Authorization is based on user or role membership regardless of how the user was authenticated any you’re already using multiple authentication schemes by having forms and Basic in your solution using [MADAM][1].

[1]: http://www.raboof.com/projects/madam/

As for the advanced authorization module[3]; the problem is just that .NET doesn’t support multiple authentication modes in one application. And as far as I can tell, that’s still a no-go with the authorization module, or is it?

I’m not familiar with Umbraco but if it is plugging into the standard .NET user authorization model ([which it seems it does][1]) then you could also restict access to a particular URL by a user’s role membership. Check out the “[Understanding Role Management][2]” topic on MSDN for more on this and which does not even

For more advanced and dynamic scenarios, ELMAH also supports custom request authorization that can also be coded up and configured orthogonally to a web application. Check out the thread “[Implementing more advanced authorization rules for web-based ELMAH error log Options][3]” in ELMAH’s discussion group for details.

I guess what I’m trying to point out in so many words is that there are lots options out there before you should need to fork and maintain a separate code base. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but as [Emil Rasmussen][4] pointed out, you lose the benefits of just relying on NuGet packages and standard releases. And BTW, [ELMAH recently switched to Mecurial][5], which is what you seem to have cloned. That repository, however, is major work (or re-work) in progress on version 2.0 and therefore risks being unstable (unless you want to be on the bleeding edge and I’d welcome the testing). All the 1.x code is still there in [the Subversion repository][6]. If you find that you still need to maintain a private fork for Umbraco and would work on something rather stable, I would recommend building on top of the latest official release (1.2 SP1 at the time of writing), which can be found in the [RB-1.2 branch][7]. You can also [download a snapshot of the sources][8] without going through the Subversion repository. There is currently no plan to make any further enhancements to 1.2.

[1]: http://our.umbraco.org/wiki/how-tos/membership-providers
[2]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/5k850zwb.aspx
[3]: http://groups.google.com/group/elmah/t/520d9cc827176d85
[4]: http://noget.net/
[5]: http://twitter.com/#!/raboof/status/151047397856907264
[6]: http://elmah.googlecode.com/svn/
[7]: http://elmah.googlecode.com/svn/branches/RB-1.2/
[8]: http://code.google.com/p/elmah/downloads/detail?name=ELMAH-1.2-sp1-src.zip

I’m still considering the best approach to add proper authentication to Elmah – at the moment we just log on to the production machine, and access Elmah from localhost.

I have subscribed to your RSS feed, so let’s see what happens.

Best regards
Emil

I know, but I keep monitoring ELMAH for new releases and update my custom assembly as soon as there is a new release.
I’ve never created a NuGet package before. Also this is not really an umbraco related modification… So naming it Elmah for Umbraco isn’t the right name anyway

I’ll post a new blogpost for each new release, so if you’re using this solution and want to keep yourself up-to-date just add my blog’s RSS feed to a RSS reader

Greets

Very nice work! But it just doesn’t seems quite right to miss out on using NuGet to get updates on Elmah. What is the possibility to create a NuGet package “Elmah for Umbraco” – that would be really cool

But great to see the Umbraco community embracing Elmah! It is a fantastic tool.

Best regards
Emil