search

awslabs / awsprocesscreds

Process credential providers for AWS SDKs and Tools
Apache License 2.0
132 stars 40 forks source link

Added ability to read in an MFA token. #18

Closed andylockran closed 6 years ago

andylockran commented 6 years ago

Issue #13

Description of changes:

I've parsed the first authentication response, and upon finding MFA_REQUIRED, sends another request with the passcode and sessionToken to return a one-time-code; this then continues the normal flow of the application.

Limitations - this will always select the first MFA token . (as this resolves my use case). Will add additional functionality for multiple MFA selection and create a new issue to do so.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

joshk0 commented 6 years ago

hi @andylockran , what is the difference between this and #14 ?

andylockran commented 6 years ago

Completely honest; I hadn’t seen #14 when I submitted it. I’ll test out 14 and get back to you. I’ve also reached out directly to okta, and had a positive response to create a higher level lib to import instead of a custom implementation.

Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Feb 2018, at 21:56, Joshua Kwan notifications@github.com wrote:

hi @andylockran , what is the difference between this and #14 ?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

joshk0 commented 6 years ago

No problem. I'm just a potential user of either of these pull requests and want to know which one I should use. It sounds like you should peek over and see if the two are mutually compatible in approach, work with the author and create a unified PR. I am wondering if the folks at AWS Labs will express a strong direction for whether this sort of thing belongs in awsprocesscreds and support the change, I think this change going in would be enormously consequential for a lot of teams using Okta and looking to tie it to AWS.

JordonPhillips commented 6 years ago

Thanks for the pr! I think I would prefer to go down the route of #14, which adds support for some other things in addition to this. Does that PR address your use case?

I'm going to close this pr, but feel free to re-open if the other pr doesn't address your case.