Search Results

Search found 29 results on 2 pages for 'authorizeattribute'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • ASP.NET MVC: AuthorizeAttribute on default page

    - by AlexB
    The default controller in my ASP.NET MVC project is decorated with the [Authorize] attribute. When I deploy the website on my development machine and access the website, I am redirected to the login page (defined in forms loginUrl section of the Web.Config). Result: everything works as expected. When I publish the website on our production server (Windows Server 2008, IIS 7, DefaultAppPool) and access the website, the expected address shows in the address bar (/Account/LogOn?ReturnUrl=*my_expected_return_url*), but the page displays "You do not have permission to view this directory or page." instead of the login page. If I remove the [Authorize] attribute on the default controller/action, the page displays correctly. My Web.Config file: sessionState mode="InProc" timeout="30" authentication mode="Forms" forms loginUrl="~/Account/LogOn" timeout="2880"

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC AuthorizeAttribute passing values to ActionMethod?

    - by subskii
    Hi everyone I'm only a newcomer to ASP.NET MVC and am not sure how to achieve a certain task the "right way". Essentially, I store the logged in userId in HttpContext.User.Identity and have written an EnhancedAuthorizeAttribute to perform some custom authorization. In the overriden OnAuthorization method, my domain model hits the database to ensure the current user id can access the passed in routeValue "BatchCode". The prototype is: ReviewGroup GetReviewGroupFromBatchCode(string batchCode); It will return null if the user can't access the ReviewGroup and the OnAuthorization then denies access. Now, I know the decorated action method will only get executed if OnAuthorization passes, but I don't want to hit the database a second time to get the ReviewGroup again. I am thinking of storing the ReviewGroup in HttpContext.Items["reviewGroup"] and accessing this from the controller at the moment. Is this a feasible solution, or am I on the wrong path? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Can someone explain this block of ASP.NET MVC code to me, please?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, this is the current code in ASP.NET MVC2 (RTM) System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizeAttribute class :- public virtual void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { if (filterContext == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("filterContext"); } if (this.AuthorizeCore(filterContext.HttpContext)) { HttpCachePolicyBase cache = filterContext.HttpContext.Response.Cache; cache.SetProxyMaxAge(new TimeSpan(0L)); cache.AddValidationCallback( new HttpCacheValidateHandler(this.CacheValidateHandler), null); } else { filterContext.Result = new HttpUnauthorizedResult(); } } so if i'm 'authorized' then do some caching stuff, otherwise throw a 401 Unauthorized response. Question: What does those 3 caching lines do? cheers :)

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to use RedirectToAction() inside a custom AuthorizeAttribute class?

    - by Lance McNearney
    Using ASP.Net MVC 2, is there any way to use the RedirectToAction() method of the Controller class inside a class that is based on the AuthorizeAttribute class? public class CustomAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute { protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase context) { // Custom authentication goes here return false; } public override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext context) { base.OnAuthorization(context); // This would be my ideal result context.Result = RedirectToAction("Action", "Controller"); } } I'm looking for a way to re-direct the user to a specific controller / action when they fail the authentication instead of returning them to the login page. Is it possible to have the re-direct URL generated for that controller / action and then use RedirectResult()? I'm trying to avoid the temptation to just hard-code the URL.

    Read the article

  • How to use Custom AuthorizeAttribute for controller utilizing parameter value?

    - by RSolberg
    I am trying to secure a controller action to prevent a user from accessing an Entity that they do not have access to. I am able to do this with the following code. public ActionResult Entity(string entityCode) { if (CurrentUser.VerifyEntityPermission(entityCode)) { //populate viewModel... return View(viewModel); } return RedirectToAction("NoAccessToEntity", "Error"); } I would like to be able to add an attribute to the controller action itself. In order to validate the access to the entity, I need to see what value has been passed to the controller and what entities the user has access to. Is this possible? [EntityAuthRequired] public ActionResult Entity(string entityCode) { //populate viewModel... return View(viewModel); }

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC: Using ProfileRequiredAttribute to restrict access to pages

    - by DigiMortal
    If you are using AppFabric Access Control Services to authenticate users when they log in to your community site using Live ID, Google or some other popular identity provider, you need more than AuthorizeAttribute to make sure that users can access the content that is there for authenticated users only. In this posting I will show you hot to extend the AuthorizeAttribute so users must also have user profile filled. Semi-authorized users When user is authenticated through external identity provider then not all identity providers give us user name or other information we ask users when they join with our site. What all identity providers have in common is unique ID that helps you identify the user. Example. Users authenticated through Windows Live ID by AppFabric ACS have no name specified. Google’s identity provider is able to provide you with user name and e-mail address if user agrees to publish this information to you. They both give you unique ID of user when user is successfully authenticated in their service. There is logical shift between ASP.NET and my site when considering user as authorized. For ASP.NET MVC user is authorized when user has identity. For my site user is authorized when user has profile and row in my users table. Having profile means that user has unique username in my system and he or she is always identified by this username by other users. My solution is simple: I created my own action filter attribute that makes sure if user has profile to access given method and if user has no profile then browser is redirected to join page. Illustrating the problem Usually we restrict access to page using AuthorizeAttribute. Code is something like this. [Authorize] public ActionResult Details(string id) {     var profile = _userRepository.GetUserByUserName(id);     return View(profile); } If this page is only for site users and we have user profiles then all users – the ones that have profile and all the others that are just authenticated – can access the information. It is okay because all these users have successfully logged in in some service that is supported by AppFabric ACS. In my site the users with no profile are in grey spot. They are on half way to be users because they have no username and profile on my site yet. So looking at the image above again we need something that adds profile existence condition to user-only content. [ProfileRequired] public ActionResult Details(string id) {     var profile = _userRepository.GetUserByUserName(id);     return View(profile); } Now, this attribute will solve our problem as soon as we implement it. ProfileRequiredAttribute: Profiles are required to be fully authorized Here is my implementation of ProfileRequiredAttribute. It is pretty new and right now it is more like working draft but you can already play with it. public class ProfileRequiredAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute {     private readonly string _redirectUrl;       public ProfileRequiredAttribute()     {         _redirectUrl = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["JoinUrl"];         if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_redirectUrl))             _redirectUrl = "~/";     }              public override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext)     {         base.OnAuthorization(filterContext);           var httpContext = filterContext.HttpContext;         var identity = httpContext.User.Identity;           if (!identity.IsAuthenticated || identity.GetProfile() == null)             if(filterContext.Result == null)                 httpContext.Response.Redirect(_redirectUrl);          } } All methods with this attribute work as follows: if user is not authenticated then he or she is redirected to AppFabric ACS identity provider selection page, if user is authenticated but has no profile then user is by default redirected to main page of site but if you have application setting with name JoinUrl then user is redirected to this URL. First case is handled by AuthorizeAttribute and the second one is handled by custom logic in ProfileRequiredAttribute class. GetProfile() extension method To get user profile using less code in places where profiles are needed I wrote GetProfile() extension method for IIdentity interface. There are some more extension methods that read out user and identity provider identifier from claims and based on this information user profile is read from database. If you take this code with copy and paste I am sure it doesn’t work for you but you get the idea. public static User GetProfile(this IIdentity identity) {     if (identity == null)         return null;       var context = HttpContext.Current;     if (context.Items["UserProfile"] != null)         return context.Items["UserProfile"] as User;       var provider = identity.GetIdentityProvider();     var nameId = identity.GetNameIdentifier();       var rep = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IUserRepository>();     var profile = rep.GetUserByProviderAndNameId(provider, nameId);       context.Items["UserProfile"] = profile;       return profile; } To avoid round trips to database I cache user profile to current request because the chance that profile gets changed meanwhile is very minimal. The other reason is maybe more tricky – profile objects are coming from Entity Framework context and context has also HTTP request as lifecycle. Conclusion This posting gave you some ideas how to finish user profiles stuff when you use AppFabric ACS as external authentication provider. Although there was little shift between us and ASP.NET MVC with interpretation of “authorized” we were easily able to solve the problem by extending AuthorizeAttribute to get all our requirements fulfilled. We also write extension method for IIdentity that returns as user profile based on username and caches the profile in HTTP request scope.

    Read the article

  • How to override [Authorize] attribute in the MVC Web API?

    - by NullReference
    I have a MVC Web Api Controller that uses the [Authorize] attribute at the class level. This makes all of the api methods require authorization but I'd like to create an attribute called [ApiPublic] that overrides the [Authorize] attribute. There is a similar technique described here for normal MVC controllers. I tried creating an AuthorizeAttribute based of the System.Web.Http.AuthorizeAttribute but none of the overridden events are called if I put it on a api method that has the [Authorize] at the class level. Anyone have an idea how to override the authorize for the web api? [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ApiPublicAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute { protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(System.Web.Http.Controllers.HttpActionContext actionContext) { base.HandleUnauthorizedRequest(actionContext); } public override void OnAuthorization(System.Web.Http.Controllers.HttpActionContext actionContext) { base.OnAuthorization(actionContext); } protected override bool IsAuthorized(System.Web.Http.Controllers.HttpActionContext actionContext) { return true; } }

    Read the article

  • Why is ASP.NET MVC Authorize attribute throwing a null reference exception?

    - by robertz
    I had a working asp.net mvc application running on my local IIS 7 web server, but now I'm getting errors whenever I request a page that requires authorization. I'm using standard forms authentication with asp.net membership. Here's the error: Stack Trace: [NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.] System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizeAttribute.AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext) +31 System.Web.Mvc.AuthorizeAttribute.OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) +38 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeAuthorizationFilters(ControllerContext controllerContext, IList`1 filters, ActionDescriptor actionDescriptor) +103 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeAction(ControllerContext controllerContext, String actionName) +345...

    Read the article

  • Global ValidateAntiForgeryToken in MVC3

    - by Nettuce
    public class GlobalValidateAntiForgeryToken : AuthorizeAttribute     {         public override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext)         {             if (filterContext.HttpContext.Request.HttpMethod == WebRequestMethods.Http.Post)             {                new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute().OnAuthorization(filterContext);             }         }     } And add to the Global.asax:        public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters)         {             filters.Add(new GlobalValidateAntiForgeryToken());         }

    Read the article

  • How can we set authorization for a whole area in ASP.NET MVC?

    - by CodingTales
    I've an Admin area and I want only Admins to enter the area. I considered adding the Authorized attribute to every controller in the Admin area. Isn't there an elegant solution or is this feature not there in the framework itself? EDIT: I'm sorry, I should to have mentioned this before. I'm using a custom AuthorizedAttribute derived from AuthorizeAttribute.

    Read the article

  • Set Context User Principal for Customized Authentication in SignalR

    - by Shaun
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/shaunxu/archive/2014/05/27/set-context-user-principal-for-customized-authentication-in-signalr.aspxCurrently I'm working on a single page application project which is built on AngularJS and ASP.NET WebAPI. When I need to implement some features that needs real-time communication and push notifications from server side I decided to use SignalR. SignalR is a project currently developed by Microsoft to build web-based, read-time communication application. You can find it here. With a lot of introductions and guides it's not a difficult task to use SignalR with ASP.NET WebAPI and AngularJS. I followed this and this even though it's based on SignalR 1. But when I tried to implement the authentication for my SignalR I was struggled 2 days and finally I got a solution by myself. This might not be the best one but it actually solved all my problem.   In many articles it's said that you don't need to worry about the authentication of SignalR since it uses the web application authentication. For example if your web application utilizes form authentication, SignalR will use the user principal your web application authentication module resolved, check if the principal exist and authenticated. But in my solution my ASP.NET WebAPI, which is hosting SignalR as well, utilizes OAuth Bearer authentication. So when the SignalR connection was established the context user principal was empty. So I need to authentication and pass the principal by myself.   Firstly I need to create a class which delivered from "AuthorizeAttribute", that will takes the responsible for authenticate when SignalR connection established and any method was invoked. 1: public class QueryStringBearerAuthorizeAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute 2: { 3: public override bool AuthorizeHubConnection(HubDescriptor hubDescriptor, IRequest request) 4: { 5: } 6:  7: public override bool AuthorizeHubMethodInvocation(IHubIncomingInvokerContext hubIncomingInvokerContext, bool appliesToMethod) 8: { 9: } 10: } The method "AuthorizeHubConnection" will be invoked when any SignalR connection was established. And here I'm going to retrieve the Bearer token from query string, try to decrypt and recover the login user's claims. 1: public override bool AuthorizeHubConnection(HubDescriptor hubDescriptor, IRequest request) 2: { 3: var dataProtectionProvider = new DpapiDataProtectionProvider(); 4: var secureDataFormat = new TicketDataFormat(dataProtectionProvider.Create()); 5: // authenticate by using bearer token in query string 6: var token = request.QueryString.Get(WebApiConfig.AuthenticationType); 7: var ticket = secureDataFormat.Unprotect(token); 8: if (ticket != null && ticket.Identity != null && ticket.Identity.IsAuthenticated) 9: { 10: // set the authenticated user principal into environment so that it can be used in the future 11: request.Environment["server.User"] = new ClaimsPrincipal(ticket.Identity); 12: return true; 13: } 14: else 15: { 16: return false; 17: } 18: } In the code above I created "TicketDataFormat" instance, which must be same as the one I used to generate the Bearer token when user logged in. Then I retrieve the token from request query string and unprotect it. If I got a valid ticket with identity and it's authenticated this means it's a valid token. Then I pass the user principal into request's environment property which can be used in nearly future. Since my website was built in AngularJS so the SignalR client was in pure JavaScript, and it's not support to set customized HTTP headers in SignalR JavaScript client, I have to pass the Bearer token through request query string. This is not a restriction of SignalR, but a restriction of WebSocket. For security reason WebSocket doesn't allow client to set customized HTTP headers from browser. Next, I need to implement the authentication logic in method "AuthorizeHubMethodInvocation" which will be invoked when any SignalR method was invoked. 1: public override bool AuthorizeHubMethodInvocation(IHubIncomingInvokerContext hubIncomingInvokerContext, bool appliesToMethod) 2: { 3: var connectionId = hubIncomingInvokerContext.Hub.Context.ConnectionId; 4: // check the authenticated user principal from environment 5: var environment = hubIncomingInvokerContext.Hub.Context.Request.Environment; 6: var principal = environment["server.User"] as ClaimsPrincipal; 7: if (principal != null && principal.Identity != null && principal.Identity.IsAuthenticated) 8: { 9: // create a new HubCallerContext instance with the principal generated from token 10: // and replace the current context so that in hubs we can retrieve current user identity 11: hubIncomingInvokerContext.Hub.Context = new HubCallerContext(new ServerRequest(environment), connectionId); 12: return true; 13: } 14: else 15: { 16: return false; 17: } 18: } Since I had passed the user principal into request environment in previous method, I can simply check if it exists and valid. If so, what I need is to pass the principal into context so that SignalR hub can use. Since the "User" property is all read-only in "hubIncomingInvokerContext", I have to create a new "ServerRequest" instance with principal assigned, and set to "hubIncomingInvokerContext.Hub.Context". After that, we can retrieve the principal in my Hubs through "Context.User" as below. 1: public class DefaultHub : Hub 2: { 3: public object Initialize(string host, string service, JObject payload) 4: { 5: var connectionId = Context.ConnectionId; 6: ... ... 7: var domain = string.Empty; 8: var identity = Context.User.Identity as ClaimsIdentity; 9: if (identity != null) 10: { 11: var claim = identity.FindFirst("Domain"); 12: if (claim != null) 13: { 14: domain = claim.Value; 15: } 16: } 17: ... ... 18: } 19: } Finally I just need to add my "QueryStringBearerAuthorizeAttribute" into the SignalR pipeline. 1: app.Map("/signalr", map => 2: { 3: // Setup the CORS middleware to run before SignalR. 4: // By default this will allow all origins. You can 5: // configure the set of origins and/or http verbs by 6: // providing a cors options with a different policy. 7: map.UseCors(CorsOptions.AllowAll); 8: var hubConfiguration = new HubConfiguration 9: { 10: // You can enable JSONP by uncommenting line below. 11: // JSONP requests are insecure but some older browsers (and some 12: // versions of IE) require JSONP to work cross domain 13: // EnableJSONP = true 14: EnableJavaScriptProxies = false 15: }; 16: // Require authentication for all hubs 17: var authorizer = new QueryStringBearerAuthorizeAttribute(); 18: var module = new AuthorizeModule(authorizer, authorizer); 19: GlobalHost.HubPipeline.AddModule(module); 20: // Run the SignalR pipeline. We're not using MapSignalR 21: // since this branch already runs under the "/signalr" path. 22: map.RunSignalR(hubConfiguration); 23: }); On the client side should pass the Bearer token through query string before I started the connection as below. 1: self.connection = $.hubConnection(signalrEndpoint); 2: self.proxy = self.connection.createHubProxy(hubName); 3: self.proxy.on(notifyEventName, function (event, payload) { 4: options.handler(event, payload); 5: }); 6: // add the authentication token to query string 7: // we cannot use http headers since web socket protocol doesn't support 8: self.connection.qs = { Bearer: AuthService.getToken() }; 9: // connection to hub 10: self.connection.start(); Hope this helps, Shaun All documents and related graphics, codes are provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. Copyright © Shaun Ziyan Xu. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

    Read the article

  • ASPNET WebAPI REST Guidance

    - by JoshReuben
    ASP.NET Web API is an ideal platform for building RESTful applications on the .NET Framework. While I may be more partial to NodeJS these days, there is no denying that WebAPI is a well engineered framework. What follows is my investigation of how to leverage WebAPI to construct a RESTful frontend API.   The Advantages of REST Methodology over SOAP Simpler API for CRUD ops Standardize Development methodology - consistent and intuitive Standards based à client interop Wide industry adoption, Ease of use à easy to add new devs Avoid service method signature blowout Smaller payloads than SOAP Stateless à no session data means multi-tenant scalability Cache-ability Testability   General RESTful API Design Overview · utilize HTTP Protocol - Usage of HTTP methods for CRUD, standard HTTP response codes, common HTTP headers and Mime Types · Resources are mapped to URLs, actions are mapped to verbs and the rest goes in the headers. · keep the API semantic, resource-centric – A RESTful, resource-oriented service exposes a URI for every piece of data the client might want to operate on. A REST-RPC Hybrid exposes a URI for every operation the client might perform: one URI to fetch a piece of data, a different URI to delete that same data. utilize Uri to specify CRUD op, version, language, output format: http://api.MyApp.com/{ver}/{lang}/{resource_type}/{resource_id}.{output_format}?{key&filters} · entity CRUD operations are matched to HTTP methods: · Create - POST / PUT · Read – GET - cacheable · Update – PUT · Delete - DELETE · Use Uris to represent a hierarchies - Resources in RESTful URLs are often chained · Statelessness allows for idempotency – apply an op multiple times without changing the result. POST is non-idempotent, the rest are idempotent (if DELETE flags records instead of deleting them). · Cache indication - Leverage HTTP headers to label cacheable content and indicate the permitted duration of cache · PUT vs POST - The client uses PUT when it determines which URI (Id key) the new resource should have. The client uses POST when the server determines they key. PUT takes a second param – the id. POST creates a new resource. The server assigns the URI for the new object and returns this URI as part of the response message. Note: The PUT method replaces the entire entity. That is, the client is expected to send a complete representation of the updated product. If you want to support partial updates, the PATCH method is preferred DELETE deletes a resource at a specified URI – typically takes an id param · Leverage Common HTTP Response Codes in response headers 200 OK: Success 201 Created - Used on POST request when creating a new resource. 304 Not Modified: no new data to return. 400 Bad Request: Invalid Request. 401 Unauthorized: Authentication. 403 Forbidden: Authorization 404 Not Found – entity does not exist. 406 Not Acceptable – bad params. 409 Conflict - For POST / PUT requests if the resource already exists. 500 Internal Server Error 503 Service Unavailable · Leverage uncommon HTTP Verbs to reduce payload sizes HEAD - retrieves just the resource meta-information. OPTIONS returns the actions supported for the specified resource. PATCH - partial modification of a resource. · When using PUT, POST or PATCH, send the data as a document in the body of the request. Don't use query parameters to alter state. · Utilize Headers for content negotiation, caching, authorization, throttling o Content Negotiation – choose representation (e.g. JSON or XML and version), language & compression. Signal via RequestHeader.Accept & ResponseHeader.Content-Type Accept: application/json;version=1.0 Accept-Language: en-US Accept-Charset: UTF-8 Accept-Encoding: gzip o Caching - ResponseHeader: Expires (absolute expiry time) or Cache-Control (relative expiry time) o Authorization - basic HTTP authentication uses the RequestHeader.Authorization to specify a base64 encoded string "username:password". can be used in combination with SSL/TLS (HTTPS) and leverage OAuth2 3rd party token-claims authorization. Authorization: Basic sQJlaTp5ZWFslylnaNZ= o Rate Limiting - Not currently part of HTTP so specify non-standard headers prefixed with X- in the ResponseHeader. X-RateLimit-Limit: 10000 X-RateLimit-Remaining: 9990 · HATEOAS Methodology - Hypermedia As The Engine Of Application State – leverage API as a state machine where resources are states and the transitions between states are links between resources and are included in their representation (hypermedia) – get API metadata signatures from the response Link header - in a truly REST based architecture any URL, except the initial URL, can be changed, even to other servers, without worrying about the client. · error responses - Do not just send back a 200 OK with every response. Response should consist of HTTP error status code (JQuery has automated support for this), A human readable message , A Link to a meaningful state transition , & the original data payload that was problematic. · the URIs will typically map to a server-side controller and a method name specified by the type of request method. Stuff all your calls into just four methods is not as crazy as it sounds. · Scoping - Path variables look like you’re traversing a hierarchy, and query variables look like you’re passing arguments into an algorithm · Mapping URIs to Controllers - have one controller for each resource is not a rule – can consolidate - route requests to the appropriate controller and action method · Keep URls Consistent - Sometimes it’s tempting to just shorten our URIs. not recommend this as this can cause confusion · Join Naming – for m-m entity relations there may be multiple hierarchy traversal paths · Routing – useful level of indirection for versioning, server backend mocking in development ASPNET WebAPI Considerations ASPNET WebAPI implements a lot (but not all) RESTful API design considerations as part of its infrastructure and via its coding convention. Overview When developing an API there are basically three main steps: 1. Plan out your URIs 2. Setup return values and response codes for your URIs 3. Implement a framework for your API.   Design · Leverage Models MVC folder · Repositories – support IoC for tests, abstraction · Create DTO classes – a level of indirection decouples & allows swap out · Self links can be generated using the UrlHelper · Use IQueryable to support projections across the wire · Models can support restful navigation properties – ICollection<T> · async mechanism for long running ops - return a response with a ticket – the client can then poll or be pushed the final result later. · Design for testability - Test using HttpClient , JQuery ( $.getJSON , $.each) , fiddler, browser debug. Leverage IDependencyResolver – IoC wrapper for mocking · Easy debugging - IE F12 developer tools: Network tab, Request Headers tab     Routing · HTTP request method is matched to the method name. (This rule applies only to GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE requests.) · {id}, if present, is matched to a method parameter named id. · Query parameters are matched to parameter names when possible · Done in config via Routes.MapHttpRoute – similar to MVC routing · Can alternatively: o decorate controller action methods with HttpDelete, HttpGet, HttpHead,HttpOptions, HttpPatch, HttpPost, or HttpPut., + the ActionAttribute o use AcceptVerbsAttribute to support other HTTP verbs: e.g. PATCH, HEAD o use NonActionAttribute to prevent a method from getting invoked as an action · route table Uris can support placeholders (via curly braces{}) – these can support default values and constraints, and optional values · The framework selects the first route in the route table that matches the URI. Response customization · Response code: By default, the Web API framework sets the response status code to 200 (OK). But according to the HTTP/1.1 protocol, when a POST request results in the creation of a resource, the server should reply with status 201 (Created). Non Get methods should return HttpResponseMessage · Location: When the server creates a resource, it should include the URI of the new resource in the Location header of the response. public HttpResponseMessage PostProduct(Product item) {     item = repository.Add(item);     var response = Request.CreateResponse<Product>(HttpStatusCode.Created, item);     string uri = Url.Link("DefaultApi", new { id = item.Id });     response.Headers.Location = new Uri(uri);     return response; } Validation · Decorate Models / DTOs with System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations