You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If a user accesses multiple vantage6 instances with two-factor authentication, the identifier for each TOTP code on their phone may look the same. It's always vantage6 (cotopaxi): username, so there's no easy way to distinguish the different servers unless they are running different major versions or the user has different usernames.
Desired solution
A way for the server administrator to give human identifiable name to the server that is used in the issuer for the TOTP. For example, something like: vantage6 (server_name): username, instead of the version.
Additional context
Some TOTP do allow you to change part of that string at least, but that implies the user should take an extra step.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I guess it would make most sense to include a server_name as configuration option. I think we can put that information into the QR code easily. Alternatively, there is already the name configuration option that can be used directly, but that may not be a nice value always. Third option is to create a configuration option specifically for this in the mfa part of the configuration - but I don't think I prefer that.
Problem description
If a user accesses multiple vantage6 instances with two-factor authentication, the identifier for each TOTP code on their phone may look the same. It's always
vantage6 (cotopaxi): username
, so there's no easy way to distinguish the different servers unless they are running different major versions or the user has different usernames.Desired solution
A way for the server administrator to give human identifiable name to the server that is used in the issuer for the TOTP. For example, something like:
vantage6 (server_name): username
, instead of the version.Additional context
Some TOTP do allow you to change part of that string at least, but that implies the user should take an extra step.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: