give it a closer look (for real this time).
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com] Im Auftrag von Stephen Connolly
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. November 2013 16:31
> An: jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com
> Betr
ci-users@googlegroups.com [mailto:jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com]
Im Auftrag von Stephen Connolly
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. November 2013 16:31
An: jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com
Betreff: Re: Use different backend (plug in) for authentication and
authorization?
Try a 30 day evaluation license first... I am
@googlegroups.com
Betreff: Re: Use different backend (plug in) for authentication and
authorization?
you could certainly write such a Security Realm implementation... but be warned
that Security Realm implementations are probably among the more complex to
write (i.e. it can be easy to fuck them up)
The user
oglegroups.com [mailto:
> jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com] Im Auftrag von Stephen Connolly
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. November 2013 11:56
> An: jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com
> Betreff: Re: Use different backend (plug in) for authentication and
> authorization?
>
> you
you could certainly write such a Security Realm implementation... but be
warned that Security Realm implementations are probably among the more
complex to write (i.e. it can be easy to fuck them up)
The user and group information is all provided by the single Security Ream
component, so they both
Hi everyone!
In our company one can use CAS as an authentication service for single sign on
purposes. Unfortunately, however, that is all it does. The response contains
information about the user (like email address) but not about the roles he is
in. This has to be done e.g. trough LDAP.
Is th