properties RequiredAttribute, RangeAttribute. · Check payloads using ModelState.IsValid · Under posting – leave out values in JSON payload à JSON formatter assigns a default value. Use with RequiredAttribute · Over-posting - if model has RO properties à use DTO instead of model · Can hook into pipeline by deriving from ActionFilterAttribute & overriding OnActionExecuting Config · Done in App_Start folder > WebApiConfig.cs – static Register method: HttpConfiguration param: The HttpConfiguration object contains the following members. Member Description DependencyResolver Enables dependency injection for controllers. Filters Action filters – e.g. exception filters. Formatters Media-type formatters. by default contains JsonFormatter, XmlFormatter IncludeErrorDetailPolicy Specifies whether the server should include error details, such as exception messages and stack traces, in HTTP response messages. Initializer A function that performs final initialization of the HttpConfiguration. MessageHandlers HTTP message handlers - plug into pipeline ParameterBindingRules A collection of rules for binding parameters on controller actions. Properties A generic property bag. Routes The collection of routes. Services The collection of services. · Configure JsonFormatter for circular references to support links: PreserveReferencesHandling.Objects Documentation generation · create a help page for a web API, by using the ApiExplorer class. · The ApiExplorer class provides descriptive information about the APIs exposed by a web API as an ApiDescription collection · create the help page as an MVC view public ILookup<string, ApiDescription> GetApis()         {             return _explorer.ApiDescriptions.ToLookup(                 api => api.ActionDescriptor.ControllerDescriptor.ControllerName); · provide documentation for your APIs by implementing the IDocumentationProvider interface. Documentation strings can come from any source that you like – e.g. extract XML comments or define custom attributes to apply to the controller [ApiDoc("Gets a product by ID.")] [ApiParameterDoc("id", "The ID of the product.")] public HttpResponseMessage Get(int id) · GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Services – add the documentation Provider · To hide an API from the ApiExplorer, add the ApiExplorerSettingsAttribute Plugging into the Message Handler pipeline · Plug into request / response pipeline – derive from DelegatingHandler and override theSendAsync method – e.g. for logging error codes, adding a custom response header · Can be applied globally or to a specific route Exception Handling · Throw HttpResponseException on method failures – specify HttpStatusCode enum value – examine this enum, as its values map well to typical op problems · Exception filters – derive from ExceptionFilterAttribute & override OnException. Apply on Controller or action methods, or add to global HttpConfiguration.Filters collection · HttpError object provides a consistent way to return error information in the HttpResponseException response body. · For model validation, you can pass the model state to CreateErrorResponse, to include the validation errors in the response public HttpResponseMessage PostProduct(Product item) {     if (!ModelState.IsValid)     {         return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.BadRequest, ModelState); Cookie Management · Cookie header in request and Set-Cookie headers in a response - Collection of CookieState objects · Specify Expiry, max-age resp.Headers.AddCookies(new CookieHeaderValue[] { cookie }); Internet Media Types, formatters and serialization · Defaults to application/json · Request Accept header and response Content-Type header · determines how Web API serializes and deserializes the HTTP message body. There is built-in support for XML, JSON, and form-urlencoded data · customizable formatters can be inserted into the pipeline · POCO serialization is opt out via JsonIgnoreAttribute, or use DataMemberAttribute for optin · JSON serializer leverages NewtonSoft Json.NET · loosely structured JSON objects are serialzed as JObject which derives from Dynamic · to handle circular references in json: json.SerializerSettings.PreserveReferencesHandling =    PreserveReferencesHandling.All à {"$ref":"1"}. · To preserve object references in XML [DataContract(IsReference=true)] · Content negotiation Accept: Which media types are acceptable for the response, such as “application/json,” “application/xml,” or a custom media type such as "application/vnd.example+xml" Accept-Charset: Which character sets are acceptable, such as UTF-8 or ISO 8859-1. Accept-Encoding: Which content encodings are acceptable, such as gzip. Accept-Language: The preferred natural language, such as “en-us”. o Web API uses the Accept and Accept-Charset headers. (At this time, there is no built-in support for Accept-Encoding or Accept-Language.) · Controller methods can take JSON representations of DTOs as params – auto-deserialization · Typical JQuery GET request: function find() {     var id = $('#prodId').val();     $.getJSON("api/products/" + id,         function (data) {             var str = data.Name + ': $' + data.Price;             $('#product').text(str);         })     .fail(         function (jqXHR, textStatus, err) {             $('#product').text('Error: ' + err);         }); }            · Typical GET response: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: ASP.NET Development Server/10.0.0.0 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:30:33 GMT X-AspNet-Version: 4.0.30319 Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache Expires: -1 Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: 175 Connection: Close [{"Id":1,"Name":"TomatoSoup","Price":1.39,"ActualCost":0.99},{"Id":2,"Name":"Hammer", "Price":16.99,"ActualCost":10.00},{"Id":3,"Name":"Yo yo","Price":6.99,"ActualCost": 2.05}] True OData support · Leverage Query Options $filter, $orderby, $top and $skip to shape the results of controller actions annotated with the [Queryable]attribute. [Queryable]  public IQueryable<Supplier> GetSuppliers()  · Query: ~/Suppliers?$filter=Name eq ‘Microsoft’ · Applies the following selection filter on the server: GetSuppliers().Where(s => s.Name == “Microsoft”)  · Will pass the result to the formatter. · true support for the OData format is still limited - no support for creates, updates, deletes, $metadata and code generation etc · vnext: ability to configure how EditLinks, SelfLinks and Ids are generated Self Hosting no dependency on ASPNET or IIS: using (var server = new HttpSelfHostServer(config)) {     server.OpenAsync().Wait(); Tracing · tracability tools, metrics – e.g. send to nagios · use your choice of tracing/logging library, whether that is ETW,NLog, log4net, or simply System.Diagnostics.Trace. · To collect traces, implement the ITraceWriter interface public class SimpleTracer : ITraceWriter {     public void Trace(HttpRequestMessage request, string category, TraceLevel level,         Action<TraceRecord> traceAction)     {         TraceRecord rec = new TraceRecord(request, category, level);         traceAction(rec);         WriteTrace(rec); · register the service with config · programmatically trace – has helper extension methods: Configuration.Services.GetTraceWriter().Info( · Performance tracing - pipeline writes traces at the beginning and end of an operation - TraceRecord class includes aTimeStamp property, Kind property set to TraceKind.Begin / End Security · Roles class methods: RoleExists, AddUserToRole · WebSecurity class methods: UserExists, .CreateUserAndAccount · Request.IsAuthenticated · Leverage HTTP 401 (Unauthorized) response · [AuthorizeAttribute(Roles="Administrator")] – can be applied to Controller or its action methods · See section in WebApi document on "Claim-based-security for ASP.NET Web APIs using DotNetOpenAuth" – adapt this to STS.--> Web API Host exposes secured Web APIs which can only be accessed by presenting a valid token issued by the trusted issuer. http://zamd.net/2012/05/04/claim-based-security-for-asp-net-web-apis-using-dotnetopenauth/ · Use MVC membership provider infrastructure and add a DelegatingHandler child class to the WebAPI pipeline - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11535075/asp-net-mvc-4-web-api-authentication-with-membership-provider - this will perform the login actions · Then use AuthorizeAttribute on controllers and methods for role mapping- http://sixgun.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/asp-net-web-api-basic-authentication/ · Alternate option here is to rely on MVC App : http://forums.asp.net/t/1831767.aspx/1

