Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Original comment by azizatif
on 7 Nov 2008 at 7:56
This could open a whole anohter can of worms from secure credentials
management, UI
updates and more. Would it be sufficient if ELMAH allowed slightly more
fine-grained
control like roles that are allowed remote access rather just a single Boolean
flas
as it is now? This would assume that the web site already has some
authentication
mechanism (Forms, Basic, Digest, etc.) in place and so it would be fairly quick
to
address. Might even make it into version 1.0. :)
Original comment by azizatif
on 7 Nov 2008 at 7:59
...more fine-grained control could be a solution...
regards
Original comment by off...@madrian.at
on 7 Nov 2008 at 8:04
On second thoughts, I think this would just duplicate what's already there. The
following wiki addresses secruring ELMAH via standard URL authorization
techniques
and where you can specify roles and users:
http://code.google.com/p/elmah/wiki/SecuringErrorLogPages
The remote access switch is really as an additional measure where you could use
URL-
based authorization to secure ELMAH and on top say that those users and roles
can or
cannot access the pages remotely.
Original comment by azizatif
on 7 Nov 2008 at 8:25
Original comment by jamesdriscoll71
on 19 Feb 2012 at 12:20
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
off...@madrian.at
on 7 Nov 2008 at 7:53