Remove session_key from admin by default #64
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
IMO exposing the session key via the admin interface is unnecessary and just makes it easier to impersonate a user which is, arguably, a security risk.
Bouke
requested changes
Jan 4, 2017
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@naggie thank you. I think it's sufficient to exclude that field by default (non-optional). If one wants the old behaviour back, a custom admin page could be created. Also there's no need to change setup.py; that will be handled as part of the release process. If you can make these changes, I'll merge the PR.
|
Great -- thanks for responding so fast! |
Bouke
approved these changes
Jan 4, 2017
1 similar comment
1 similar comment
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Exposing the session key via the admin interface could be considered unnecessary and
just makes it easier to impersonate a user which is, arguably, a
security risk.
The following PR makes this optional. I'd appreciate your opinion.
Thanks!
Callan Bryant