-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Limiting the use of one session in two clients #1045
Labels
question
Further information is requested
Comments
masoodafar-web
changed the title
Limiting the use of one session in two clients Hello, thank you for your hard work on this project. I have deployed your project and I am using it, I have a basic question. I have two clients, for example, client A and client B. Now, when I log in with client A, I don't want to allow the user to log in to client B, because when I go to client B, I can use client B through a silent login. . How can I prevent such a problem? Is there a default solution for this issue in Identity Server or not? If there is, should it be handled on the IDS side or on the client side?
Limiting the use of one session in two clients
Jul 12, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hello, thank you for your hard work on this project.
I have deployed your project and I am using it, I have a basic question.
I have two clients, for example, client A and client B. Now, when I log in with client A, I don't want to allow the user to log in to client B, because when I go to client B, I can use client B through a silent login. and IDP doesn't stop client B from logging in. In fact, I want to assign each user to client properties so that a user who doesn't have access to client B can't use it.
Should this be done only through Role or something like scope?
How can I prevent such a problem?
Is there a default solution for this issue in Identity Server or not?
If there is, should it be handled on the IDS side or on the client side?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: