we delegate from one app to another, the user's claims are passed through instead of running through the ClaimsRepository again.
On the one hand, this is good for performance, but on the other, it leads to apps receiving identities that aren't really meaningful to them.
We're looking at options to address this, but I thought I'd go ahead and throw some questions out there too.
Is it possible to have the user's claims re-interpreted on an ActAs request without changing IdentityServer code (replacing repository implementations is okay)?
Is this behavior different in a newer version? We're a little out of date.
Am I coming at this from the wrong perspective? Is changing the token that's sent to the next application a bad idea?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
So, we're using a somewhat modified IdentityServer as the STS in a multi-app setup, and we've just started using delegation (ie: ActAs tokens) and run into a bit of a surprise: our individual apps get different claims based on what sorts of permissions they have, but when we delegate from one app to another, the user's claims are passed through instead of running through the ClaimsRepository again.
On the one hand, this is good for performance, but on the other, it leads to apps receiving identities that aren't really meaningful to them.
We're looking at options to address this, but I thought I'd go ahead and throw some questions out there too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: