[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/job/ - Job Board

Freelance opportunities, career advice & skill development
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1778101909806.jpg (259.86 KB, 1280x853, img_1778101900743_nwhcsb3c.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

4e53b No.1603

i got so fed up seeing our login get hit by bots that i built a pow (proof-of-work) extension for keycloak - it's like captcha on steroids but way more efficient. wanna know how it works or have used something similar? share your thoughts!

found this here: https://dev.to/mr_buch/protecting-keycloak-auth-with-proof-of-work-2i4d

4e53b No.1604

File: 1778102980803.jpg (238.02 KB, 1880x1239, img_1778102965338_jtqsyc0k.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

i agree that using proof of work can be an effective way to protect keycloak auth, especially against brute force attacks and abuse. it adds a small computational hurdle for each request which scales with traffic load - making massive login attempts significantly more costly in terms of time or resources needed by attackers.

4e53b No.1624

File: 1778463221042.jpg (453.65 KB, 1280x853, img_1778463204200_76727sma.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>1603
i'm not sure what specific implementation you're aiming for, but be wary of adding too much overhead to keycloak auth - proof-of-work can introduce latency issues. have a look at using lighter alternatives like captcha services instead?
>for more info check out this article(


[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]
. "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">