Added Multi-Factor Authentication #70
Conversation
|
@chesspro13 , since you're still working on the PR, I will put it in draft for now. |
|
TOTP functionality is complete. I'm going through and rewriting everything to try to match the original formatting as much as possible. @eliandoran do you have a formatting config? |
| }) | ||
| .then((result) => { | ||
| if (result.success) { | ||
| toastService.showError('Password has been changed. Trilium will be reloaded after you press OK.'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Change this to reflect Secret, not password
| @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ | |||
| import options = require('../../services/options'); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was another implementation worth docker and webui variables. It doesn't need to be here.
src/services/encryption/my_scrypt.ts
Outdated
| @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
| "use strict"; | |||
| 'use strict'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove stuff relating to secret keys being encrypted.
|
@eliandoran, just to clarify, the policy is to request review when merging into the develop branch, correct? Am I correct in assuming I can merge this since it's a pull request from my fork to this MFA branch? |
|
@chesspro13 , generally the process is to open a PR that targets the main development branch (develop, in our case). The reason is that a PR is basically a way of asking to merge code into the main branch, with support for reviews. Generally, you create a branch either on your fork on this repo (I prefer to create branches directly on the TriliumNext repo) and then create the PR. No need to have a branch both on the fork and on TriliumNext. In this case, my recommendation is to edit this PR (top-right) and change the base branch to develop. |
|
Going to bundle this feature along with OAuth. Closing pull request. |
Added A tab in the options menu to enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) in the form of Time-Based One Time Passwords (TOTP) for a layer of security.
White space corrected through the use of Prettier. Format standardization still needed issue #52
Addresses feature request #68