Search Results

Search found 1306 results on 53 pages for 'csrf protection'.

Page 1/53 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Data Protection Manager System Protection Backups Failing

  - by TrueDuality

  I'm just starting to setup DPM 2010 in a test environment with a Domain Controller and a File Server. Everything seem to be working fairly well and I can get all of my backup jobs to succeed except for the "Computer\System Protection" backups. Both servers are running fully up to date 64 bit Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise with Service Pack 1. The error that is being provided is: DPM cannot create a backup because Windows Server Backup (WSB) on the protected computer encountered an error (WSB Event ID: 517, WSB Error Code: 0x8078001D). (ID 30229 Details: Internal error code: 0x809909FB) This Microsoft Knowledge Base article describes the issue perfectly and provides a hotfix. I downloaded the hotfix, moved it onto the affected server, attempt to run it and receive the following error: The update is not applicable to your computer. I've verified that I have indeed downloaded the 64 bit version. According to this thread the hotfix got rolled into Service Pack 1, yet I'm still experiencing the issue. Both machines do have the Windows Server Backup feature installed. Can anybody point me in the right direction? What am I missing?

  Read the article

• Where to Store the Protection Trial Info for Software Protection Purpose

  - by Peter Lee

  It might be duplicate with other questions, but I swear that I googled a lot and search at StackOverflow.com a lot, and I cannot find the answer to my question: In a C#.Net application, where to store the protection trial info, such as Expiration Date, Number of Used Times? I understand that, all kinds of Software Protection strategies can be cracked by a sophiscated hacker (because they can almost always get around the expiration checking step). But what I'm now going to do is just to protect it in a reasonable manner that a "common"/"advanced" user cannot screw it up. OK, in order to proof that I have googled and searched a lot at StackOverflow.com, I'm listing all the possible strategies I got: 1. Registry Entry First, some users might not have the access to even read the Registry table. Second, if we put the Protection Trial Info in a Registry Entry, the user can always find it out where it is by comparing the differences before and after the software installation. They can just simply change it. OK, you might say that we should encrypt the Protection Trial Info, yes we can do that. But what if the user just change their system date before installing? OK, you might say that we should also put a last-used date, if something is wrong, the last-used date could work as a protection guide. But what if the user just uninstall the software and delete all Registry Entries related to this software, and then reinstall the software? I have no idea on how to deal with this. Please help. A Plain File First, there are some places to put the plain file: 2.a) a simple XML file under software installation path 2.b) configuration file Again, the user can just uninstall the software and remove these plain file(s), and reinstall the software. - The Software Itself If we put the protection trial info (Expiration Date, we cannot put Number of Used Times) in the software itself, it is still susceptible to the cases I mentioned above. Furthermore, it's not even cool to do so. - A Trial Product-Key It works like a licensing process, that is, we put the Trial info into an RSA-signed string. However, it requires too many steps for a user to have a try of using the software (they might lose patience): 4.a) The user downloads the software; 4.b) The user sends an email to request a Trial Product-Key by providing user name (or email) or hardware info; 4.c) The server receives the request, RSA-signs it and send back to the user; 4.d) The user can now use it under the condition of (Expiration Date & Number of Used Times). Now, the server has a record of the user's username or hardware info, so the user will be rejected to request a second trial. Is it legal to collection hardware info? In a word, the user has to do one more extra step (request a Trial Product Key) just for having a try of using the software, which is not cool (thinking myself as a user). NOTE: This question is not about the Licensing, instead, it's about where to store the TRIAL info. After the trial expires, the user should ask for a license (CD-Key/Product-Key). I'm going to use RSA signature (bound to User Hardware)

  Read the article

• csrf error in django

  - by niklasfi

  Hello, I want to realize a login for my site. I basically copied and pasted the following bits from the Django Book together. However I still get an error (CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.), when submitting my registration form. Can somebody tell my what raised this error and how to fix it? Here is my code: views.py: # Create your views here. from django import forms from django.contrib.auth.forms import UserCreationForm from django.http import HttpResponseRedirect from django.shortcuts import render_to_response def register(request): if request.method == 'POST': form = UserCreationForm(request.POST) if form.is_valid(): new_user = form.save() return HttpResponseRedirect("/books/") else: form = UserCreationForm() return render_to_response("registration/register.html", { 'form': form, }) register.html: <html> <body> {% block title %}Create an account{% endblock %} {% block content %} <h1>Create an account</h1> <form action="" method="post">{% csrf_token %} {{ form.as_p }} <input type="submit" value="Create the account"> </form> {% endblock %} </body> </html>

  Read the article

• Django CSRF framework cannot be disabled and is breaking my site

  - by MikeN

  The django csrf middleware can't be disabled. I've commented it out from my Middleware of my project but my logins are failing due to missing CSRF issues. I'm working from the Django trunk. How can CSRF cause issues if it is not enabled in middleware? I have to disable it because there are lots of POST requests on my site that CSRF just breaks. Any feedback on how I can completely disable CSRF in a django trunk project? The "new' CSRF framework from Django's trunk is also breaking an external site that is coming in and doing a POST on a URL I'm giving them (this is part of a restful API.) I can't disable the CSRF framework as I said earlier, how can I fix this?

  Read the article

• Software protection

  - by anfono

  I want to protect my software from being used without permission. I will provide it for free to the parties I authorize to use it. Anyone knows a good protection scheme against having it copied and run by unauthorized parties ? So far, I thought about introducing a key validation mechanism: periodically, the user needs to send me (web site query) a code based on which I generate a new code that app validates against. There is an initial code, and so I can track users... Thoughts ? Later edit: I changed the licensing part to avoid unfocused discussion.

  Read the article

• Make CSRF middleware work in Django's 404 error pages

  - by jack

  I put a login box alone with a keyword search box in 404.html in a Django project so in case a 404 error is raised, visitors get more options to jump to other parts. But the CSRF middleware doesn't work in 404 error page with no csrf token rendered. I tried move 'django.middleware.csrf.CsrfViewMiddleware' to first of MIDDLEWARE_CLASSES in settings.py but did not work either. Anyone knows a solution?

  Read the article

• Is Rails default CSRF protection insecure

  - by schickb

  By default the form post CSRF protection in Rails creates an authenticity token for a user that only changes when the user's session changes. One of our customers did a security audit of our site and flagged that as an issue. The auditor's statement was that if we also had a XSS vulnerability that an attacker could grab another user's authenticity token and make use of it for CSRF attacks until the user's session expired. But is seems to me that if we had an XSS vulnerability like that an attacker could just as easily grab another user's session cookie and login as that user directly. Or even just make call to our REST Api as the user being attacked. No secondary CSRF attack needed. Have I missed something? Is there a real problem with the default CSRF protection in Rails?

  Read the article

• jquery write protection in textarea for wildcards

  - by Juri

  Hi everybody. Does anyone know a possibilty to protect a string-wildcard from changing in a textarea? HTML: <textarea name="mail_text" id="mail_text"> {salutation} {recipient}, thanks for your email. Regards {username} </textarea> I would like to catch when someone tries to change one of the wildcards: {salutation},*{recipient}* and {username} $("textarea").keyup(function() { var val = $(this).val(); //protect the wildcards }); Thanks!

  Read the article

• codeigniter csrf protection with ajax

  - by Yarandi

  i have a small problem here which i cannot fix,This post goes through but the response returns a “500 internal server error” who to fix it? JS in view: function load(value) { var utype = value; if(utype>0) { new Ajax.Request('<?php echo base_url().'another/load';?>'+'/'+utype, { method:'post', onSuccess: function(transport){ var response = transport.responseText || "no response text"; if(response!="no response text") document.getElementById('prog_id').innerHTML = response; }, onFailure: function(){ alert('Something went wrong ...') } }); } error in firebug : An Error Was Encountered The action you have requested is not allowed. when i change CSRF protection to False in config file its work for me.but i want protect this request with CSRF enabled. after search in CI forum i found this this link codeigniter-csrf-protection-with-ajax but i cant solve by it.can any one help me?

  Read the article

• Symfony 1.4: Custom error message for CSRF in forms

  - by Tom

  Hi, Can anyone tell me where/how to customise the CSRF token error message for forms in Symfony 1.4. I'm using sfDoctrineGuard for logins and in this form particularly, whenever a session runs out and you still have the page open, it throws a very user-unfriendly error: "CSRF attack detected". Something like "This session has expired. Please return to the home page and try again" sounds better. What's the right way to do this in the form class? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Having a POST'able API and Django's CSRF Middleware

  - by T. Stone

  I have a Django webapp that has both a front-end, web-accessible component and an API that is accessed by a desktop client. However, now with the new CSRF middleware component, API requests from the desktop client that are POST'ed get a 403. I understand why this is happening, but what is the proper way to fix this without compromising security? Is there someway I can signal in the HTTP header that it's an API request and that Django shouldn't be checking for CSRF or is that a bad strategy?

  Read the article

• HtmlUnit to login (post form) to csrf enable website

  - by maaz

  I am posting a form using HTMLUnit webClient by putting the username and password but it could not logging me in. When i research then found out that they have enable csrf on post request so native web browser is required. Is there any way to login (post form) in csrf enable website using HTMLUnit or any other tool in Java or it is impossible?

  Read the article

• Why can CSRF attack be prevented by a random CSRF secret?

  - by user261527

  to prevent CSRF attacks, a random CSRF secret has been generated. The above is from symfony: http://www.symfony-project.org/getting-started/1_4/en/04-Project-Setup Since it's finally operated by users,which is so called deputy attack.how can it work by setting that secret?

  Read the article

• Restore dpm 2010 protection groups from partitions

  - by Dragouf

  Hello, I have Data protection manager (DPM) 2010. I did a backup of my system which has been saved into different partitions. The computer running DPM crashed and is not allowing me to restore the backup. However, i still have all the backups as partitions. How can I restore the multiple protection groups from the physical existing partitions? I have been researching the msdn documentation for a solution, but no luck so far. Thanks for your help

  Read the article

• Understanding CSRF - Simple Question

  - by byronh

  I know this might make me seem like an idiot, I've read everything there is to read about CSRF and I still don't understand how using a 'challenge token' would add any sort of prevention. Please help me clarify the basic concept, none of the articles and posts here on SO I read seemed to really explicitly state what value you're comparing with what. From OWASP: In general, developers need only generate this token once for the current session. After initial generation of this token, the value is stored in the session and is utilized for each subsequent request until the session expires. If I understand the process correctly, this is what happens. I log in at http://example.com and a session/cookie is created containing this random token. Then, every form includes a hidden input also containing this random value from the session which is compared with the session/cookie upon form submission. But what does that accomplish? Aren't you just taking session data, putting it in the page, and then comparing it with the exact same session data? Seems like circular reasoning. These articles keep talking about following the "same-origin policy" but that makes no sense, because all CSRF attacks ARE of the same origin as the user, just tricking the user into doing actions he/she didn't intend. Is there any alternative other than appending the token to every single URL as a query string? Seems very ugly and impractical, and makes bookmarking harder for the user.

