-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 349
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
Shibboleth / HTTP header sso authentification with lemonldap fails #724
Comments
Please when you have a question or problems, use the community forum before opening new issues, thank you. I'm transferring the issue to jicofo for now, till we triage it. |
@daimoc I know you are using shibboleth and have a way to test this. Can you confirm the same? |
What is the latest known working and the first broken version of jicofo? |
The issue follows yesterday's jitsi stable update.
|
Can you also share jocofo logs? |
Here's a start log, i do not get any other message |
Hi @damencho, I reproduce this issue and it seems that it is an issue on the javascript side maybe link to this commit : https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/pull/8869/commits. |
Thank you, we will take a look next week. |
To update the history jitsi/jitsi-meet#9026 |
As @daimoc pointed in the community forum this was broken from the UI change, I manage to repro without touching jicofo. We are working on it. |
Description
The latest version of jitsi seems to have broken the ability to use lemonldap http header SSO authentication for hosts.
The following documentation was followed and worked flawlessly until yesterday's upgrade (protecting the /login/ url with lemonldap after configuring shibboleth auth):
https://lemonldap-ng.org/documentation/2.0/applications/jitsimeet.html
Current behavior
Currently no redirection to lemonldap auth portal is done and the classic jitsi meet authentication form appears
Expected Behavior
Redirection to lemonldap aud use of provided mail http headers as authentication .
Could you indicate what change breaks the previous behaviour?
Thanks & regards
Jean-Noël Fohr
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: