Skip to content
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

Implementing Individual user accounts in local database in asp.net core 2.0 web API #2144

Closed
ghost opened this issue Aug 18, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 18, 2017

When you make a new project in asp.net core 2.0 (web API template) you have choice to add authentication as "individual user accounts" but contrary to the web application template there is no "store user accounts in app" option.
it would be nice if user accounts for APIs could be stored in the local database mainly for intranet APIs so that the authentication will work regardless of the availability of internet connection.

@Tratcher
Copy link
Member

@blowdart @HaoK

@blowdart
Copy link
Contributor

That's almost on the list, but not so as you would recognise it. We generally don't recommend cookies with APIs as an auth mechanism, and until we have a replacement for a token service we can't bring back that option in the template. That work is currently ongoing.

If you wanted to start now you could look at using something like Identity Server to issue you a JWT token from user accounts in a local database.

@aspnet-hello
Copy link

This issue is being closed because it has not been updated in 3 months.

We apologize if this causes any inconvenience. We ask that if you are still encountering this issue, please log a new issue with updated information and we will investigate.

@murbanowicz
Copy link

Any updates on that @blowdart @Tratcher ?

@Tratcher
Copy link
Member

No

@ruffin--
Copy link

@blowdart Why wouldn't using cookies with APIs be recommended? It's certainly possible to use Identity with WebAPI in ASP.NET Core... but is that insecure in some especially heinous way that would preclude offering it as an option for a project by default?

@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 1, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants