Luc Fauvel

Hi @proessel, @joachimmeyer,

Currently trying to diagnose, do you use WIndows Authentication in your RDM with DVLS?

Cheers,

Indeed,  Send-RDMMessageByShareableLink currently requires a human user login.

I'll check with the team for allowing application identities with  Send-RDMMessageByShareableLink.

Cheers,

Hi @pascal_verdieu,

As mentionned in the other thread, unlike similar services, Devolutions Send is e2e encrypted with a no-knowledge encryption scheme. This prevents us from offering a conventional API. However, we definitly can add new PowerShell modules for managing links. In the next major version of RDM, we've added a Devolutions Send dashboard that allows you to see what links you sent and manage them. We can extend on that and add PowerShell modules to manage them.

Cheers,

Hi @pascal_verdieu,

Unlike pwpush.com, Devolutions Send is e2e encrypted with keys we do not hold, this requiring encryption to happen on the client. A caveat to this secure design is it prevents us from offering a pure REST API. Currently the only way offer to create links programmatically is through our powershell module as you have pointed out.

Do you have any issues using Send-RDMMessageByShareableLink ?

Cheers,

@rbruni PAM functionality is available in Devolutions Password Manager version 2026.3, I would suggest updating your browser extension to that version.

@rbruni what version of Devolutions Server and Devolutions Password Manager extension are you using?

Hi @rbruni,

Devolutions Password Manager (formerly Devolutions Workspace) can checkout PAM credentials from a PAM vault currently with a Devolutions Server workspace. Support for Devolutions Cloud will be in our next major release.

Cheers,

Hi @jh1,

Would you just want to have features like password rotation and heartbeat via the gateway or would you also like to be able to connect to the DB with a privileged user and perform DB operations through the gateway as well?

Cheers,

Hi @markusburkhardt,

We have a new system that will allow you to dynamically allow specific roles for JiT based on a multitude of different rules and checks. It will be available in our next major release. Its a bit different than what you're requesting here but you can achieve the same goals with it. We call it the workflow-based rule engine. If after that update you still find the implementation is missing things, we can revive this thread, but I think it should help your case.

Cheers,

Hi @markusburkhardt,

Thanks for reaching out, I've created a development ticket for the team. I agree bulk edit actions like that should be available in RDM.

Cheers,

Hi @markusburkhardt,

We'll look into adding this in for you.

Cheers,

Hi everyone,

Following up, we are expecting to ship keycloak support for Devolutions Server in our next major release.

Cheers,

Hi @elaineberenguer,

Thanks for reaching out, I've created an internal ticket for the dev team to look into it.

Cheers,

Hi @enzo,

Thank you for reaching out and thank you for using Devolutions Send. We'll put this request in our notes and keep this thread open for other people to voice their interest in getting this feature.

Cheers,

Hi @elaineberenguer,

We'll add this to the list. We do have plans on improving how checkout states are represented on the PAM credential entry as currently both checkout types overlap and it can be confusing for end users.

Cheers,

Hi @freddy1,

Thank you for reaching out. This feature has been requested to us in the past and we do plan on supporting something similar to this. However, I cannot currently provide an ETA of when this would be available.

Cheers,

Hi @timdijen,

I understand your point, having myself contributed to similar specifications and implemented both SAML and OIDC in our products.

However from a product standpoint, we tend to want to offer guided experiences for administrators less familiar with these specifications, hence why we prefer to offer provider-specific options. It is not out of the question for us to implement generic IdP support, but we still would need to have proper documentation, inform our support staff how to help customers with these implementations and all the other work that goes into properly offering enterprise grade support.

Hope that helps and we’ll note your added interest for generic IdP support.

I also want to mention that we're still continuously improving Devolutions Send. We recently released envelope creation for information requests and multi-file upload as well as several user interface improvements.

Cheers,

Hi @agussofe,

Its still on our list, however we unfortunately have not come around to implementing this. We'll look into planning it for one of our next releases but I can't guarantee an ETA for now.

Cheers,

Hi @John Bruhin,

Thank you for the detailed answer. I’ll create an improvement ticket internally to explore better support for FortiClient IPsec.

Cheers,

In order for the implementation to work the following conditions need to be fiiled:

• RDM must run as administrator

• FortiClient must be running and its COM server registered. RDM looks for a FortiTray or FortiClientSecurity process. If neither is running, it tries to start FortiClientSecurity.exe --start --service fa_scheduler using the FortiClient path set in RDM's installation path options.

• The tunnel must already exist in FortiClient

• The tunnel name can't contain spaces

• XAuth credentials must be configured or linked to the VPN configurations.

Let us know if you still have issues.

Cheers,

Hi @ksalomon,

Thank you for reaching out. From our preliminary research, we think it should be possible for us to implement this. We'll create an internal ticket and update this thread once the work is planned.

Cheers,

Hi @John Bruhin,

In our current FortiClient IPSec client, its already possible to select which tunnel to use, what is it exactly you would like to achieve with the CLI that we don't currently support?

Cheers,

Hi @tchitchirakresp,

Unfortunately, our current cryptographic design requires a customer deployment of the reporting service to continue to guarantee our zero-knowledge encryption schemes. The reason for this is certain log data is encrypted with the Cloud workspace key, preventing us from decrypting it on our servers.

There are Azure templates available for you to deploy the reporting service in your own Cloud envrionment, thus not requiring any physical machines on your end.

Cheers,

That seems more like a bug then, I'll report this to the development team. If the tokens are valid, you should not be prompted with device authorization prompt.

Cheers,