Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
Added by Олег Письменнов about 11 years ago
Hello, how can I set Transparent NTLM authorisation? Without user\password request?
Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3.
Windows install.
Replies (8)
    
    RE: Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
    -
    Added by Vladimir Pitin almost 11 years ago
  
  Our plugin Single Auth can do it. See here https://github.com/tdvsdv/single_auth
We have some other great plugins on our site http://rmplus.pro
    
    RE: Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
    -
    Added by Олег Письменнов almost 11 years ago
  
  What do I have to do to use plugin? In what sequence?
After - "git clone https://github.com/tdvsdv/single_auth.git" - redmine server does not work - "Internal error. An error occurred on the page you were trying to access." 
1. May be any settings in Redmine?
2. Or settings for "Mod_NTLM" in Apache? Another Mod, mod_authnz_sspi?
    
    RE: Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
    -
    Added by Vladimir Pitin almost 11 years ago
  
  What version of Redmine do you use?
Give part of log file with error.
    
    RE: Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
    -
    Added by Олег Письменнов almost 11 years ago
  
  2.3.3
| production.log (14 KB) production.log | 
    
    RE: Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
    -
    Added by Vladimir Pitin almost 11 years ago
  
  Did you make DB migration?
    
    RE: Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
    -
    Added by Олег Письменнов almost 11 years ago
  
  yes
| production.log (59.2 KB) production.log | 
    
    RE: Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
    -
    Added by Vladimir Pitin almost 11 years ago
  
  We are going to solve this problem.
    
    RE: Transparent NTLM authorisation? Redmine 2.6.0 or 2.5.3
    -
    Added by Toshi MARUYAMA almost 11 years ago
  
  There was double posting message at http://www.redmine.org/boards/1/topics/43828?r=44930#message-44930 .
It seems one was for this message.