Search Results

Search found 17538 results on 702 pages for 'request headers'.

Page 11/702 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • Anti-Forgery Request Recipes For ASP.NET MVC And AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, the work would be a little crazy. Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Specify Non-constant salt in runtime By default, the salt should be a compile time constant, so it can be used for the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] or [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute. Problem One Web product might be sold to many clients. If a constant salt is evaluated in compile time, after the product is built and deployed to many clients, they all have the same salt. Of course, clients do not like this. Even some clients might want to specify a custom salt in configuration. In these scenarios, salt is required to be a runtime value. Solution In the above [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] and [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute, the salt is passed through constructor. So one solution is to remove this parameter:public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = AntiForgeryToken.Value }; } // Other members. } But here the injected dependency becomes a hard dependency. So the other solution is moving validation code into controller to work around the limitation of attributes:public abstract class AntiForgeryControllerBase : Controller { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; protected AntiForgeryControllerBase(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } protected override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { base.OnAuthorization(filterContext); string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } Then make controller classes inheriting from this AntiForgeryControllerBase class. Now the salt is no long required to be a compile time constant. Submit token via AJAX For browser side, once server side turns on anti-forgery validation for HTTP POST, all AJAX POST requests will fail by default. Problem In AJAX scenarios, the HTTP POST request is not sent by form. Take jQuery as an example:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution Basically, the tokens must be printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() need to be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in both HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token, where $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is useful:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by an iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here, token's container window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Temporary website redirect: 3xx or php/meta?

    - by Damien Pirsy
    Hi, I run a (small) news website which has also a forum in a subfolder of the root. I'm planning to give the site a facelift and a code restructuration, so I wanted to put some redirect on the home page that will point directly to forum's index (www.mysite.com -- www.mysite.com/forum) while I tinker with it. And that, given the little free time I have, will take no less than a couple of month. Being a news site I'm pretty sure that would affect it's overall ranking, but I need to do it, so: which is the best way to redirect? I pondered and read here and there about the different means, but I couldn't figure out which is worst for SEO. Do I use a 302 redirect or use "Location:newurl" in page headers using php? Or I just put a meta tag in the html page (or a javascript, what's better). Sorry but I'm not really into these things, I may have said something silly, I know... Thanks

    Read the article

  • Caching preventing users seeing site updates

    - by Timmeh
    I'm experiencing a caching issue I can't explain. This is happening across browsers, IPs and ISPs. If a user force-refreshes, they see the new content. If they then refresh or return to the page, the old one displays. I've tried using headers via PHP such as header( 'Expires: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT' ); header( 'Last-Modified: ' . gmdate( 'D, d M Y H:i:s' ) . ' GMT' ); header( 'Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate' ); header( 'Cache-Control: post-check=0, pre-check=0', false ); header( 'Pragma: no-cache' ); Laid out correctly, at the very beginning of the file. The problem persists. A pan-ISP proxy is unlikely. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • cURL requests changed

    - by Andriy Mytroshyn
    I've start work with cURL library, before work i compile library. i Send request and have some problem. Code in c++ that i used for work with cURL: CURL *curl=NULL; CURLcode res; struct curl_slist *headers=NULL; // init to NULL is important curl_slist_append(headers, "POST /oauth/authorize HTTP/1.1"); curl_slist_append(headers, "Host: sp-money.yandex.ru"); curl_slist_append(headers, "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded"); curl_slist_append(headers, "charset: UTF-8"); curl_slist_append(headers, "Content-Length: 12345"); curl = curl_easy_init(); if(!curl) return 0; curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER, headers); curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_URL, "sp-money.yandex.ru"); curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_PROXY, "127.0.0.1:8888"); if( curl_easy_perform(curl)!=CURLE_OK) return 1; I've used proxy, fiddler2, for check what data sent to server. When i check sent data i get result: POST HTTP://sp-money.yandex.ru/ HTTP/1.1 Host: sp-money.yandex.ru Accept: */* Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Length: 151 Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded also i check this data using Wiresharck, result the same. Do you know why in first line cURL wrote: POST HTTP://sp-money.yandex.ru/ HTTP/1.1 I send POST /oauth/authorize HTTP/1.1 I've used VS 2010 for work, and also i don't used framework

    Read the article

  • iPhone SDK: URL request not timing out.

    - by codemercenary
    I am having a problem with a network request that should timeout, but the method is not called. The request is as follows: #define kCONNECT_TIMEOUT 20.0 request = [NSMutableURLRequest requestWithURL: aUrl]; [request setHTTPMethod: @"POST"]; postData = [jsonData dataUsingEncoding:NSASCIIStringEncoding]; [request setHTTPBody:postData]; [request setValue:@"text/xml" forHTTPHeaderField:@"Accept"]; [request setValue:@"application/json" forHTTPHeaderField:@"Content-Type"]; [request setCachePolicy:NSURLCacheStorageAllowed]; [request setTimeoutInterval:kCONNECT_TIMEOUT]; self.connection = [NSURLConnection connectionWithRequest:request delegate:self]; assert(self.connection != nil); This should get a callback to - (void)connection:(NSURLConnection *)connection didFailWithError:(NSError *)_error But after 4 minutes not error message is displayed. Anyone know why this might be?

    Read the article

  • How do I handle a POST request in Perl and FastCGI?

    - by Peterim
    Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Perl, so asking here. Actually I'm using FCGI with Perl. I need to 1. accept a POST request - 2. send it via POST to another url - 3. get results - 4. return results to the first POST request (4 steps). To accept a POST request (step 1) I use the following code (found it somewhere in the Internet): $ENV{'REQUEST_METHOD'} =~ tr/a-z/A-Z/; if ($ENV{'REQUEST_METHOD'} eq "POST") { read(STDIN, $buffer, $ENV{'CONTENT_LENGTH'}); } else { print ("some error"); } @pairs = split(/&/, $buffer); foreach $pair (@pairs) { ($name, $value) = split(/=/, $pair); $value =~ tr/+/ /; $value =~ s/%(..)/pack("C", hex($1))/eg; $FORM{$name} = $value; } The content of $name (it's a string) is the result of the first step. Now I need to send $name via POST request to some_url (step 2) which returns me another result (step 3), which I have to return as a result to the very first POST request (step 4). Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • What is actually happening to this cancelled HTTP request?

    - by Brian Schroth
    When a user takes a particular action on a page, an AJAX call is made to save their data. Unfortunately, this call is synchronous as they need to wait to see if the data is valid before being allowed to continue. Obviously, this eliminates a lot of the benefit of using Asynchronous Javascript And XML, but that's a subject for another post. That's the design I'm working with. The request is made using the dojo.xhrPost function, with a 60s timeout parameter, and the error handler redirects to an error page. What I am finding in testing is that in Firefox, if I initiate the ajax request and then press ESC, the page hangs waiting for a response, and then eventually after exactly 90s (not 60s, the function's timeout), the error handler will kick in and redirect to the error page. I expected this to happen, but either immediately as soon as the request was cancelled, or after 60s due to the timeout value being 60s. What I don't understand is why is it 90s? What is actually happening under the hood when the user cancels their request in Firefox, and how does it differ from IE, where everything works fine exactly the same as if the request had not been cancelled? Is the 90s related to any user-configurable browser settings?

    Read the article

  • Rails: how can I access the request object outside a helper or controller?

    - by rlandster
    In my application_helper.rb file I have a function like this: def internal_request? server_name = request.env['SERVER_NAME'] [plus more code...] end This function is needed in controllers, model, and views. So, I put this code in a utility function file in the lib/ directory. However, this did not work: I got complaints about request not being defined. How can I access the request object in a file in the lib/ directory?

    Read the article

  • What HTTP headers do I need to stream an ASF file?

    - by SoaperGEM
    I have a simple PHP script that will either serve up a streaming ASF file or not, depending on whether you're logged in and have access to the file. It basically does this: <?php header('Content-Type: video/x-ms-asf'); header('Content-Disposition: inline; filename="file.asf"'); readfile('file.asf'); ?> This already works fine in Firefox; when you navigate to this file it starts the video streaming right away. But Internet Explorer is a different story. When I go to this link in IE, it consistently tries to download the file as if it were an attachment rather than streaming it in the browser. What I am missing that IE's getting hung up on?

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Helpers for ASP.NET MVC and jQuery AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, this is a little crazy Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Submit token via AJAX The browser side problem is, if server side turns on anti-forgery validation for POST, then AJAX POST requests will fail be default. Problem For AJAX scenarios, when request is sent by jQuery instead of form:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution The tokens are printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token. Here $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is provided:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request in ASP.NET MVC and AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent by the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> which writes to token to the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__=J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, I encountered 2 problems: It is expected to add [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] to each controller, but actually I have to add it for each POST actions, which is a little crazy; After anti-forgery validation is turned on for server side, AJAX POST requests will consistently fail. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) Problem For the first problem, usually a controller contains actions for both HTTP GET and HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become always invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index page cannot work at all. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If user sends a HTTP GET request from a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each HTTP POST action in the application:public class SomeController : Controller { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one attribute for one HTTP POST action), I created a wrapper class of ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // Actions for HTTP GET requests are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all HTTP POST actions. Submit token via AJAX Problem For AJAX scenarios, when request is sent by JavaScript instead of form:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution The token must be printed to browser then submitted back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be called in the page where the AJAX POST will be sent. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the page, and post it:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated in a tiny jQuery plugin:(function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function () { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. return $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken']").val(); }; var addToken = function (data) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } data = data ? data + "&" : ""; return data + "__RequestVerificationToken=" + encodeURIComponent($.getAntiForgeryToken()); }; $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, addToken(data), callback, type); }; $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = addToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); Then in the application just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() instead of $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. This solution looks hard coded and stupid. If you have more elegant solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Browser privacy improvement implications for websites

    - by phq
    On https://panopticlick.eff.org/ EFF let you test the number of uniquely identifying bits that the browser gives a website. Among these are HTTP header fields such as User-Agent, Accept, Accept-Language and later perhaps ETAG and If-Modified-Since. Also there is a lot of Information that javascript can get from the browser such as time-zone, screen resolution, complete list of fonts and plugins available. My first impression is, is all this information really usable/used on a majority of all websites? For example, how many sites does really send different content-types depending on the http accept header, or what fonts are available(I thought css had taken care of this)? Let's say of these headers/js functionality on day would be gone. Which ones would; never be noticed they were gone? impact user experience? impact server performance? immediately reimplemented because the Internet cannot work without it? Extra credit for differentiating between what can be done, what should be done and what is done in most situations.

    Read the article

  • How do I parse a header with two different version [ID3] avoiding code duplication?

    - by user66141
    I really hope you can give me some interesting viewpoints for my situation, because I am not satisfied with my current approach. I am writing an MP3 parser, starting with an ID3v2 parser. Right now I`m working on the extended header parsing, my issue is that the optional header is defined differently in version 2.3 and 2.4 of the tag. The 2.3 version optional header is defined as follows: struct ID3_3_EXTENDED_HEADER{ DWORD dwExtHeaderSize; //Extended header size (either 6 or 8 bytes , excluded) WORD wExtFlags; //Extended header flags DWORD dwSizeOfPadding; //Size of padding (size of the tag excluding the frames and headers) }; While the 2.4 version is defined : struct ID3_4_EXTENDED_HEADER{ DWORD dwExtHeaderSize; //Extended header size (synchsafe int) BYTE bNumberOfFlagBytes; //Number of flag bytes BYTE bFlags; //Flags }; How could I parse the header while minimizing code duplication? Using two different functions to parse each version sounds less great, using a single function with a different flow for each occasion is similar, any good practices for this kind of issues ? Any tips for avoiding code duplication? Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Parsing an header with two different version [ID3] avoiding code duplication?

    - by user66141
    I really hope you could give me some interesting viewpoints for my situation, my ways to approach my issue are not to my liking . I am writing an mp3 parser , starting with an ID3v2 parser . Right now I`m working on the extended header parsing , my issue is that the optional header is defined differently in version 2.3 and 2.4 of the tag . The 2.3 version optional header is defined as follows : struct ID3_3_EXTENDED_HEADER{ DWORD dwExtHeaderSize; //Extended header size (either 6 or 8 bytes , excluded) WORD wExtFlags; //Extended header flags DWORD dwSizeOfPadding; //Size of padding (size of the tag excluding the frames and headers) }; While the 2.4 version is defined : struct ID3_4_EXTENDED_HEADER{ DWORD dwExtHeaderSize; //Extended header size (synchsafe int) BYTE bNumberOfFlagBytes; //Number of flag bytes BYTE bFlags; //Flags }; How could I parse the header while minimizing code duplication ? Using two different functions to parse each version sounds less great , using a single function with a different flow for each occasion is similar , any good practices for this kind of issues ? any tips for avoiding code duplication ? anything would be great .

    Read the article

  • Pylons error "No object (name: request) has been registered for this thread" with debug = false

    - by Evgeny
    I'm unable to access the request object in my Pylons 0.9.7 controller when I set debug = false in the .ini file. I have the following code: def run_something(self): print('!!! request = %r' % request) print('!!! request.params = %r' % request.params) yield 'Stuff' With debugging enabled this works fine and prints out: !!! request = <Request at 0x9571190 POST http://my_url> !!! request.params = UnicodeMultiDict([... lots of stuff ...]) If I set debug = false I get the following: !!! request = <paste.registry.StackedObjectProxy object at 0x4093790> Error - <type 'exceptions.TypeError'>: No object (name: request) has been registered for this thread The stack trace confirms that the error is on the print('!!! request.params = %r' % request.params) line. I'm running it using the Paste server and these two lines are the very first lines in my controller method. This only occurs if I have yield statements in the method (even though the statements aren't reached). I'm guessing Pylons sees that it's a generator method and runs it on some other thread. My questions are: How do I make it work with debug = false ? Why does it work with debug = true ? Obviously this is quite a dangerous bug, since I normally develop with debug = true, so it can go unnoticed during development.

    Read the article

  • [LaTeX] How to remove \hyphenpenalty & \pretolerance influence on section/subsection headers

    - by oleg-strikov
    Hi there, In my latex document i've set \hyphenpenalty=15000 and \pretolerance=10000 to remove word hyphenation and make text bounds even. But I can't disable this effect for section/subsection headers. All headers looks badly due to big spaces between words (image). Are there any solution to disable \hyphenpenalty=15000 and \pretolerance=10000 effect for headers? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Autodetect Presence of CSV Headers in a File

    - by banzaimonkey
    Short question: How do I automatically detect whether a CSV file has headers in the first row? Details: I've written a small CSV parsing engine that places the data into an object that I can access as (approximately) an in-memory database. The original code was written to parse third-party CSV with a predictable format, but I'd like to be able to use this code more generally. I'm trying to figure out a reliable way to automatically detect the presence of CSV headers, so the script can decide whether to use the first row of the CSV file as keys / column names or start parsing data immediately. Since all I need is a boolean test, I could easily specify an argument after inspecting the CSV file myself, but I'd rather not have to (go go automation). I imagine I'd have to parse the first 3 to ? rows of the CSV file and look for a pattern of some sort to compare against the headers. I'm having nightmares of three particularly bad cases in which: The headers include numeric data for some reason The first few rows (or large portions of the CSV) are null There headers and data look too similar to tell them apart If I can get a "best guess" and have the parser fail with an error or spit out a warning if it can't decide, that's OK. If this is something that's going to be tremendously expensive in terms of time or computation (and take more time than it's supposed to save me) I'll happily scrap the idea and go back to working on "important things". I'm working with PHP, but this strikes me as more of an algorithmic / computational question than something that's implementation-specific. If there's a simple algorithm I can use, great. If you can point me to some relevant theory / discussion, that'd be great, too. If there's a giant library that does natural language processing or 300 different kinds of parsing, I'm not interested.

    Read the article

  • UITableView Section Headers Drawing Above Front Subview

    - by hadronzoo
    I have a UITableView whose data have sections. I display an overlay view on top of tableView that dims it when searching: - (UIView *)blackOverlay { if (!blackOverlay) { blackOverlay = [[UIView alloc] initWithFrame:[self overlayFrame]]; blackOverlay.alpha = 0.75; blackOverlay.backgroundColor = UIColor.blackColor; [tableView insertSubview:blackOverlay aboveSubview:self.parentViewController.view]; } return blackOverlay; } This works perfectly as long as tableView does not contain sections. When tableView does contain sections and the tableView updates (such as when the view reappears after popping a view off of the navigation controller stack), the section headers are rendered above blackOverlay. This leaves tableView dimmed except for the section headers. I've tried calling [tableView bringSubviewToFront:self.blackOverlay] from within viewWillAppear:, but I get the same behavior. My current work-around is returning nil for tableView section headers while the overlay is present, but this leaves whitespace gaps in the overlaid tableView where the section headers were previously. How can I insure that tableView section headers are never drawn above blackOverlay? Or, is it possible to create a view in front of tableView from within a UITableViewController subclass that is not a subview of tableView?

    Read the article

  • Splitting big request in multiple small ajax requests

    - by Ionut
    I am unsure regarding the scalability of the following model. I have no experience at all with large systems, big number of requests and so on but I'm trying to build some features considering scalability first. In my scenario there is a user page which contains data for: User's details (name, location, workplace ...) User's activity (blog posts, comments...) User statistics (rating, number of friends...) In order to show all this on the same page, for a request there will be at least 3 different database queries on the back-end. In some cases, I imagine that those queries will be running quite a wile, therefore the user experience may suffer while waiting between requests. This is why I decided to run only step 1 (User's details) as a normal request. After the response is received, two ajax requests are sent for steps 2 and 3. When those responses are received, I only place the data in the destined wrappers. For me at least this makes more sense. However there are 3 requests instead of one for every user page view. Will this affect the system on the long term? I'm assuming that this kind of approach requires more resources but is this trade of UX for resources a good dial or should I stick to one plain big request?

    Read the article

  • Encoding MP3 and adding VBR or Xing headers (with lame or another method)

    - by J. Pablo Fernández
    I'm writing a program that converts wavs to mp3s, so far, by using lame. It's generating a command line more or less like this: "c:\Program Files (x86)\Lame for Audacity\lame.exe" --preset fast medium in.wav out.mp3 The problem I'm having is that no VBR or Xing headers are written to the MP3. How can I make lame.exe write those headers? Should I use another program to write those headers (platform is Windows, .Net 3.5)? Should I use another program for MP3 encoding?

    Read the article

  • 401 Unauthorized returned on GET request (https) with correct credentials

    - by Johnny Grass
    I am trying to login to my web app using HttpWebRequest but I keep getting the following error: System.Net.WebException: The remote server returned an error: (401) Unauthorized. Fiddler has the following output: Result Protocol Host URL 200 HTTP CONNECT mysite.com:443 302 HTTPS mysite.com /auth 401 HTTP mysite.com /auth This is what I'm doing: // to ignore SSL certificate errors public bool AcceptAllCertifications(object sender, System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates.X509Certificate certification, System.Security.Cryptography.X509Certificates.X509Chain chain, System.Net.Security.SslPolicyErrors sslPolicyErrors) { return true; } try { // request Uri uri = new Uri("https://mysite.com/auth"); HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(uri) as HttpWebRequest; request.Accept = "application/xml"; // authentication string user = "user"; string pwd = "secret"; string auth = "Basic " + Convert.ToBase64String(System.Text.Encoding.Default.GetBytes(user + ":" + pwd)); request.Headers.Add("Authorization", auth); ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback = new System.Net.Security.RemoteCertificateValidationCallback(AcceptAllCertifications); // response. HttpWebResponse response = (HttpWebResponse)request.GetResponse(); // Display Stream dataStream = response.GetResponseStream(); StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(dataStream); string responseFromServer = reader.ReadToEnd(); Console.WriteLine(responseFromServer); // Cleanup reader.Close(); dataStream.Close(); response.Close(); } catch (WebException webEx) { Console.Write(webEx.ToString()); } I am able to log in to the same site with no problem using ASIHTTPRequest in a Mac app like this: NSURL *login_url = [NSURL URLWithString:@"https://mysite.com/auth"]; ASIHTTPRequest *request = [ASIHTTPRequest requestWithURL:login_url]; [request setDelegate:self]; [request setUsername:name]; [request setPassword:pwd]; [request setRequestMethod:@"GET"]; [request addRequestHeader:@"Accept" value:@"application/xml"]; [request startAsynchronous];

    Read the article

  • jQuery Tablesorter - disabled headers show progress bar, sortEnd never triggered

    - by McGirl
    I'm combining Tablesorter's 'disable headers using options' function and the 'trigger sortStart / sortEnd' function and have run into an issue. The following code works fine for the most part, BUT: when you click on a disabled header, the progress-indicating #overlay div appears and never goes away. <script type="text/javascript" id="js"> $(document).ready(function() { // call the tablesorter plugin, the magic happens in the markup $("#projectTable").tablesorter({ // pass the headers argument and assing a object headers: { // assign the secound column (we start counting zero) 1: { // disable it by setting the property sorter to false sorter: false }, // assign the third column (we start counting zero) 2: { // disable it by setting the property sorter to false sorter: false } } }); //assign the sortStart event $("#projectTable").bind("sortStart",function() { $("#overlay").show(); }).bind("sortEnd",function() { $("#overlay").hide(); }); }); </script> Any ideas on how I could fix this so that nothing at all happens when the disabled headers are clicked? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to get headers into framework in Xcode?

    - by john146
    I'm trying to build a framework for MacOS in Xcode 3. It looks like it's building everything except the Headers directory according to the layout listed in the Apple documentation. I can't find anything that tells me what settings to use to get the build process to copy the headers into Headers directory in the framework, or alternately where I have to put those files. Any help? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Request Removal of naked domain from Google Index

    - by Pedr
    I have a site which was temporarily available at both example.com and www.example.com. All traffic to example.com is now redirected to www.example.com, however during the brief period that the site was available at the naked domain, Google indexed it. So Google now has two versions of every page indexed: www.example.com www.example.com/about_us www.example.com/products/something ... and example.com example.com/about_us example.com/products/something ... For obvious reasons, this is a bad situation, so how can I best resolve it? Should I request removal of these pages from the index? There is still content at these URLs, but they now redirect to the www subdomain equivalent. The site has many hundreds of pages, but the only way I can see to request removal is via the Remove outdated content screen in Webmaster Tools, one URL at a time. How can I request removal of an entire domain (ie. the naked domain) without it effecting the true site located at the www subdomain? Is this the correct strategy given that all the naked domains now redirect to their www equivalent?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >