github-starred/vaultwarden
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden.git synced 2026-08-27 05:35:03 -05:00
Code Issues 534 Packages Projects Releases 86 Wiki Activity

Allow empty ADMIN_TOKEN when DISABLE_ADMIN_TOKEN is set to false #598

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-07 06:42:22 -06:00 by GiteaMirror · 3 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-07 06:42:22 -06:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Originally created by @Roxedus on GitHub (Feb 5, 2020).

Allow presenting the variable for the user(which in reality set it to NULL), but disabling the admin panel when DISABLE_ADMIN_TOKEN is explicit set to false

As you may be aware of trough #813, I control this template, and would like to present the user with the ability to use ADMIN_TOKEN, in order to this I have to set it to NULL.

The reason that I want to present it this way is because it is a easier way to set settings in favor of environment variables. This is only also the only way to get started without enabling signup afaik.

Expected behaviour

Using the environment variables -e ADMIN_TOKEN="" AND -e DISABLE_ADMIN_TOKEN=false should not enable the admin panel, but still allow the container to run, due to explicit telling bitwarden to disallow insecure token, while the admin_token variable exists.

Actual behaviour

Using the environment variables -e ADMIN_TOKEN="" AND -e DISABLE_ADMIN_TOKEN=false gives me the error about either removing/filling the admin_token

Originally created by @Roxedus on GitHub (Feb 5, 2020). ### Allow presenting the variable for the user(which in reality set it to NULL), but disabling the admin panel when DISABLE_ADMIN_TOKEN is explicit set to false As you may be aware of trough #813, I control this template, and would like to present the user with the ability to use `ADMIN_TOKEN`, in order to this I have to set it to NULL. The reason that I want to present it this way is because it is a easier way to set settings in favor of environment variables. This is only also the only way to get started without enabling signup afaik. ### Expected behaviour Using the environment variables `-e ADMIN_TOKEN=""` AND `-e DISABLE_ADMIN_TOKEN=false` should not enable the admin panel, but still allow the container to run, due to explicit telling bitwarden to disallow insecure token, while the admin_token variable exists. ### Actual behaviour Using the environment variables `-e ADMIN_TOKEN=""` AND `-e DISABLE_ADMIN_TOKEN=false` gives me the error about either removing/filling the admin_token
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-07 06:42:23 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@jjlin commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2020):

It looks like this was fixed in 480ba93.

@jjlin commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2020): It looks like this was fixed in 480ba93.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-07 06:42:23 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@Roxedus commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2020):

No, its not. That commit stops the container from running.

@Roxedus commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2020): No, its not. That commit stops the container from running.
GiteaMirror commented 2025-11-07 06:42:23 -06:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@jjlin commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2020):

Yeah, my mistake. I'll send a fix for this later today.

@jjlin commented on GitHub (Apr 9, 2020): Yeah, my mistake. I'll send a fix for this later today.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
better for forum
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
future Vault
good first issue
help wanted
low priority
notes
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
SSO
Third party
troubleshooting
wontfix
No labels
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No projects
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge (Kaehlen Rog)
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/vaultwarden#598