Re: [Dev] [IS 6.0.0] [User Portal] Challenge Questions in Self sign-up page of user portal

2017-01-18 Thread Danushka Fernando
If everyone had it in past and no longer using it, big +1 for removing it. Only concern is about existing customers. If we can explain the rationale behind removing it we are in clear I guess. @Sewmini Yes there is a reviewed user story for this. But when we discuss about some implementation

Re: [Dev] [IS 6.0.0] [User Portal] Challenge Questions in Self sign-up page of user portal

2017-01-18 Thread KasunG Gajasinghe
Security questions are a thing of the past. Google, Facebook they all have removed the security questions based password recovery mechanisms. [1] [2] So, +1 to drop this support in IS 6. [1] http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2014/12/google-drops-support-for-security.html [2]

Re: [Dev] [IS 6.0.0] [User Portal] Challenge Questions in Self sign-up page of user portal

2017-01-18 Thread Sewmini Jayaweera
Hi Indunil, I noticed that there is already added epic [1] for challenge question and the two user stories added are in 'Design review completed' and 'implementation' started state. EE team members have already derived user scenarios and almost completed adding test cases into TestLink [2]. Is

Re: [Dev] [IS 6.0.0] [User Portal] Challenge Questions in Self sign-up page of user portal

2017-01-18 Thread Nuwan Dias
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Indunil Upeksha Rathnayake < indu...@wso2.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Currently we are working on implementing C5 user portal in IS. Appreciate > your suggestions/ideas for the following concerns regarding challenge > questions. > > *1) Is it necessary to include

Re: [Dev] [IS 6.0.0] [User Portal] Challenge Questions in Self sign-up page of user portal

2017-01-18 Thread Rushmin Fernando
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Indunil Upeksha Rathnayake < indu...@wso2.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Currently we are working on implementing C5 user portal in IS. Appreciate > your suggestions/ideas for the following concerns regarding challenge > questions. > > *1) Is it necessary to include