Hi @sai.pabbareddy, Glad to hear it all works as expected! Thanks, Rich

Hi @sai.pabbareddy, My apologies. Looks like I typoed the date on that other post. I had the day of Friday correct, but the date should have been Sept 18, 2026. It will be releasing later today (normally in the evening in EST). I updated that response also to have the correct date. Thanks, Rich

Quick follow-up for the record, not expecting a fix here given what we settled on above — just confirming the behavior is still consistent. Re-tested a real package-client request against the same setup (aduser1, same feed) and the referral exception reproduces identically: Begin LDAP Get Search Results LdapReferralException LdapReferralException LdapReferralException End LDAP Get Search Results (repeated 3x) Request finished ... - 401 Same three-stacked pattern as before, still on build 26.0.10.14. No regression, no change — just wanted to leave a clean confirmation on the thread in case this comes up for anyone else searching for it later. Thanks again for the help narrowing this down — treating it as the known Linux/referral-chasing limitation we discussed.

@rhessinger Thanks.

@atripp , Thanks for the info.

@atripp, Went back through your docs and our own notes trying to pin down a specific page, and honestly — we can't find one. The closest we got was a page showing how to create a Specified License Rule (e.g., setting GPL-3.0 to noncompliant), but every example there is clearly a user-configured policy, not a factory default. We think our original impression was a general one from early research rather than something we can point to a specific article for, so no need to go hunting on our end — sounds like it was just an assumption on our part rather than something your docs actually claimed. Good to have it confirmed either way: no default license rule ships out of the box, and creating one (GPL or otherwise) is expected as part of setting up a feed. We'll document it that way. Thanks, Sai

Hi @seanl_4808 , Like SAML, OIDC is not intended for developer/CLI tools, but desktop-based applications. I'm not aware of any client-tooling that supports or plans to support OIDC, so there's no sense in having a sever-based tool supported OIDC. API keys are considered the modern/secure solution. The reason that WIA/OIDC is considered less secure comes down to reducing the attack surface. A rouge user or process would be able to do very little with a limited-access ProGet API key, compared with domain credentials. Thanks, Alana

Hi @sai.pabbareddy , A 500 is an system error and would be logged under Admin > Diagnostic Center. It's possible there was system overload, network issues, who knows. I wouldn't worry about it. A 403 is a permission error that would be caused by configuration. It sounds like you resolved it by changing/modifying configuration, waiting for a cache to clear, etc. Thanks, Alana

Hi @sai.pabbareddy, [1] Here is some more information on PVRS vs CVSS: https://guides.inedo.com/vulnerability-management/cvss-pvrs/ Long story short, PVRS is designed for OSS dependencies and analyzes risk differently, in particular taking into account the custom risk profile you enter in ProGet (under Policies). [2] The NU1902 advisory comes from a vulnerability.base.json file that is cached both on the client end and ProGet end; you need to clear the http caches on NuGet (which you did), and ProGet will invalidate it about once an hour. You can force invalidation by restarting the service (Admin > Service) or manually assessing vulnerabilities (Admin > Vulnerabilities > Reassess), but that should only appear for test purposes. In a normal workflow the client will aggressively cache this file, and there's no real harm in having outdated information when following our recommended workflows. On that note.... we do NOT recommend you block downloads. It will actually lower your organization's security posture, not improve it. Please review this to learn how to "contain" properly: https://guides.inedo.com/vulnerability-management/containment/ Thank you, Alana

Hi @amy.j , I don't think the API has changed, but I suspect it has something to do with multi-file packages, and the way that the aggregate result is presented. But I'd like to confirm that. Can you run the following script using the package you're looking at, and share the resulting output? import requests import os BASE_URL = "https://proget.example.com" API_KEY = os.environ.get("PROGET_API_KEY") FEED = "pypi-proxy-test" package = "charset_normalizer" version = "3.5.1" headers = { "X-ApiKey": API_KEY } metadata_response = requests.get( f"{BASE_URL}/api/packages/{FEED}/metadata?name={package}&version={version}", headers=headers, ) print(metadata_response.json()) for artifact in metadata_response.json()["artifacts"]: print(artifact["qualifier"]) response = requests.post( f"{BASE_URL}/api/packages/{FEED}/audit?name={package}&version={version}&qualifier={artifact['qualifier']}", headers=headers, ) print(response.json()) Thanks, Alana

Crazy ... and this issue is still open https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/588736 That way the combination is not usable... I really wonder how the build in dotnet nuget tooling is working with the group feed.

