Bug 2152851

Summary: [RFE] Satellite Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) using OKTA
Product: Red Hat Satellite Reporter: Ajay Laxman Chavan <ajchavan>
Component: AuthenticationAssignee: satellite6-bugs <satellite6-bugs>
Status: CLOSED MIGRATED QA Contact: Satellite QE Team <sat-qe-bz-list>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 6.11.3CC: ahumbe, ajambhul, amiagarw, aruzicka, cjohnston, dhjoshi, dsinglet, mhulan, ngalvin, thadzhie, wpinheir
Target Milestone: UnspecifiedKeywords: FutureFeature, MigratedToJIRA
Target Release: Unused   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-06-06 12:56:30 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Ajay Laxman Chavan 2022-12-13 09:56:59 UTC
Description of problem:

we would like an enhanced security option to use 2FA on login to the satellite webui for users. That way , we can enhance security login using OKTA to Verify as a 2FA solution.

Comment 1 Adam Ruzicka 2023-09-26 11:25:30 UTC
*** Bug 2184171 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Amit Agarwal 2023-10-26 15:15:33 UTC
Is there any update?

Customer need to configure MFA on Satellite6 web ui per corporate security mandate.

Impact:

The Satellite 6 Web UI will violate the corporate security mandate to implement MFA across all assets.

Comment 3 CJohnston 2023-11-02 17:47:39 UTC
+1 in support for the addition of this feature. Security Standards are increasing in our organization and the greater community, and 2-factor identification is critical to sensitive sites such as our Red Hat Satellite installation. Okta and DUO is a huge part of this field.

Comment 4 Brad Buckingham 2024-01-09 20:58:59 UTC
Upon review of our valid but aging backlog the Satellite Team has concluded that this Bugzilla does not meet the criteria for a resolution in the near term, and are planning to close in a month. This message may be a repeat of a previous update and the bug is again being considered to be closed. If you have any concerns about this, please contact your Red Hat Account team.  Thank you.

Comment 6 Brad Buckingham 2024-02-07 18:01:27 UTC
Based upon feedback during auto-closure, leaving this bugzilla open a while longer for additional investigation; however, it may be closed in a future iteration.

Comment 10 Eric Helms 2024-06-06 12:56:30 UTC
This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.

Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated.  Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.

To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "SAT-" followed by an integer.  You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:

"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567

In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.

Comment 11 Red Hat Bugzilla 2024-10-05 04:25:44 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days