Hi Carsten thanks a lot for the fast reply!
> as noted in the issue this is a very dangerous setting - it might be ok > in your use case, but in general you definitely don't want to do this. > Therefore I'm a little bit reluctant to add such a general setting. I understand your point about the setting beeing dangerous (however I would expect someone configuring authentication with client certificates to be able to grasp the implications of it ;-) > I like the idea from Reto to make this pluggable via a service. In this > case you can still provide your own implementation but for everyone else > it gets harder to shoot themselves in the foot. The main reason why we have implemented the patch directly into the HTTP service is simplicity (for understanding/accepting the patch as well as for the user), it also results in less modification of code which we thought would be more safe. Also, from a user perspective, we think that having a pluggable service leads to more complexity which could as well be more unsafe. So far our thoughts. We see the following possibilities: 1. (for completness) patch as-is 2. The patch but without metatype-definitions (thus the feature could not directly be configured over configmgr-gui, needing more interaction from the user) 3. Extend the code to make this injectable as a service What do you think? Many thanks and kind regards, Pascal -- Bern University of Applied Sciences Biel, Switzerland