    Read the article

  • How to get HandleUnauthorizedRequest to return correct url?

    - by Jova
    I'm writing a custom AuthorizeAttribute which should redirect unauthorized users to the login page. My HandleUnauthorizedRequest method looks like this, protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { RouteValueDictionary returnRoute = new RouteValueDictionary(); returnRoute["controller"] = "Account"; returnRoute["action"] = "Login"; returnRoute["returnUrl"] = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.Url.AbsolutePath; filterContext.Result = new RedirectToRouteResult(returnRoute); } Unfortunately it's not working properly as the returning url looks like this, www.mydomain.com/?controller=Account&action=Login&returnUrl=%2FUser%2FEditProfile%2FUsername What is the reason for this and how do I correct it?

    Read the article

  • MVC Authorize Attribute + HttpUnauthorizedResult + FormsAuthentication

    - by Anthony
    After browsing the MVC section on CodePlex I noticed that the [Authorize] attribute in MVC returns a HttpUnauthorizedResult() when authorization fails (codeplex AuthorizeAttribute class). In the source of HttpUnauthorizedResult() from CodePlex is the code (I'm not allowed to enter another URL as my rep isn't high enough, but replace the numbers on the URL above with 22929#266476): // 401 is the HTTP status code for unauthorized access - setting this // will cause the active authentication module to execute its default // unauthorized handler context.HttpContext.Response.StatusCode = 401; In particular, the comment describes the authentication module's default unauthorized handler. I can't seem to find any information on this default unauthorized handler. In particular, I'm not using FormsAuthentication and when authorization fails I get an ugly IIS 401 error page. Does anyone know about this default unauthorized handler, and in particular how FormsAuthentication hooks itself in to override it? I'm writing a really simple app for my football team who confirm or deny whether they can play a particular match. If I enable FormsAuthentication in the web.config the redirect works, but I'm not using FormsAuthentication and I'd like to know if there's a workaround.

    Read the article

  • .NET WebService Custom Attribute

    - by DownChapel
    I would like to add a custom attribute to a asmx web service to determine if the request is valid based on the client IP address. This is a similar idea to the AuthorizeAttribute in ASP.NET MVC. Is there anywhere (e.g. a HTTP module) I can put the code to look at the attribute on the webservice and decide whether to allow the request or not? In my web.config the handler for asmx is the ScriptHandlerFactory from the System.Web.Extensions dll. I have already implemented the functionality with a HTTP module and a config file with a list of allowed URLs, but I would prefer to get rid of the config file and just add an attribute to the webservice class. Thanks

    Read the article

  • UrlHelper and ViewContext inside an Authorization Attribute

    - by DM
    I have a scenario that I haven't been able to solve: I'm toying around with creating my own custom authorization attribute for mvc. The main bit of functionality I would like to add is to have the ability to change where the user gets redirected if they are not in a certain role. I don't mind that the system sends them back to the login page if they're not authenticated, but I would like to choose where to send them if they are authenticated but not allowed to access that action method. Here's is what I would like to do: public class CustomAuthorizeAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute { public string Action; public string Controller; protected override bool AuthorizeCore(System.Web.HttpContextBase httpContext) { // if User is authenticated but not in the correct role string url = Url.Action(this.Action, this.Controller); httpContext.Response.Redirect(url); } } And as an added bonus I would like to have access to ViewContext and TempData before I do the redirect. Any thoughts on how I could get instantiate a UrlHelper and ViewContext in the attribute?

    Read the article

  • Possible Performance Considerations using Linq to SQL Repositories

    - by Robert Harvey
    I have an ASP.NET MVC application that uses Linq to SQL repositories for all interactions with the database. To deal with data security, I do trimming to filter data to only those items to which the user has access. This occurs in several places: Data in list views Links in a menu bar A treeview on the left hand side containing links to content Role-based security A special security attribute, inheriting from AuthorizeAttribute, that implements content-based authorization on every controller method. Each of these places instantiates a repository, which opens a Linq to Sql DataContext and accesses the database. So, by my count, each request for a page access opens at least six separate Linq to SQL DataContexts. Should I be concerned about this from a performance perspective, and if so, what can be done to mitigate it?

    Read the article

  • ASP NET forms Authorization: how to reduce duration?

    - by eddo
    I've got a web page which is implementing cookie based ASPNET Forms Authentication. Once the user has logged in the page, he can edit some information using a form which is created using a partialview and returned to him as a dialog for editing. The action linked to the partial view is decorated as follows: [HttpGet] [OutputCache(Duration = 0, VaryByParam = "None")] [Authorize(Roles = "test")] public ActionResult changeTripInfo(int tripID, bool ovride=false) { ... } The problem i am experiencing is the latency between the request and the time when the dialog is shown to the user: time ranges between 800 and 1100 ms which is not justified by the complexity of the form. Investigating with Glimpse turns out that the time to process the AuthorizeAttribute (see snip) sums up to at least 650 ms which is troubling me. Looking at the Sql server log, the call which checks the user roles takes, as expected, virtually nothing (duration 0). How can I reduce this time? Am I missing some optimization?

    Read the article

  • How to port C# code which uses a callback to VB.NET?

    - by Bob
    I need to port the following from the ASP.NET MVC 2 sourcecode from C# to VB.NET. It's from AuthorizeAttribute.cs beginning on line 86: HttpCachePolicyBase cachePolicy = filterContext.HttpContext.Response.Cache; cachePolicy.SetProxyMaxAge(new TimeSpan(0)); cachePolicy.AddValidationCallback(CacheValidateHandler, null /* data */); where CacheValidateHandler is: private void CacheValidateHandler(HttpContext context, object data, ref HttpValidationStatus validationStatus) { validationStatus = OnCacheAuthorization(new HttpContextWrapper(context)); } The VB.NET port from http://converter.telerik.com doesn't quite work for this line: cachePolicy.AddValidationCallback(CacheValidateHandler, Nothing) ' Error where CacheValidateHandler is: Private Sub CacheValidateHandler(ByVal context As HttpContext, ByVal data As Object, _ ByRef validationStatus As HttpValidationStatus) validationStatus = OnCacheAuthorization(New HttpContextWrapper(context)) End Sub VS2008 complains that CacheValidateHandler does not specify its arguments for context, data, and validationStatus. Any ideas how to port this code?

    Read the article

  • Security Issues with Single Page Apps

    - by Stephen.Walther
    Last week, I was asked to do a code review of a Single Page App built using the ASP.NET Web API, Durandal, and Knockout (good stuff!). In particular, I was asked to investigate whether there any special security issues associated with building a Single Page App which are not present in the case of a traditional server-side ASP.NET application. In this blog entry, I discuss two areas in which you need to exercise extra caution when building a Single Page App. I discuss how Single Page Apps are extra vulnerable to both Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks and Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. This goal of this blog post is NOT to persuade you to avoid writing Single Page Apps. I’m a big fan of Single Page Apps. Instead, the goal is to ensure that you are fully aware of some of the security issues related to Single Page Apps and ensure that you know how to guard against them. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Attacks According to WhiteHat Security, over 65% of public websites are open to XSS attacks. That’s bad. By taking advantage of XSS holes in a website, a hacker can steal your credit cards, passwords, or bank account information. Any website that redisplays untrusted information is open to XSS attacks. Let me give you a simple example. Imagine that you want to display the name of the current user on a page. To do this, you create the following server-side ASP.NET page located at http://MajorBank.com/SomePage.aspx: <%@Page Language="C#" %> <html> <head> <title>Some Page</title> </head> <body> Welcome <%= Request["username"] %> </body> </html> Nothing fancy here. Notice that the page displays the current username by using Request[“username”]. Using Request[“username”] displays the username regardless of whether the username is present in a cookie, a form field, or a query string variable. Unfortunately, by using Request[“username”] to redisplay untrusted information, you have now opened your website to XSS attacks. Here’s how. Imagine that an evil hacker creates the following link on another website (hackers.com): <a href="/SomePage.aspx?username=<script src=Evil.js></script>">Visit MajorBank</a> Notice that the link includes a query string variable named username and the value of the username variable is an HTML <SCRIPT> tag which points to a JavaScript file named Evil.js. When anyone clicks on the link, the <SCRIPT> tag will be injected into SomePage.aspx and the Evil.js script will be loaded and executed. What can a hacker do in the Evil.js script? Anything the hacker wants. For example, the hacker could display a popup dialog on the MajorBank.com site which asks the user to enter their password. The script could then post the password back to hackers.com and now the evil hacker has your secret password. ASP.NET Web Forms and ASP.NET MVC have two automatic safeguards against this type of attack: Request Validation and Automatic HTML Encoding. Protecting Coming In (Request Validation) In a server-side ASP.NET app, you are protected against the XSS attack described above by a feature named Request Validation. If you attempt to submit “potentially dangerous” content — such as a JavaScript <SCRIPT> tag — in a form field or query string variable then you get an exception. Unfortunately, Request Validation only applies to server-side apps. Request Validation does not help in the case of a Single Page App. In particular, the ASP.NET Web API does not pay attention to Request Validation. You can post any content you want – including <SCRIPT> tags – to an ASP.NET Web API action. For example, the following HTML page contains a form. When you submit the form, the form data is submitted to an ASP.NET Web API controller on the server using an Ajax request: <!DOCTYPE html> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> <form data-bind="submit:submit"> <div> <label> User Name: <input data-bind="value:user.userName" /> </label> </div> <div> <label> Email: <input data-bind="value:user.email" /> </label> </div> <div> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </div> </form> <script src="Scripts/jquery-1.7.1.js"></script> <script src="Scripts/knockout-2.1.0.js"></script> <script> var viewModel = { user: { userName: ko.observable(), email: ko.observable() }, submit: function () { $.post("/api/users", ko.toJS(this.user)); } }; ko.applyBindings(viewModel); </script> </body> </html> The form above is using Knockout to bind the form fields to a view model. When you submit the form, the view model is submitted to an ASP.NET Web API action on the server. Here’s the server-side ASP.NET Web API controller and model class: public class UsersController : ApiController { public HttpResponseMessage Post(UserViewModel user) { var userName = user.UserName; return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK); } } public class UserViewModel { public string UserName { get; set; } public string Email { get; set; } } If you submit the HTML form, you don’t get an error. The “potentially dangerous” content is passed to the server without any exception being thrown. In the screenshot below, you can see that I was able to post a username form field with the value “<script>alert(‘boo’)</script”. So what this means is that you do not get automatic Request Validation in the case of a Single Page App. You need to be extra careful in a Single Page App about ensuring that you do not display untrusted content because you don’t have the Request Validation safety net which you have in a traditional server-side ASP.NET app. Protecting Going Out (Automatic HTML Encoding) Server-side ASP.NET also protects you from XSS attacks when you render content. By default, all content rendered by the razor view engine is HTML encoded. For example, the following razor view displays the text “<b>Hello!</b>” instead of the text “Hello!” in bold: @{ var message = "<b>Hello!</b>"; } @message   If you don’t want to render content as HTML encoded in razor then you need to take the extra step of using the @Html.Raw() helper. In a Web Form page, if you use <%: %> instead of <%= %> then you get automatic HTML Encoding: <%@ Page Language="C#" %> <% var message = "<b>Hello!</b>"; %> <%: message %> This automatic HTML Encoding will prevent many types of XSS attacks. It prevents <script> tags from being rendered and only allows &lt;script&gt; tags to be rendered which are useless for executing JavaScript. (This automatic HTML encoding does not protect you from all forms of XSS attacks. For example, you can assign the value “javascript:alert(‘evil’)” to the Hyperlink control’s NavigateUrl property and execute the JavaScript). The situation with Knockout is more complicated. If you use the Knockout TEXT binding then you get HTML encoded content. On the other hand, if you use the HTML binding then you do not: <!-- This JavaScript DOES NOT execute --> <div data-bind="text:someProp"></div> <!-- This Javacript DOES execute --> <div data-bind="html:someProp"></div> <script src="Scripts/jquery-1.7.1.js"></script> <script src="Scripts/knockout-2.1.0.js"></script> <script> var viewModel = { someProp : "<script>alert('Evil!')<" + "/script>" }; ko.applyBindings(viewModel); </script>   So, in the page above, the DIV element which uses the TEXT binding is safe from XSS attacks. According to the Knockout documentation: “Since this binding sets your text value using a text node, it’s safe to set any string value without risking HTML or script injection.” Just like server-side HTML encoding, Knockout does not protect you from all types of XSS attacks. For example, there is nothing in Knockout which prevents you from binding JavaScript to a hyperlink like this: <a data-bind="attr:{href:homePageUrl}">Go</a> <script src="Scripts/jquery-1.7.1.min.js"></script> <script src="Scripts/knockout-2.1.0.js"></script> <script> var viewModel = { homePageUrl: "javascript:alert('evil!')" }; ko.applyBindings(viewModel); </script> In the page above, the value “javascript:alert(‘evil’)” is bound to the HREF attribute using Knockout. When you click the link, the JavaScript executes. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) Attacks Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks rely on the fact that a session cookie does not expire until you close your browser. In particular, if you visit and login to MajorBank.com and then you navigate to Hackers.com then you will still be authenticated against MajorBank.com even after you navigate to Hackers.com. Because MajorBank.com cannot tell whether a request is coming from MajorBank.com or Hackers.com, Hackers.com can submit requests to MajorBank.com pretending to be you. For example, Hackers.com can post an HTML form from Hackers.com to MajorBank.com and change your email address at MajorBank.com. Hackers.com can post a form to MajorBank.com using your authentication cookie. After your email address has been changed, by using a password reset page at MajorBank.com, a hacker can access your bank account. To prevent CSRF attacks, you need some mechanism for detecting whether a request is coming from a page loaded from your website or whether the request is coming from some other website. The recommended way of preventing Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks is to use the “Synchronizer Token Pattern” as described here: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_%28CSRF%29_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet When using the Synchronizer Token Pattern, you include a hidden input field which contains a random token whenever you display an HTML form. When the user opens the form, you add a cookie to the user’s browser with the same random token. When the user posts the form, you verify that the hidden form token and the cookie token match. Preventing Cross-Site Request Forgery Attacks with ASP.NET MVC ASP.NET gives you a helper and an action filter which you can use to thwart Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks. For example, the following razor form for creating a product shows how you use the @Html.AntiForgeryToken() helper: @model MvcApplication2.Models.Product <h2>Create Product</h2> @using (Html.BeginForm()) { @Html.AntiForgeryToken(); <div> @Html.LabelFor( p => p.Name, "Product Name:") @Html.TextBoxFor( p => p.Name) </div> <div> @Html.LabelFor( p => p.Price, "Product Price:") @Html.TextBoxFor( p => p.Price) </div> <input type="submit" /> } The @Html.AntiForgeryToken() helper generates a random token and assigns a serialized version of the same random token to both a cookie and a hidden form field. (Actually, if you dive into the source code, the AntiForgeryToken() does something a little more complex because it takes advantage of a user’s identity when generating the token). Here’s what the hidden form field looks like: <input name=”__RequestVerificationToken” type=”hidden” value=”NqqZGAmlDHh6fPTNR_mti3nYGUDgpIkCiJHnEEL59S7FNToyyeSo7v4AfzF2i67Cv0qTB1TgmZcqiVtgdkW2NnXgEcBc-iBts0x6WAIShtM1″ /> And here’s what the cookie looks like using the Google Chrome developer toolbar: You use the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] action filter on the controller action which is the recipient of the form post to validate that the token in the hidden form field matches the token in the cookie. If the tokens don’t match then validation fails and you can’t post the form: public ActionResult Create() { return View(); } [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] [HttpPost] public ActionResult Create(Product productToCreate) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { // save product to db return RedirectToAction("Index"); } return View(); } How does this all work? Let’s imagine that a hacker has copied the Create Product page from MajorBank.com to Hackers.com – the hacker grabs the HTML source and places it at Hackers.com. Now, imagine that the hacker trick you into submitting the Create Product form from Hackers.com to MajorBank.com. You’ll get the following exception: The Cross-Site Request Forgery attack is blocked because the anti-forgery token included in the Create Product form at Hackers.com won’t match the anti-forgery token stored in the cookie in your browser. The tokens were generated at different times for different users so the attack fails. Preventing Cross-Site Request Forgery Attacks with a Single Page App In a Single Page App, you can’t prevent Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks using the same method as a server-side ASP.NET MVC app. In a Single Page App, HTML forms are not generated on the server. Instead, in a Single Page App, forms are loaded dynamically in the browser. Phil Haack has a blog post on this topic where he discusses passing the anti-forgery token in an Ajax header instead of a hidden form field. He also describes how you can create a custom anti-forgery token attribute to compare the token in the Ajax header and the token in the cookie. See: http://haacked.com/archive/2011/10/10/preventing-csrf-with-ajax.aspx Also, take a look at Johan’s update to Phil Haack’s original post: http://johan.driessen.se/posts/Updated-Anti-XSRF-Validation-for-ASP.NET-MVC-4-RC (Other server frameworks such as Rails and Django do something similar. For example, Rails uses an X-CSRF-Token to prevent CSRF attacks which you generate on the server – see http://excid3.com/blog/rails-tip-2-include-csrf-token-with-every-ajax-request/#.UTFtgDDkvL8 ). For example, if you are creating a Durandal app, then you can use the following razor view for your one and only server-side page: @{ Layout = null; } <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <title>Index</title> </head> <body> @Html.AntiForgeryToken() <div id="applicationHost"> Loading app.... </div> @Scripts.Render("~/scripts/vendor") <script type="text/javascript" src="~/App/durandal/amd/require.js" data-main="/App/main"></script> </body> </html> Notice that this page includes a call to @Html.AntiForgeryToken() to generate the anti-forgery token. Then, whenever you make an Ajax request in the Durandal app, you can retrieve the anti-forgery token from the razor view and pass the token as a header: var csrfToken = $("input[name='__RequestVerificationToken']").val(); $.ajax({ headers: { __RequestVerificationToken: csrfToken }, type: "POST", dataType: "json", contentType: 'application/json; charset=utf-8', url: "/api/products", data: JSON.stringify({ name: "Milk", price: 2.33 }), statusCode: { 200: function () { alert("Success!"); } } }); Use the following code to create an action filter which you can use to match the header and cookie tokens: using System.Linq; using System.Net.Http; using System.Web.Helpers; using System.Web.Http.Controllers; namespace MvcApplication2.Infrastructure { public class ValidateAjaxAntiForgeryToken : System.Web.Http.AuthorizeAttribute { protected override bool IsAuthorized(HttpActionContext actionContext) { var headerToken = actionContext .Request .Headers .GetValues("__RequestVerificationToken") .FirstOrDefault(); ; var cookieToken = actionContext .Request .Headers .GetCookies() .Select(c => c[AntiForgeryConfig.CookieName]) .FirstOrDefault(); // check for missing cookie or header if (cookieToken == null || headerToken == null) { return false; } // ensure that the cookie matches the header try { AntiForgery.Validate(cookieToken.Value, headerToken); } catch { return false; } return base.IsAuthorized(actionContext); } } } Notice that the action filter derives from the base AuthorizeAttribute. The ValidateAjaxAntiForgeryToken only works when the user is authenticated and it will not work for anonymous requests. Add the action filter to your ASP.NET Web API controller actions like this: [ValidateAjaxAntiForgeryToken] public HttpResponseMessage PostProduct(Product productToCreate) { // add product to db return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK); } After you complete these steps, it won’t be possible for a hacker to pretend to be you at Hackers.com and submit a form to MajorBank.com. The header token used in the Ajax request won’t travel to Hackers.com. This approach works, but I am not entirely happy with it. The one thing that I don’t like about this approach is that it creates a hard dependency on using razor. Your single page in your Single Page App must be generated from a server-side razor view. A better solution would be to generate the anti-forgery token in JavaScript. Unfortunately, until all browsers support a way to generate cryptographically strong random numbers – for example, by supporting the window.crypto.getRandomValues() method — there is no good way to generate anti-forgery tokens in JavaScript. So, at least right now, the best solution for generating the tokens is the server-side solution with the (regrettable) dependency on razor. Conclusion The goal of this blog entry was to explore some ways in which you need to handle security differently in the case of a Single Page App than in the case of a traditional server app. In particular, I focused on how to prevent Cross-Site Scripting and Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks in the case of a Single Page App. I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting that Single Page Apps are inherently less secure than server-side apps. Whatever type of web application you build – regardless of whether it is a Single Page App, an ASP.NET MVC app, an ASP.NET Web Forms app, or a Rails app – you must constantly guard against security vulnerabilities.

    Read the article

  • Mixing Forms and Token Authentication in a single ASP.NET Application

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    I recently had the task to find out how to mix ASP.NET Forms Authentication with WIF’s WS-Federation. The FormsAuth app did already exist, and a new sub-directory of this application should use ADFS for authentication. Minimum changes to the existing application code would be a plus ;) Since the application is using ASP.NET MVC this was quite easy to accomplish – WebForms would be a little harder, but still doable. I will discuss the MVC solution here. To solve this problem, I made the following changes to the standard MVC internet application template: Added WIF’s WSFederationAuthenticationModule and SessionAuthenticationModule to the modules section. Add a WIF configuration section to configure the trust with ADFS. Added a new authorization attribute. This attribute will go on controller that demand ADFS (or STS in general) authentication. The attribute logic is quite simple – it checks for authenticated users – and additionally that the authentication type is set to Federation. If that’s the case all is good, if not, the redirect to the STS will be triggered. public class RequireTokenAuthenticationAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute {     protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)     {         if (httpContext.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated &&             httpContext.User.Identity.AuthenticationType.Equals( WIF.AuthenticationTypes.Federation, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))         {             return true;         }                     return false;     }     protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(AuthorizationContext filterContext)     {                    // do the redirect to the STS         var message = FederatedAuthentication.WSFederationAuthenticationModule.CreateSignInRequest( "passive", filterContext.HttpContext.Request.RawUrl, false);         filterContext.Result = new RedirectResult(message.RequestUrl);     } } That’s it ;) If you want to know why this works (and a possible gotcha) – read my next post.

    Read the article

  • In Asp.Net MVC 2 is there a better way to return 401 status codes without getting an auth redirect

    - by Greg Roberts
    I have a portion of my site that has a lightweight xml/json REST API. Most of my site is behind forms auth but only some of my API actions require authentication. I have a custom AuthorizeAttribute for my API that I use to check for certain permissions and when it fails it results in a 401. All is good, except since I'm using forms auth, Asp.net conveniently converts that into a 302 redirect to my login page. I've seen some previous questions that seem a bit hackish to either return a 403 instead or to put some logic in the global.asax protected void Application_EndRequest() that will essentially convert 302 to 401 where it meets whatever criteria. Previous Question Previous Question 2 What I'm doing now is sort of like one of the questions, but instead of checking the Application_EndRequest() for a 302 I make my authorize attribute return 666 which indicates to me that I need to set this to a 401. Here is my code: protected void Application_EndRequest() { if (Context.Response.StatusCode == MyAuthAttribute.AUTHORIZATION_FAILED_STATUS) { //check for 666 - status code of hidden 401 Context.Response.StatusCode = 401; } } Even though this works, my question is there something in Asp.net MVC 2 that would prevent me from having to do this? Or, in general is there a better way? I would think this would come up a lot for anyone doing REST api's or just people that do ajax requests in their controllers. The last thing you want is to do a request and get the content of a login page instead of json.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC2 Access-Control: How to do authorization dynamically?

    - by Shaharyar
    We're currently rewriting our organizations ASP.NET MVC application which has been written twice already. (Once MVC1, once MVC2). (Thank god it wasn't production ready and too mature back then). This time, anyhow, it's going to be the real deal because we'll be implementing more and more features as time passes and the testruns with MVC1 and MVC2 showed that we're ready to upscale. Until now we were using Controller and Action authorization with AuthorizeAttribute's. But that won't do it any longer because our views are supposed to show different results based on the logged in user. Use Case: Let's say you're a major of a city and you login to a federal managed software and you can only access and edit the citizens in your city. Where you are allowed to access those citizens via an entry in a specialized MajorHasRightsForCity table containing a MajorId and a CityId. What I thought of is something like this: Public ViewResult Edit(int cityId) { if(Access.UserCanEditCity(currentUser, cityId) { var currentCity = Db.Cities.Single(c => c.id == cityId); Return View(currentCity); } else { TempData["ErrorMessage"] = "Yo are not awesome enough to edit that shizzle!" Return View(); } The static class Access would do all kinds of checks and return either true or false from it's methods. This implies that I would need to change and edit all of my controllers every time I change something. (Which would be a pain, because all unit tests would need to be adjusted every time something changes..) Is doing something like that even allowed?

    Read the article

  • Applying fine-grained security to an existing application

    - by Mark
    I've inherited a reasonably large and complex ASP.NET MVC3 web application using EF Code First on SQL Server. It uses ASP.NET Membership roles with database authentication. The controller actions are secured with attributes derived from AuthorizeAttribute that map roles to actions. There are extension methods for the finer points, such as showing a particular widget to particular roles. This is works great and I have a good understanding of the current security model. I've been asked to provide finer grained security at the data level. For example a 'Customer' user can only see data (throughout the database) associated with themselves and not other Customers. The problem is that 'Customer' is only 1 of 5 different types with their own specific restrictions (each of the 9 roles is one of these 5 types). The best thing I can think of is to go through all the data repositories and extend each and every LINQ statements/query with a filter for every user type. Even if I had time for that it doesn't seem like the most elegant way. Any suggestions? I really don't know where to start with this so anything could be helpful. Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Improving WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization - Part 2

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In the last post I showed you how to take control over the invocation of ClaimsAuthorizationManager. Then you have complete freedom over the claim types, the amount of claims and the values. In addition I added two attributes that invoke the authorization manager using an “application claim type”. This way it is very easy to distinguish between authorization calls that originate from WIF’s per-request authorization and the ones from “within” you application. The attribute comes in two flavours: a CAS attribute (invoked by the CLR) and an ASP.NET MVC attribute (for MVC controllers, invoke by the MVC plumbing). Both also feature static methods to easily call them using the application claim types. The CAS attribute is part of Thinktecture.IdentityModel on Codeplex (or via NuGet: Install-Package Thinktecture.IdentityModel). If you really want to see that code ;) There is also a sample included in the Codeplex donwload. The MVC attribute is currently used in Thinktecture.IdentityServer – and I don’t currently plan to make it part of the library project since I don’t want to add a dependency on MVC for now. You can find the code below – and I will write about its usage in a follow-up post. public class ClaimsAuthorize : AuthorizeAttribute {     private string _resource;     private string _action;     private string[] _additionalResources;     /// <summary>     /// Default action claim type.     /// </summary>     public const string ActionType = "http://application/claims/authorization/action";     /// <summary>     /// Default resource claim type     /// </summary>     public const string ResourceType = "http://application/claims/authorization/resource";     /// <summary>     /// Additional resource claim type     /// </summary>     public const string AdditionalResourceType = "http://application/claims/authorization/additionalresource"          public ClaimsAuthorize(string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         _action = action;         _resource = resource;         _additionalResources = additionalResources;     }     public static bool CheckAccess(       string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         return CheckAccess(             Thread.CurrentPrincipal as IClaimsPrincipal,             action,             resource,             additionalResources);     }     public static bool CheckAccess(       IClaimsPrincipal principal, string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         var context = CreateAuthorizationContext(             principal,             action,             resource,             additionalResources);         return ClaimsAuthorization.CheckAccess(context);     }     protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)     {         return CheckAccess(_action, _resource, _additionalResources);     }     private static WIF.AuthorizationContext CreateAuthorizationContext(       IClaimsPrincipal principal, string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         var actionClaims = new Collection<Claim>         {             new Claim(ActionType, action)         };         var resourceClaims = new Collection<Claim>         {             new Claim(ResourceType, resource)         };         if (additionalResources != null && additionalResources.Length > 0)         {             additionalResources.ToList().ForEach(ar => resourceClaims.Add(               new Claim(AdditionalResourceType, ar)));         }         return new WIF.AuthorizationContext(             principal,             resourceClaims,             actionClaims);     } }

    Read the article

1 2  | Next Page >