  Read the article

• Guarding against CSRF Attacks in ASP.NET MVC2

  - by srkirkland

  Alongside XSS (Cross Site Scripting) and SQL Injection, Cross-site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks represent the three most common and dangerous vulnerabilities to common web applications today. CSRF attacks are probably the least well known but they are relatively easy to exploit and extremely and increasingly dangerous. For more information on CSRF attacks, see these posts by Phil Haack and Steve Sanderson. The recognized solution for preventing CSRF attacks is to put a user-specific token as a hidden field inside your forms, then check that the right value was submitted. It's best to use a random value which you’ve stored in the visitor’s Session collection or into a Cookie (so an attacker can't guess the value). ASP.NET MVC to the rescue ASP.NET MVC provides an HTMLHelper called AntiForgeryToken(). When you call <%= Html.AntiForgeryToken() %> in a form on your page you will get a hidden input and a Cookie with a random string assigned. Next, on your target Action you need to include [ValidateAntiForgeryToken], which handles the verification that the correct token was supplied. Good, but we can do better Using the AntiForgeryToken is actually quite an elegant solution, but adding [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on all of your POST methods is not very DRY, and worse can be easily forgotten. Let's see if we can make this easier on the program but moving from an "Opt-In" model of protection to an "Opt-Out" model. Using AntiForgeryToken by default In order to mandate the use of the AntiForgeryToken, we're going to create an ActionFilterAttribute which will do the anti-forgery validation on every POST request. First, we need to create a way to Opt-Out of this behavior, so let's create a quick action filter called BypassAntiForgeryToken: [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple=false)] public class BypassAntiForgeryTokenAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute { } Now we are ready to implement the main action filter which will force anti forgery validation on all post actions within any class it is defined on: [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, AllowMultiple = false)] public class UseAntiForgeryTokenOnPostByDefault : ActionFilterAttribute { public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) { if (ShouldValidateAntiForgeryTokenManually(filterContext)) { var authorizationContext = new AuthorizationContext(filterContext.Controller.ControllerContext);   //Use the authorization of the anti forgery token, //which can't be inhereted from because it is sealed new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute().OnAuthorization(authorizationContext); }   base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext); }   /// <summary> /// We should validate the anti forgery token manually if the following criteria are met: /// 1. The http method must be POST /// 2. There is not an existing [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute on the action /// 3. There is no [BypassAntiForgeryToken] attribute on the action /// </summary> private static bool ShouldValidateAntiForgeryTokenManually(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) { var httpMethod = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.HttpMethod;   //1. The http method must be POST if (httpMethod != "POST") return false;   // 2. There is not an existing anti forgery token attribute on the action var antiForgeryAttributes = filterContext.ActionDescriptor.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute), false);   if (antiForgeryAttributes.Length > 0) return false;   // 3. There is no [BypassAntiForgeryToken] attribute on the action var ignoreAntiForgeryAttributes = filterContext.ActionDescriptor.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(BypassAntiForgeryTokenAttribute), false);   if (ignoreAntiForgeryAttributes.Length > 0) return false;   return true; } } The code above is pretty straight forward -- first we check to make sure this is a POST request, then we make sure there aren't any overriding *AntiForgeryTokenAttributes on the action being executed. If we have a candidate then we call the ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute class directly and execute OnAuthorization() on the current authorization context. Now on our base controller, you could use this new attribute to start protecting your site from CSRF vulnerabilities. [UseAntiForgeryTokenOnPostByDefault] public class ApplicationController : System.Web.Mvc.Controller { }   //Then for all of your controllers public class HomeController : ApplicationController {} What we accomplished If your base controller has the new default anti-forgery token attribute on it, when you don't use <%= Html.AntiForgeryToken() %> in a form (or of course when an attacker doesn't supply one), the POST action will throw the descriptive error message "A required anti-forgery token was not supplied or was invalid". Attack foiled! In summary, I think having an anti-CSRF policy by default is an effective way to protect your websites, and it turns out it is pretty easy to accomplish as well. Enjoy!

  Read the article

• CSRF protection and cross site form access

  - by fl00r

  Hi. I aw working on cross site authentication (some domains have got common authentication). So I want to send authentication data (login, password) to main domain from others. How should I use protect_from_forgery and how can I check if data received from valid domain? What I am thinking now is to turn off protect_from_forgery for session controller and check domain name of received data. But maybe I can configure CSRF protection for not only one domain?

  Read the article

• CSRF protecting and cross site form access

  - by fl00r

  Hi. I aw working on cross site authentication (some domains have got common authentication). So I want to send authentication data (login, password) to main domain from others. How should I use protect_from_forgery and how can I check if data received from valid domain? What I am thinking now is to turn off protect_from_forgery for session controller and check domain name of received data. But maybe I can configure CSRF protection for not only one domain?

  Read the article

• Django CSRF failure when form posts to a different frame

  - by Leopd

  I'm building a page where I want to have a form that posts to an iframe on the same page. The Template looks like this: <form action="form-results" method="post" target="resultspane" > {% csrf_token %} <input name="query"> <input type=submit> </form> <iframe src="form-results" name="resultspane" width="100%" height="70%"> </iframe> The view behind form-results is getting CSRF errors. Is there something special needed for cross-frame posting?

  Read the article

• Django, CSRF protection and js generated form

  - by Neewok

  I have to create a form dynamically via javascript (yeah, that sounds ugly, but read this for the reason) and wants to make its submission CSRF proof. Usually, I use the @csrf_protect decorator in my views, and the {% csrf_token %} tag in my templates, as recommanded in the doc. But what should I do with a client-side generated form ? If I add a '/get_token/' view to generate a token on the server and obtain its value (say, via JSONP), then that means that I'm creating a backdoor an attacker could use to bypass the protection. Kinda head-scratching. What would you recommand ?

  Read the article

• Getting 403 error when using CSRF filter with tomcat 6.0.32

  - by sps

  This is my filer config in web.xml <filter> <filter-name>CSRFPreventionFilter</filter-name> <filter-class>org.apache.catalina.filters.CsrfPreventionFilter</filter-class> <init-param> <param-name>entryPoints</param-name> <param-value>/login<param-value> </init-param> </filter> <filter-mapping> <filter-name>CSRFPreventionFilter</filter-name> <url-pattern>/*</url-pattern> </filter-mapping> <filter> Am I missing something? Are any code-changes necessary to enable csrf protection in tomcat

  Read the article

• How to Achieve Real-Time Data Protection and Availabilty....For Real

  - by JoeMeeks

  There is a class of business and mission critical applications where downtime or data loss have substantial negative impact on revenue, customer service, reputation, cost, etc. Because the Oracle Database is used extensively to provide reliable performance and availability for this class of application, it also provides an integrated set of capabilities for real-time data protection and availability. Active Data Guard, depicted in the figure below, is the cornerstone for accomplishing these objectives because it provides the absolute best real-time data protection and availability for the Oracle Database. This is a bold statement, but it is supported by the facts. It isn’t so much that alternative solutions are bad, it’s just that their architectures prevent them from achieving the same levels of data protection, availability, simplicity, and asset utilization provided by Active Data Guard. Let’s explore further. Backups are the most popular method used to protect data and are an essential best practice for every database. Not surprisingly, Oracle Recovery Manager (RMAN) is one of the most commonly used features of the Oracle Database. But comparing Active Data Guard to backups is like comparing apples to motorcycles. Active Data Guard uses a hot (open read-only), synchronized copy of the production database to provide real-time data protection and HA. In contrast, a restore from backup takes time and often has many moving parts - people, processes, software and systems – that can create a level of uncertainty during an outage that critical applications can’t afford. This is why backups play a secondary role for your most critical databases by complementing real-time solutions that can provide both data protection and availability. Before Data Guard, enterprises used storage remote-mirroring for real-time data protection and availability. Remote-mirroring is a sophisticated storage technology promoted as a generic infrastructure solution that makes a simple promise – whatever is written to a primary volume will also be written to the mirrored volume at a remote site. Keeping this promise is also what causes data loss and downtime when the data written to primary volumes is corrupt – the same corruption is faithfully mirrored to the remote volume making both copies unusable. This happens because remote-mirroring is a generic process. It has no  intrinsic knowledge of Oracle data structures to enable advanced protection, nor can it perform independent Oracle validation BEFORE changes are applied to the remote copy. There is also nothing to prevent human error (e.g. a storage admin accidentally deleting critical files) from also impacting the remote mirrored copy. Remote-mirroring tricks users by creating a false impression that there are two separate copies of the Oracle Database. In truth; while remote-mirroring maintains two copies of the data on different volumes, both are part of a single closely coupled system. Not only will remote-mirroring propagate corruptions and administrative errors, but the changes applied to the mirrored volume are a result of the same Oracle code path that applied the change to the source volume. There is no isolation, either from a storage mirroring perspective or from an Oracle software perspective.  Bottom line, storage remote-mirroring lacks both the smarts and isolation level necessary to provide true data protection. Active Data Guard offers much more than storage remote-mirroring when your objective is protecting your enterprise from downtime and data loss. Like remote-mirroring, an Active Data Guard replica is an exact block for block copy of the primary. Unlike remote-mirroring, an Active Data Guard replica is NOT a tightly coupled copy of the source volumes - it is a completely independent Oracle Database. Active Data Guard’s inherent knowledge of Oracle data block and redo structures enables a separate Oracle Database using a different Oracle code path than the primary to use the full complement of Oracle data validation methods before changes are applied to the synchronized copy. These include: physical check sum, logical intra-block checking, lost write validation, and automatic block repair. The figure below illustrates the stark difference between the knowledge that remote-mirroring can discern from an Oracle data block and what Active Data Guard can discern. An Active Data Guard standby also provides a range of additional services enabled by the fact that it is a running Oracle Database - not just a mirrored copy of data files. An Active Data Guard standby database can be open read-only while it is synchronizing with the primary. This enables read-only workloads to be offloaded from the primary system and run on the active standby - boosting performance by utilizing all assets. An Active Data Guard standby can also be used to implement many types of system and database maintenance in rolling fashion. Maintenance and upgrades are first implemented on the standby while production runs unaffected at the primary. After the primary and standby are synchronized and all changes have been validated, the production workload is quickly switched to the standby. The only downtime is the time required for user connections to transfer from one system to the next. These capabilities further expand the expectations of availability offered by a data protection solution beyond what is possible to do using storage remote-mirroring. So don’t be fooled by appearances.  Storage remote-mirroring and Active Data Guard replication may look similar on the surface - but the devil is in the details. Only Active Data Guard has the smarts, the isolation, and the simplicity, to provide the best data protection and availability for the Oracle Database. Stay tuned for future blog posts that dive into the many differences between storage remote-mirroring and Active Data Guard along the dimensions of data protection, data availability, cost, asset utilization and return on investment. For additional information on Active Data Guard, see: Active Data Guard Technical White Paper Active Data Guard vs Storage Remote-Mirroring Active Data Guard Home Page on the Oracle Technology Network

  Read the article

• Django - How to do CSFR on public pages? Or, better yet, how should it be used period?

  - by orokusaki

  After reading this: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/contrib/csrf/#how-to-use-it I came to the conclusion that it is not valid to use this except for when you trust the person who is using the page which enlists it. Is this correct? I guess I don't really understand when it's safe to use this because of this statement: This should not be done for POST forms that target external URLs, since that would cause the CSRF token to be leaked, leading to a vulnerability. The reason it's confusing is that to me an "external URL" would be on that isn't part of my domain (ie, I own www.example.com and put a form that posts to www.spamfoo.com. This obviously can't be the case since people wouldn't use Django for generating forms that post to other people's websites, but how could it be true that you can't use CSRF protection on public forms (like a login form)?

  Read the article

• How do you protect against specific CSRF attack

  - by Saif Bechan

  I am going trough the OWASP Top 10 list of 2007 and 2010. I stumbled upon Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) this is often called session riding as you let the user usee his session to fulfill your wishes. Now a solution to this is adding a token to every url and this token is checked for every link. For example to vote on product x the url would be: 'http://mysite.com?token=HVBKJNKL' This looks like a solid solution to because a hacker can not guess the token. But I was thinking of the following scenario(I do not know if it is possible): You create a website with an hidden iFrame or div. After that you can load my website in it either using just the normal iFrame or ajax. When you have my website loaded hidden inside your website, and the user has a stored session, the following can be done. You can retrieve the token from the URLS, and still do all the actions needed. Is it possible to do something like this. Or is it not possible to do this cross domain.

  Read the article

• CSRF Protection in AJAX Requests using MVC2

  - by mnemosyn

  The page I'm building depends heavily on AJAX. Basically, there is just one "page" and every data transfer is handled via AJAX. Since overoptimistic caching on the browser side leads to strange problems (data not reloaded), I have to perform all requests (also reads) using POST - that forces a reload. Now I want to prevent the page against CSRF. With form submission, using Html.AntiForgeryToken() works neatly, but in AJAX-request, I guess I will have to append the token manually? Is there anything out-of-the box available? My current attempt looks like this: I'd love to reuse the existing magic. However, HtmlHelper.GetAntiForgeryTokenAndSetCookie is private and I don't want to hack around in MVC. The other option is to write an extension like public static string PlainAntiForgeryToken(this HtmlHelper helper) { // extract the actual field value from the hidden input return helper.AntiForgeryToken().DoSomeHackyStringActions(); } which is somewhat hacky and leaves the bigger problem unsolved: How to verify that token? The default verification implementation is internal and hard-coded against using form fields. I tried to write a slightly modified ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute, but it uses an AntiForgeryDataSerializer which is private and I really didn't want to copy that, too. At this point it seems to be easier to come up with a homegrown solution, but that is really duplicate code. Any suggestions how to do this the smart way? Am I missing something completely obvious?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >