feat(bruteforce): improve bruteforce protection command output#61682
Open
kyteinsky wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
feat(bruteforce): improve bruteforce protection command output#61682kyteinsky wants to merge 2 commits into
kyteinsky wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
kyteinsky
requested review from
Altahrim,
come-nc,
leftybournes and
provokateurin
and removed request for
a team
kyteinsky
added
enhancement
help wanted
security
papercut
Signed-off-by: kyteinsky <kyteinsky@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: kyteinsky <kyteinsky@gmail.com>
kyteinsky
force-pushed
the
feat/improve-bruteforce-protection-command-output
branch
from
9966f51 to
738f237
Compare
kesselb
approved these changes
Jul 1, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
TODO
It feels like the command might be used in a script. Should the key change be avoided and done differently? Or perhaps documented as a breaking change? ... Does not need to be explicit in the first place?Checklist
3. to review, feature component)stable32)AI (if applicable)