Hey there, very nice to see this topic discussed here. Just my two cents: I'm running Grafana Alloy as a sidecar container, exporting the ProGet console output and the Nginx logs to a central Grafana instance. This gives me some visibility into how the application is running. Exporting the Logs from the database table via OpenTelemetry to some SIEM would be very nice too.

@atripp award for fastest forum response goes to you yep that seems to have solved it :) simple enough ;) Thanks! Maybe it would be an idea to highlight or add a little orange "stalled" badge on the ones in the list that causes the warning? Just a nice to have. Cheers Carl

Hi @certificatemanager_4002 , The API is a bit harder to use than just pgutil, so I'd suggest to use pgutil instead and it's easy to make a simple mistake like encoding something incorrectly. Without studying your code and having direct access to your ProGet instance, I cannot tell you what the issue is. But, since pgutil works we know the API is fine; here is the code that pgutil uses to delete the user: https://github.com/Inedo/pgutil/blob/thousand/Inedo.ProGet/ProGetClient.cs#L744 would suggest to use a local proxy tool like fiddler classic, proxyamn, postman, etc., that can capture and analyze local HTTP traffic so you can see the difference between what your code is doing and what pgutil is doing. Thanks, Alana

Hi @gdivis, Thank you, I can confirm that the case with a partially downloaded file now returns the correct Content-Range header as expected. However, when a file is fully downloaded, it still returns an Invalid Content-Range header: $ wget --server-response --continue --tries 1 https://<PROGET_URL>/endpoints/assets/content/example_file ... HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content Content-Range: bytes: 1000-999/1000 ... Giving up. I know this is a bit of an edge case, as usually you don't try to continue downloading a file that is already fully downloaded. However it does happen in specific cases with bitbake so it would be good to get this case fixed as well. Thanks, Joris

Hi @rob , When using the the subject name, the X509NameType.SimpleName is extracted and compared. Here's the specific logic: x509Store.Certificates.Where(c => c.GetNameInfo(X509NameType.SimpleName, false).Equals(config.Subject, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).OrderByDescending(c => c.NotAfter).FirstOrDefault() So if the "wrong" Server1 is being selected, I'm guessing it shares the same simple name. In scenarios like this, we recommend renaming the certificate (e.g. ProGetSsl), using a file, or the thumbprint. Thanks, Alana

Hi @gdivis Thank you so much for your support. Best regards

Hi @nils-nilsson, We've investigated and this is definitely a bug in the feed management API. Unfortunately that API is pretty rough, and this is not at all the trivial fix it ought to be. I've logged the issue as PG-3369 and scheduled it for ProGet 2026.12, which is the release after next, currently targeted for Oct 2. -Greg

Hi @federico.conoscenti , Universal Package do support arbitrary metadata in the manifest file, and ProGet will display that on the UI. It's technically possible to add arbitrary metadata to other package files as well, although obviously ProGet could never know about or display that. However this metadata is not intended for searching or indexing. ProGet does not support "arbitrary, server-side metadata" for any package types. In other words, you cannot simply "tag" or "annotate" otherwise packages after they've been added to ProGet. This is intentional and by design, as it keeps the metadata contained to the manifest file (which is stored within the package file itself), which effectively makes it "cryptographically sealed" and cannot be tampered with. So, as you migrate from Artifactory, you'll need to change your workflows to support a more modern, package mindset. In case you haven't seen it already, we have a Migrating from Artifactory to ProGet Guide that you may find helpful. Best, Alana