<div dir="ltr">I agree it should be manage-users. JIRA please<div><br></div><div>One caveat at the moment manage-users allows a user to assign admin role to himself as there's no restrictions on what roles can be assigned to users. This is something we're looking at improving hopefully for 1.8.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 November 2015 at 09:53, Gregor Tudan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Gregor.Tudan@cofinpro.de" target="_blank">Gregor.Tudan@cofinpro.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
Hi everyone,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>while I totally agree that any configuration of the bruteforce-detection should require the realm-management role, I’d like to raise the question if clearing failed attempts should be that restrictive.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This affects the following service endpoints:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>DELETE /admin/realms/{realm}/attack-detection/brute-force/usernames/{username}</div>
<div>DELETE /admin/realms/{realm}/attack-detection/brute-force/usernames</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We would like to enable callcenter agents to unlock specific users, but giving them realm-management permissions doesn't feel right. Would’t user-management be more appropriate permissions for these endpoints, or are there side effects to consider?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Gregor</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
keycloak-user mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org">keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>