This leads to confusion and ciphers that can't be decrypted (#77)
Originally created by @mprasil on GitHub (Jul 13, 2018).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/issues/80
This leads to confusion and ciphers that can't be decrypted (#77)
GiteaMirror
added the bug label 2026-07-13 17:15:17 -05:00
I've totally missed the 2f892cb commit. So chances are this might be resolved already. Going to rebuild the image and test.
<!-- gh-comment-id:404775076 -->
@mprasil commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2018):
I've totally missed the 2f892cb commit. So chances are this might be resolved already. Going to rebuild the image and test.
It's a partial fix, at least. This hides the ciphers, but we should probably also not show the organization or the collections unless the user is confirmed.
We should also make sure that an unconfirmed admin or owner can't make changes to the org.
<!-- gh-comment-id:404775413 -->
@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2018):
It's a partial fix, at least. This hides the ciphers, but we should probably also not show the organization or the collections unless the user is confirmed.
We should also make sure that an unconfirmed admin or owner can't make changes to the org.
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Originally created by @mprasil on GitHub (Jul 13, 2018).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/issues/80
This leads to confusion and ciphers that can't be decrypted (#77)
@mprasil commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2018):
I've totally missed the
2f892cbcommit. So chances are this might be resolved already. Going to rebuild the image and test.@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2018):
It's a partial fix, at least. This hides the ciphers, but we should probably also not show the organization or the collections unless the user is confirmed.
We should also make sure that an unconfirmed admin or owner can't make changes to the org.
@mprasil commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2018):
Good point do you want to keep the issue open for that?
@dani-garcia commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2018):
Yeah, I think we should leave it open for now.
@mprasil commented on GitHub (Jul 17, 2018):
This should be completely resolved with #89 merged in.