Search Results

Search found 43820 results on 1753 pages for 'web browsing'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 120/1753 | < Previous Page | 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127  | Next Page >

  • Setup Web Authentication on Your Website

    There have been many occasions in which I have had to setup Web Authentication for websites or particular web pages. In this article, I will tell you how I set up web authentication using PHP and MySQL and where the real power lies in this technology.

    Read the article

  • Deploy to web container, bundle web container or embed web container...

    - by Jason
    I am developing an application that needs to be as simple as possible to install for the end user. While the end users will likely be experience Linux users (or sales engineers), they don't really know anything about Tomcat, Jetty, etc, nor do I think they should. So I see 3 ways to deploy our applications. I should also state that this is the first app that I have had to deploy that had a web interface, so I haven't really faced this question before. First is to deploy the application into an existing web container. Since we only deploy to Suse or RedHat this seems easy enough to do. However, we're not big on the idea of multiple apps running in one web container. It makes it harder to take down just one app. The next option is to just bundle Tomcat or Jetty and have the startup/shutdown scripts launch our bundled web container. Or 3rd, embed.. This will probably provide the same user experience as the second option. I'm curious what others do when faced with this problem to make it as fool proof as possible on the end user. I've almost ruled out deploying into an existing web container as we often like to set per application resource limits and CPU affinity, which I believe would affect all apps deployed into a web container/app server and not just a specific application. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Weird exception in linkbutton in a datalist

    - by user308806
    Dear all, I have written this datalist : <div class="story" runat="server"> <asp:DataList ID="DataList2" runat="server" Height="16px" Width="412px"> <SeparatorTemplate> <hr /> </SeparatorTemplate> <ItemTemplate> <asp:LinkButton ID="LinkButton1" runat ="server" Text='<%# Eval("Name") %>' PostBackUrl='<%#Eval("Url")%>' /> <br /> Description: <asp:Label ID="new" Text='<%#Eval("Description") %>' runat="server" /> </ItemTemplate> </asp:DataList> </div> It raises an exception saying that the linkbutton has to be placed in a tag that contains runat="server" although it exists. Here is the trace [HttpException (0x80004005): Le contrôle 'DataList2_ctl00_LinkButton1' de type 'LinkButton' doit être placé dans une balise form avec runat=server.] System.Web.UI.Page.VerifyRenderingInServerForm(Control control) +8689747 System.Web.UI.WebControls.LinkButton.AddAttributesToRender(HtmlTextWriter writer) +39 System.Web.UI.WebControls.WebControl.RenderBeginTag(HtmlTextWriter writer) +20 System.Web.UI.WebControls.WebControl.Render(HtmlTextWriter writer) +20 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControlInternal(HtmlTextWriter writer, ControlAdapter adapter) +27 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControl(HtmlTextWriter writer, ControlAdapter adapter) +99 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControl(HtmlTextWriter writer) +25 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderChildrenInternal(HtmlTextWriter writer, ICollection children) +134 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderChildren(HtmlTextWriter writer) +19 System.Web.UI.WebControls.WebControl.RenderContents(HtmlTextWriter writer) +10 System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataListItem.RenderItemInternal(HtmlTextWriter writer, Boolean extractRows, Boolean tableLayout) +51 System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataListItem.RenderItem(HtmlTextWriter writer, Boolean extractRows, Boolean tableLayout) +57 System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataList.System.Web.UI.WebControls.IRepeatInfoUser.RenderItem(ListItemType itemType, Int32 repeatIndex, RepeatInfo repeatInfo, HtmlTextWriter writer) +64 System.Web.UI.WebControls.RepeatInfo.RenderVerticalRepeater(HtmlTextWriter writer, IRepeatInfoUser user, Style controlStyle, WebControl baseControl) +262 System.Web.UI.WebControls.RepeatInfo.RenderRepeater(HtmlTextWriter writer, IRepeatInfoUser user, Style controlStyle, WebControl baseControl) +27 System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataList.RenderContents(HtmlTextWriter writer) +208 System.Web.UI.WebControls.BaseDataList.Render(HtmlTextWriter writer) +30 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControlInternal(HtmlTextWriter writer, ControlAdapter adapter) +27 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControl(HtmlTextWriter writer, ControlAdapter adapter) +99 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControl(HtmlTextWriter writer) +25 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderChildrenInternal(HtmlTextWriter writer, ICollection children) +134 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderChildren(HtmlTextWriter writer) +19 System.Web.UI.HtmlControls.HtmlContainerControl.Render(HtmlTextWriter writer) +32 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControlInternal(HtmlTextWriter writer, ControlAdapter adapter) +27 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControl(HtmlTextWriter writer, ControlAdapter adapter) +99 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControl(HtmlTextWriter writer) +25 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderChildrenInternal(HtmlTextWriter writer, ICollection children) +134 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderChildren(HtmlTextWriter writer) +19 System.Web.UI.Page.Render(HtmlTextWriter writer) +29 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControlInternal(HtmlTextWriter writer, ControlAdapter adapter) +27 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControl(HtmlTextWriter writer, ControlAdapter adapter) +99 System.Web.UI.Control.RenderControl(HtmlTextWriter writer) +25 System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +1266

    Read the article

  • Delphi native Web Service applications not working. IIS 7 seems to be stripping the pathinfo

    - by Cary Jensen
    I've run into an interesting problem that I never encountered with XP or IIS 6. Basically, I can't get a native Delphi (WebBroker) Web service server to work with a native Web service client in Windows 7 64-bit. Here's the most basic breakdown. If I create a new Web service application in Delphi 2010 (or any version, back to Delphi 7), and access it using IE 8, I can see the HTML that the WSDLHTMLPublish component creates, but I can never get to the SOAP. In the same way, the WSDL Importer cannot get to the SOAP either. (I have IIS 7 configured to use a 32-bit application pool, and I have created a working Script Map to the Handler Mappings. In short, the 32-bit ISAPI Web service is running). For example, I have a simple Web service server named TestService (created using the default sample interface generated when you create a new Web service server). I installed it in a virtual directory named scripts. If I enter http://localhost/scripts/TestService.dll/wsdl, IIS 7 displays the page http://localhost/scripts/TestService.dll. If I put my mouse over the WSDL link for the ITestService, I see http://localhost/scripts/TestService.dll/wsdl/ITestService in the status bar. However, when I click this link, the address bar shows http://localhost/scripts/TestService.dll/wsdl/ITestService, but I see only the HTML from http://localhost/scripts/TestService.dll. There seems no way to get to the SOAP definition. IIS 7 seems to be ignoring everything after the script name (it is ignoring the pathinfo). Additional evidence that IIS7 is stripping off the pathinfo is that if I pause my mouse over the ITestService link, the statusbar shows http://localhost/scripts/TestService.dll?intf=ITestService. Clicking that link takes me to another HTML page, the one associated with http://localhost/scripts/TestService.dll?intf=ITestService. However, any link that includes a pathinfo following the script name, takes me simply to http://localhost/scripts/TestService.dll. I have tested this in Delphi 7, Delphi 2010, and Delphi XE, with the same results. I am guessing that IIS7 is stripping off the pathinfo, since even the WSDL Importer cannot get to the SOAP definition. Tried creating a new Web service using the CGI option, and got the same result. Have any idea what is going on? Added: Bob Swart reports he has had no problems under Windows 7 32-bit. Downloading the 32-bit OS and will try that (in a new VM).

    Read the article

  • Consuming Web Services requiring Authentication from behind Proxy server

    - by Jan Petersen
    Hi All, I've seen a number of post about Proxy Authentication, but none that seams to address this problem. I'm building a SharePoint Web Service consuming desktop application, using Java, JAX-WS in NetBeans. I have a working prototype, that can query the server for authentication mode, successfully authenticate and retrieve a list of web site. However, if I run the same app from a network that is behind a proxy server (the proxy does not require authentication), then I'm running into trouble. The normal -dhttp.proxyHost ... settings does not seam to help any. But I have found that by creating a ProxySelector class and setting it as default, I can regain access to the authentication web service, but I still can't retrieve the list of web sites from the SharePoint server. It's almost as if the authentication I provide is going to the proxy rather than the SharePoint server. Anyone have any experience on how to make this work? I have put the source text java class files of a demo app up, showing the issue at the following urls (it's a bit to long even in the short demo form to post here). link text When running the code from a network behind a proxy server, I successfully retrieve the Authentication mode from the server, but the request for the Web Site list generates an exception originating at: com.sun.xml.internal.ws.transport.http.client .HttpClientTransport.readResponseCodeAndMessage(HttpClientTransport.java:201) The output from the source when no proxy is on the network is listed below: Successfully retrieved the SharePoint WebService response for Authentication SharePoint authentication method is: WINDOWS Calling Web Service to retrieve list of web site. Web Service call response: -------------- XML START -------------- <Webs xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/"> <Web Title="Collaboration Lab" Url="http://host.domain.com/collaboration"/> <Web Title="Global Data Lists" Url="http://host.domain.com/global_data_lists"/> <Web Title="Landing" Url="http://host.domain.com/Landing"/> <Web Title="SharePoint HelpDesk" Url="http://host.domain.com/helpdesk"/> <Web Title="Program Management" Url="http://host.domain.com/programmanagement"/> <Web Title="Project Site" Url="http://host.domain.com/Project Site"/> <Web Title="SharePoint Administration Tools" Url="http://host.domain.com/admin"/> <Web Title="Space Management Project" Url="http://host.domain.com/spacemgmt"/> </Webs> -------------- XML END -------------- Br Jan

    Read the article

  • Consuming SharePoint Web Services fails when behind Proxy server

    - by Jan Petersen
    Hi All, I've seen a number of post about consuming Web Services from behind a proxy server, but none that seams to address this problem. I'm building a desktop application, using Java, JAX-WS in NetBeans. I have a working prototype, that can query the server for authentication mode, successfully authenticate and retrieve a list of web site. However, if I run the same app from a network that is behind a proxy server (the proxy does not require authentication), then I'm running into trouble. The normal -dhttp.proxyHost ... settings does not seam to help any. But I have found that by creating a ProxySelector class and setting it as default, I can regain access to the authentication web service, but I still can't retrieve the list of web sites from the SharePoint server. Anyone have any experience on how to make this work? I have put the source text java class files of a demo app up, showing the issue at the following urls (it's a bit to long even in the short demo form to post here). link text When running the code from a network behind a proxy server, I successfully retrieve the Authentication mode from the server, but the request for the Web Site list generates an exception originating at: com.sun.xml.internal.ws.transport.http.client .HttpClientTransport.readResponseCodeAndMessage(HttpClientTransport.java:201) The output from the source when no proxy is on the network is listed below: Successfully retrieved the SharePoint WebService response for Authentication SharePoint authentication method is: WINDOWS Calling Web Service to retrieve list of web site. Web Service call response: -------------- XML START -------------- <Webs xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/"> <Web Title="Collaboration Lab" Url="http://host.domain.com/collaboration"/> <Web Title="Global Data Lists" Url="http://host.domain.com/global_data_lists"/> <Web Title="Landing" Url="http://host.domain.com/Landing"/> <Web Title="SharePoint HelpDesk" Url="http://host.domain.com/helpdesk"/> <Web Title="Program Management" Url="http://host.domain.com/programmanagement"/> <Web Title="Project Site" Url="http://host.domain.com/Project Site"/> <Web Title="SharePoint Administration Tools" Url="http://host.domain.com/admin"/> <Web Title="Space Management Project" Url="http://host.domain.com/spacemgmt"/> </Webs> -------------- XML END -------------- Br Jan

    Read the article

  • IIS Directory Browing

    - by Zinx
    Hi All, If I enable directory browsing in IIS it displays folder contents to user. Is there any way of controlling the way it shows the list. For example, I dont want to show full physical path of the folder. Is it possible to achieve? If yes, how? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Are the old httpHandlers and httpModules elements needed in IIS7?

    - by James Newton-King
    I'd like to clean up the web.config and remove unneeded XML. A default ASP.NET 3.5 web application has the follow elements in the web.config: <httpHandlers> <remove verb="*" path="*.asmx"/> <add verb="*" path="*.asmx" validate="false" type="System.Web.Script.Services.ScriptHandlerFactory, System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add verb="*" path="*_AppService.axd" validate="false" type="System.Web.Script.Services.ScriptHandlerFactory, System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add verb="GET,HEAD" path="ScriptResource.axd" type="System.Web.Handlers.ScriptResourceHandler, System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35" validate="false"/> </httpHandlers> <httpModules> <add name="ScriptModule" type="System.Web.Handlers.ScriptModule, System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add name="UrlRoutingModule" type="System.Web.Routing.UrlRoutingModule, System.Web.Routing, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35" /> </httpModules> When running under IIS7, which has modules and handlers being registered under the system.webServer element, is the configuration above still needed?

    Read the article

  • OutOfMemory during paging

    - by Tony
    Hi I am using ObjectDataSource, ListView, CustomPaging If the total number of rows is too big, I got OutOfMemory exception, it seems that it caused by some array, I don't get it, because total number of rows should never make any array to be filled with elements, the page size do!! This is the logger. ****EXCEPTION # 3 : 4/30/2010 9:43:07 PM System.Web.HttpUnhandledException: Exception of type 'System.Web.HttpUnhandledException' was thrown. --- System.OutOfMemoryException: Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown. at System.Web.UI.WebControls.ListView.CreateChildControls() at System.Web.UI.Control.EnsureChildControls() at System.Web.UI.WebControls.ListView.get_Controls() at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadChildViewStateByIndex(ArrayList childState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadViewStateRecursive(Object savedState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadChildViewStateByIndex(ArrayList childState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadViewStateRecursive(Object savedState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadChildViewStateByIndex(ArrayList childState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadViewStateRecursive(Object savedState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadChildViewStateByIndex(ArrayList childState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadViewStateRecursive(Object savedState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadChildViewStateByIndex(ArrayList childState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadViewStateRecursive(Object savedState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadChildViewStateByIndex(ArrayList childState) at System.Web.UI.Control.LoadViewStateRecursive(Object savedState) at System.Web.UI.Page.LoadAllState() at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at System.Web.UI.Page.HandleError(Exception e) at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequest(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequest() at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestWithNoAssert(HttpContext context) at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) at ASP.default_aspx.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) in c:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\Temporary ASP.NET Files\flickrdemo\15752207\c63ea96c\App_Web__8yxn9sb.0.cs:line 0 at System.Web.HttpApplication.CallHandlerExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute() at System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean& completedSynchronously)

    Read the article

  • Setup of high-end web server and DB server cluster on Amazon EC2: Is this how it's done?

    - by user1086584
    Amazon is so technical, I want to confirm that my understanding is correct. We have a large 500 GB database. (OrientDB.) We will have it mirrored to one another in the same Availability Zone. We believe the database size will grow rapidly. The plan is: Get 4 large instances that are compatible types with Placement Groups (as well as ideally, Enhanced Networking) (2 for web, 2 for DB.) We use an EBS-backed instances to store our operating system. Discussion here: http://alestic.com/2012/01/ec2-ebs-boot-recommended We can set up ephemeral SSD instance storage as swap space. (But it is lost after even a reboot. I hear its hard to add ephemeral storage if booting from EBS, but possible.) For offsite backup, we will take periodic snapshots and store them on S3. Obviously we need to ensure the database is in a safe state when that snapshot happens to avoid corruption. (Any hints here, aside from shutting down the DB?) If the database gets too big, we need to create a EBS volume that's larger. We can use RAID to break the 1 TB limit: http://alestic.com/2009/06/ec2-ebs-raid Static assets on web servers will be stored on S3. Is that correct? Or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • How to hide subfolder when using Web.config for subdomains?

    - by mc-kay
    I have FTP access to my ASP.NET Websapce (IIS 7) and I route subdomains with a Web.config in the web root folder. She looks like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <configuration> <system.webServer> <rewrite> <rules> <rule name="route www and emtpy requests" stopProcessing="true"> <match url=".*" /> <conditions logicalGrouping="MatchAll" trackAllCaptures="false"> <add input="{HTTP_HOST}" pattern="^(www.)?example.com" /> <add input="{PATH_INFO}" pattern="^/www/" negate="true" /> </conditions> <action type="Rewrite" url="\www\{R:0}" /> </rule> <rule name="route to blog" stopProcessing="true"> <match url=".*" /> <conditions logicalGrouping="MatchAll" trackAllCaptures="false"> <add input="{HTTP_HOST}" pattern="^blog.example.com$" /> <add input="{PATH_INFO}" pattern="^/blog/" negate="true" /> </conditions> <action type="Rewrite" url="\blog\{R:0}" /> </rule> </rules> </rewrite> </system.webServer> </configuration> As you can see i have two folders in my root directory: "www" and "blog". When i now enter "blog.example.com" everythink is working fine, but when i click a link i will go to "blog.example.com/blog" What can I do to prevent this behavior ?

    Read the article

  • How to Log Into a Web App Simultaneously with Different Account?

    - by Ngu Soon Hui
    I want to log into a web application, using at least ten account names at one single point of time ( I am not trying to do anything illegal, so don't worry). AFAIK, each tab in Chrome will share the same session, therefore, for one machine, one can use Google Chrome to log in at most 2 accounts, one in normal mode, another in Incognito mode. Is there anyway I can log into multiple accounts? I know I can open up IE and Firefox ( probably Safari etc) and login, but this is not really scalable as the number of web browsers is finite. Edit: My application is a localhost application; it resides on my computer. So proxy may not be that useful, and you now probably understand why it's nothing illegal. Edit2: CookieSwap seems like a good idea, but the problem is that once I swap the cookie, all the tabs and the FF apps' cookie are swap as well. Can the swapping be done on a tab basis or on application basis, so that on a dual-monitor, I can see the different login side-by-side?

    Read the article

  • How should I deploy my JVM-based web application on ubuntu?

    - by Pieter Breed
    I've developed a web application using clojure/compojure (JVM based) and while developing I tested it using embedded jetty that runs on 0.0.0.0:8080. I would now like to deploy it to run on port 80 on ubuntu. I do dynamic virtual hosting, so any request for any host that arrives on port 80 should be handled by my application. The issues that worries me are: I can still run it embedded but I'm worried about running my app as root (needed for binding to port 80). I'm not sure if I can 'give up root' when in the JVM. Do I need to be concerned by this? besides, serving web applications is a known problem and I should be using known solutions for this (jetty or tomcat) but especially tomcat seems very heavy weight. Besides, I only have one application that listens to /* and does routing internally. (with compojure/ring). What I'm trying to say with this is that tomcat by default assigns WARs to subfolders which I don't want. So basically what I need is some very safe way of binding to port 80 on ubuntu that can with minimal interference send all requests to my app. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • .NET WebRequest.PreAuthenticate not quite what it sounds like

    - by Rick Strahl
    I’ve run into the  problem a few times now: How to pre-authenticate .NET WebRequest calls doing an HTTP call to the server – essentially send authentication credentials on the very first request instead of waiting for a server challenge first? At first glance this sound like it should be easy: The .NET WebRequest object has a PreAuthenticate property which sounds like it should force authentication credentials to be sent on the first request. Looking at the MSDN example certainly looks like it does: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.webrequest.preauthenticate.aspx Unfortunately the MSDN sample is wrong. As is the text of the Help topic which incorrectly leads you to believe that PreAuthenticate… wait for it - pre-authenticates. But it doesn’t allow you to set credentials that are sent on the first request. What this property actually does is quite different. It doesn’t send credentials on the first request but rather caches the credentials ONCE you have already authenticated once. Http Authentication is based on a challenge response mechanism typically where the client sends a request and the server responds with a 401 header requesting authentication. So the client sends a request like this: GET /wconnect/admin/wc.wc?_maintain~ShowStatus HTTP/1.1 Host: rasnote User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 4.0.20506) Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: en,de;q=0.7,en-us;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 300 Connection: keep-alive and the server responds with: HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized Cache-Control: private Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5 WWW-Authenticate: basic realm=rasnote" X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727 WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate WWW-Authenticate: NTLM WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="rasnote" X-Powered-By: ASP.NET Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:58:20 GMT Content-Length: 5163 plus the actual error message body. The client then is responsible for re-sending the current request with the authentication token information provided (in this case Basic Auth): GET /wconnect/admin/wc.wc?_maintain~ShowStatus HTTP/1.1 Host: rasnote User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 4.0.20506) Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: en,de;q=0.7,en-us;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 300 Connection: keep-alive Cookie: TimeTrakker=2HJ1998WH06696; WebLogCommentUser=Rick Strahl|http://www.west-wind.com/|[email protected]; WebStoreUser=b8bd0ed9 Authorization: Basic cgsf12aDpkc2ZhZG1zMA== Once the authorization info is sent the server responds with the actual page result. Now if you use WebRequest (or WebClient) the default behavior is to re-authenticate on every request that requires authorization. This means if you look in  Fiddler or some other HTTP client Proxy that captures requests you’ll see that each request re-authenticates: Here are two requests fired back to back: and you can see the 401 challenge, the 200 response for both requests. If you watch this same conversation between a browser and a server you’ll notice that the first 401 is also there but the subsequent 401 requests are not present. WebRequest.PreAuthenticate And this is precisely what the WebRequest.PreAuthenticate property does: It’s a caching mechanism that caches the connection credentials for a given domain in the active process and resends it on subsequent requests. It does not send credentials on the first request but it will cache credentials on subsequent requests after authentication has succeeded: string url = "http://rasnote/wconnect/admin/wc.wc?_maintain~ShowStatus"; HttpWebRequest req = HttpWebRequest.Create(url) as HttpWebRequest; req.PreAuthenticate = true; req.Credentials = new NetworkCredential("rick", "secret", "rasnote"); req.AuthenticationLevel = System.Net.Security.AuthenticationLevel.MutualAuthRequested; req.UserAgent = ": Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 4.0.20506)"; WebResponse resp = req.GetResponse(); resp.Close(); req = HttpWebRequest.Create(url) as HttpWebRequest; req.PreAuthenticate = true; req.Credentials = new NetworkCredential("rstrahl", "secret", "rasnote"); req.AuthenticationLevel = System.Net.Security.AuthenticationLevel.MutualAuthRequested; req.UserAgent = ": Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 4.0.20506)"; resp = req.GetResponse(); which results in the desired sequence: where only the first request doesn’t send credentials. This is quite useful as it saves quite a few round trips to the server – bascially it saves one auth request request for every authenticated request you make. In most scenarios I think you’d want to send these credentials this way but one downside to this is that there’s no way to log out the client. Since the client always sends the credentials once authenticated only an explicit operation ON THE SERVER can undo the credentials by forcing another login explicitly (ie. re-challenging with a forced 401 request). Forcing Basic Authentication Credentials on the first Request On a few occasions I’ve needed to send credentials on a first request – mainly to some oddball third party Web Services (why you’d want to use Basic Auth on a Web Service is beyond me – don’t ask but it’s not uncommon in my experience). This is true of certain services that are using Basic Authentication (especially some Apache based Web Services) and REQUIRE that the authentication is sent right from the first request. No challenge first. Ugly but there it is. Now the following works only with Basic Authentication because it’s pretty straight forward to create the Basic Authorization ‘token’ in code since it’s just an unencrypted encoding of the user name and password into base64. As you might guess this is totally unsecure and should only be used when using HTTPS/SSL connections (i’m not in this example so I can capture the Fiddler trace and my local machine doesn’t have a cert installed, but for production apps ALWAYS use SSL with basic auth). The idea is that you simply add the required Authorization header to the request on your own along with the authorization string that encodes the username and password: string url = "http://rasnote/wconnect/admin/wc.wc?_maintain~ShowStatus"; HttpWebRequest req = HttpWebRequest.Create(url) as HttpWebRequest; string user = "rick"; string pwd = "secret"; string domain = "www.west-wind.com"; string auth = "Basic " + Convert.ToBase64String(System.Text.Encoding.Default.GetBytes(user + ":" + pwd)); req.PreAuthenticate = true; req.AuthenticationLevel = System.Net.Security.AuthenticationLevel.MutualAuthRequested;req.Headers.Add("Authorization", auth); req.UserAgent = ": Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 4.0.20506)"; WebResponse resp = req.GetResponse(); resp.Close(); This works and causes the request to immediately send auth information to the server. However, this only works with Basic Auth because you can actually create the authentication credentials easily on the client because it’s essentially clear text. The same doesn’t work for Windows or Digest authentication since you can’t easily create the authentication token on the client and send it to the server. Another issue with this approach is that PreAuthenticate has no effect when you manually force the authentication. As far as Web Request is concerned it never sent the authentication information so it’s not actually caching the value any longer. If you run 3 requests in a row like this: string url = "http://rasnote/wconnect/admin/wc.wc?_maintain~ShowStatus"; HttpWebRequest req = HttpWebRequest.Create(url) as HttpWebRequest; string user = "ricks"; string pwd = "secret"; string domain = "www.west-wind.com"; string auth = "Basic " + Convert.ToBase64String(System.Text.Encoding.Default.GetBytes(user + ":" + pwd)); req.PreAuthenticate = true; req.Headers.Add("Authorization", auth); req.UserAgent = ": Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 4.0.20506)"; WebResponse resp = req.GetResponse(); resp.Close(); req = HttpWebRequest.Create(url) as HttpWebRequest; req.PreAuthenticate = true; req.Credentials = new NetworkCredential(user, pwd, domain); req.UserAgent = ": Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 4.0.20506)"; resp = req.GetResponse(); resp.Close(); req = HttpWebRequest.Create(url) as HttpWebRequest; req.PreAuthenticate = true; req.Credentials = new NetworkCredential(user, pwd, domain); req.UserAgent = ": Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090824 Firefox/3.5.3 (.NET CLR 4.0.20506)"; resp = req.GetResponse(); you’ll find the trace looking like this: where the first request (the one we explicitly add the header to) authenticates, the second challenges, and any subsequent ones then use the PreAuthenticate credential caching. In effect you’ll end up with one extra 401 request in this scenario, which is still better than 401 challenges on each request. Getting Access to WebRequest in Classic .NET Web Service Clients If you’re running a classic .NET Web Service client (non-WCF) one issue with the above is how do you get access to the WebRequest to actually add the custom headers to do the custom Authentication described above? One easy way is to implement a partial class that allows you add headers with something like this: public partial class TaxService { protected NameValueCollection Headers = new NameValueCollection(); public void AddHttpHeader(string key, string value) { this.Headers.Add(key,value); } public void ClearHttpHeaders() { this.Headers.Clear(); } protected override WebRequest GetWebRequest(Uri uri) { HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest) base.GetWebRequest(uri); request.Headers.Add(this.Headers); return request; } } where TaxService is the name of the .NET generated proxy class. In code you can then call AddHttpHeader() anywhere to add additional headers which are sent as part of the GetWebRequest override. Nice and simple once you know where to hook it. For WCF there’s a bit more work involved by creating a message extension as described here: http://weblogs.asp.net/avnerk/archive/2006/04/26/Adding-custom-headers-to-every-WCF-call-_2D00_-a-solution.aspx. FWIW, I think that HTTP header manipulation should be readily available on any HTTP based Web Service client DIRECTLY without having to subclass or implement a special interface hook. But alas a little extra work is required in .NET to make this happen Not a Common Problem, but when it happens… This has been one of those issues that is really rare, but it’s bitten me on several occasions when dealing with oddball Web services – a couple of times in my own work interacting with various Web Services and a few times on customer projects that required interaction with credentials-first services. Since the servers determine the protocol, we don’t have a choice but to follow the protocol. Lovely following standards that implementers decide to ignore, isn’t it? :-}© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2010Posted in .NET  CSharp  Web Services  

    Read the article

  • SimpleMembership, Membership Providers, Universal Providers and the new ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms and ASP.NET MVC 4 templates

    - by Jon Galloway
    The ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet template adds some new, very useful features which are built on top of SimpleMembership. These changes add some great features, like a much simpler and extensible membership API and support for OAuth. However, the new account management features require SimpleMembership and won't work against existing ASP.NET Membership Providers. I'll start with a summary of top things you need to know, then dig into a lot more detail. Summary: SimpleMembership has been designed as a replacement for traditional the previous ASP.NET Role and Membership provider system SimpleMembership solves common problems people ran into with the Membership provider system and was designed for modern user / membership / storage needs SimpleMembership integrates with the previous membership system, but you can't use a MembershipProvider with SimpleMembership The new ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet application template AccountController requires SimpleMembership and is not compatible with previous MembershipProviders You can continue to use existing ASP.NET Role and Membership providers in ASP.NET 4.5 and ASP.NET MVC 4 - just not with the ASP.NET MVC 4 AccountController The existing ASP.NET Role and Membership provider system remains supported as is part of the ASP.NET core ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms does not use SimpleMembership; it implements OAuth on top of ASP.NET Membership The ASP.NET Web Site Administration Tool (WSAT) is not compatible with SimpleMembership The following is the result of a few conversations with Erik Porter (PM for ASP.NET MVC) to make sure I had some the overall details straight, combined with a lot of time digging around in ILSpy and Visual Studio's assembly browsing tools. SimpleMembership: The future of membership for ASP.NET The ASP.NET Membership system was introduces with ASP.NET 2.0 back in 2005. It was designed to solve common site membership requirements at the time, which generally involved username / password based registration and profile storage in SQL Server. It was designed with a few extensibility mechanisms - notably a provider system (which allowed you override some specifics like backing storage) and the ability to store additional profile information (although the additional  profile information was packed into a single column which usually required access through the API). While it's sometimes frustrating to work with, it's held up for seven years - probably since it handles the main use case (username / password based membership in a SQL Server database) smoothly and can be adapted to most other needs (again, often frustrating, but it can work). The ASP.NET Web Pages and WebMatrix efforts allowed the team an opportunity to take a new look at a lot of things - e.g. the Razor syntax started with ASP.NET Web Pages, not ASP.NET MVC. The ASP.NET Web Pages team designed SimpleMembership to (wait for it) simplify the task of dealing with membership. As Matthew Osborn said in his post Using SimpleMembership With ASP.NET WebPages: With the introduction of ASP.NET WebPages and the WebMatrix stack our team has really be focusing on making things simpler for the developer. Based on a lot of customer feedback one of the areas that we wanted to improve was the built in security in ASP.NET. So with this release we took that time to create a new built in (and default for ASP.NET WebPages) security provider. I say provider because the new stuff is still built on the existing ASP.NET framework. So what do we call this new hotness that we have created? Well, none other than SimpleMembership. SimpleMembership is an umbrella term for both SimpleMembership and SimpleRoles. Part of simplifying membership involved fixing some common problems with ASP.NET Membership. Problems with ASP.NET Membership ASP.NET Membership was very obviously designed around a set of assumptions: Users and user information would most likely be stored in a full SQL Server database or in Active Directory User and profile information would be optimized around a set of common attributes (UserName, Password, IsApproved, CreationDate, Comment, Role membership...) and other user profile information would be accessed through a profile provider Some problems fall out of these assumptions. Requires Full SQL Server for default cases The default, and most fully featured providers ASP.NET Membership providers (SQL Membership Provider, SQL Role Provider, SQL Profile Provider) require full SQL Server. They depend on stored procedure support, and they rely on SQL Server cache dependencies, they depend on agents for clean up and maintenance. So the main SQL Server based providers don't work well on SQL Server CE, won't work out of the box on SQL Azure, etc. Note: Cory Fowler recently let me know about these Updated ASP.net scripts for use with Microsoft SQL Azure which do support membership, personalization, profile, and roles. But the fact that we need a support page with a set of separate SQL scripts underscores the underlying problem. Aha, you say! Jon's forgetting the Universal Providers, a.k.a. System.Web.Providers! Hold on a bit, we'll get to those... Custom Membership Providers have to work with a SQL-Server-centric API If you want to work with another database or other membership storage system, you need to to inherit from the provider base classes and override a bunch of methods which are tightly focused on storing a MembershipUser in a relational database. It can be done (and you can often find pretty good ones that have already been written), but it's a good amount of work and often leaves you with ugly code that has a bunch of System.NotImplementedException fun since there are a lot of methods that just don't apply. Designed around a specific view of users, roles and profiles The existing providers are focused on traditional membership - a user has a username and a password, some specific roles on the site (e.g. administrator, premium user), and may have some additional "nice to have" optional information that can be accessed via an API in your application. This doesn't fit well with some modern usage patterns: In OAuth and OpenID, the user doesn't have a password Often these kinds of scenarios map better to user claims or rights instead of monolithic user roles For many sites, profile or other non-traditional information is very important and needs to come from somewhere other than an API call that maps to a database blob What would work a lot better here is a system in which you were able to define your users, rights, and other attributes however you wanted and the membership system worked with your model - not the other way around. Requires specific schema, overflow in blob columns I've already mentioned this a few times, but it bears calling out separately - ASP.NET Membership focuses on SQL Server storage, and that storage is based on a very specific database schema. SimpleMembership as a better membership system As you might have guessed, SimpleMembership was designed to address the above problems. Works with your Schema As Matthew Osborn explains in his Using SimpleMembership With ASP.NET WebPages post, SimpleMembership is designed to integrate with your database schema: All SimpleMembership requires is that there are two columns on your users table so that we can hook up to it – an “ID” column and a “username” column. The important part here is that they can be named whatever you want. For instance username doesn't have to be an alias it could be an email column you just have to tell SimpleMembership to treat that as the “username” used to log in. Matthew's example shows using a very simple user table named Users (it could be named anything) with a UserID and Username column, then a bunch of other columns he wanted in his app. Then we point SimpleMemberhip at that table with a one-liner: WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseFile("SecurityDemo.sdf", "Users", "UserID", "Username", true); No other tables are needed, the table can be named anything we want, and can have pretty much any schema we want as long as we've got an ID and something that we can map to a username. Broaden database support to the whole SQL Server family While SimpleMembership is not database agnostic, it works across the SQL Server family. It continues to support full SQL Server, but it also works with SQL Azure, SQL Server CE, SQL Server Express, and LocalDB. Everything's implemented as SQL calls rather than requiring stored procedures, views, agents, and change notifications. Note that SimpleMembership still requires some flavor of SQL Server - it won't work with MySQL, NoSQL databases, etc. You can take a look at the code in WebMatrix.WebData.dll using a tool like ILSpy if you'd like to see why - there places where SQL Server specific SQL statements are being executed, especially when creating and initializing tables. It seems like you might be able to work with another database if you created the tables separately, but I haven't tried it and it's not supported at this point. Note: I'm thinking it would be possible for SimpleMembership (or something compatible) to run Entity Framework so it would work with any database EF supports. That seems useful to me - thoughts? Note: SimpleMembership has the same database support - anything in the SQL Server family - that Universal Providers brings to the ASP.NET Membership system. Easy to with Entity Framework Code First The problem with with ASP.NET Membership's system for storing additional account information is that it's the gate keeper. That means you're stuck with its schema and accessing profile information through its API. SimpleMembership flips that around by allowing you to use any table as a user store. That means you're in control of the user profile information, and you can access it however you'd like - it's just data. Let's look at a practical based on the AccountModel.cs class in an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet project. Here I'm adding a Birthday property to the UserProfile class. [Table("UserProfile")] public class UserProfile { [Key] [DatabaseGeneratedAttribute(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] public int UserId { get; set; } public string UserName { get; set; } public DateTime Birthday { get; set; } } Now if I want to access that information, I can just grab the account by username and read the value. var context = new UsersContext(); var username = User.Identity.Name; var user = context.UserProfiles.SingleOrDefault(u => u.UserName == username); var birthday = user.Birthday; So instead of thinking of SimpleMembership as a big membership API, think of it as something that handles membership based on your user database. In SimpleMembership, everything's keyed off a user row in a table you define rather than a bunch of entries in membership tables that were out of your control. How SimpleMembership integrates with ASP.NET Membership Okay, enough sales pitch (and hopefully background) on why things have changed. How does this affect you? Let's start with a diagram to show the relationship (note: I've simplified by removing a few classes to show the important relationships): So SimpleMembershipProvider is an implementaiton of an ExtendedMembershipProvider, which inherits from MembershipProvider and adds some other account / OAuth related things. Here's what ExtendedMembershipProvider adds to MembershipProvider: The important thing to take away here is that a SimpleMembershipProvider is a MembershipProvider, but a MembershipProvider is not a SimpleMembershipProvider. This distinction is important in practice: you cannot use an existing MembershipProvider (including the Universal Providers found in System.Web.Providers) with an API that requires a SimpleMembershipProvider, including any of the calls in WebMatrix.WebData.WebSecurity or Microsoft.Web.WebPages.OAuth.OAuthWebSecurity. However, that's as far as it goes. Membership Providers still work if you're accessing them through the standard Membership API, and all of the core stuff  - including the AuthorizeAttribute, role enforcement, etc. - will work just fine and without any change. Let's look at how that affects you in terms of the new templates. Membership in the ASP.NET MVC 4 project templates ASP.NET MVC 4 offers six Project Templates: Empty - Really empty, just the assemblies, folder structure and a tiny bit of basic configuration. Basic - Like Empty, but with a bit of UI preconfigured (css / images / bundling). Internet - This has both a Home and Account controller and associated views. The Account Controller supports registration and login via either local accounts and via OAuth / OpenID providers. Intranet - Like the Internet template, but it's preconfigured for Windows Authentication. Mobile - This is preconfigured using jQuery Mobile and is intended for mobile-only sites. Web API - This is preconfigured for a service backend built on ASP.NET Web API. Out of these templates, only one (the Internet template) uses SimpleMembership. ASP.NET MVC 4 Basic template The Basic template has configuration in place to use ASP.NET Membership with the Universal Providers. You can see that configuration in the ASP.NET MVC 4 Basic template's web.config: <profile defaultProvider="DefaultProfileProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultProfileProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultProfileProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </profile> <membership defaultProvider="DefaultMembershipProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultMembershipProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultMembershipProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" enablePasswordRetrieval="false" enablePasswordReset="true" requiresQuestionAndAnswer="false" requiresUniqueEmail="false" maxInvalidPasswordAttempts="5" minRequiredPasswordLength="6" minRequiredNonalphanumericCharacters="0" passwordAttemptWindow="10" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </membership> <roleManager defaultProvider="DefaultRoleProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultRoleProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultRoleProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </roleManager> <sessionState mode="InProc" customProvider="DefaultSessionProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultSessionProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultSessionStateProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" /> </providers> </sessionState> This means that it's business as usual for the Basic template as far as ASP.NET Membership works. ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet template The Internet template has a few things set up to bootstrap SimpleMembership: \Models\AccountModels.cs defines a basic user account and includes data annotations to define keys and such \Filters\InitializeSimpleMembershipAttribute.cs creates the membership database using the above model, then calls WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseConnection which verifies that the underlying tables are in place and marks initialization as complete (for the application's lifetime) \Controllers\AccountController.cs makes heavy use of OAuthWebSecurity (for OAuth account registration / login / management) and WebSecurity. WebSecurity provides account management services for ASP.NET MVC (and Web Pages) WebSecurity can work with any ExtendedMembershipProvider. There's one in the box (SimpleMembershipProvider) but you can write your own. Since a standard MembershipProvider is not an ExtendedMembershipProvider, WebSecurity will throw exceptions if the default membership provider is a MembershipProvider rather than an ExtendedMembershipProvider. Practical example: Create a new ASP.NET MVC 4 application using the Internet application template Install the Microsoft ASP.NET Universal Providers for LocalDB NuGet package Run the application, click on Register, add a username and password, and click submit You'll get the following execption in AccountController.cs::Register: To call this method, the "Membership.Provider" property must be an instance of "ExtendedMembershipProvider". This occurs because the ASP.NET Universal Providers packages include a web.config transform that will update your web.config to add the Universal Provider configuration I showed in the Basic template example above. When WebSecurity tries to use the configured ASP.NET Membership Provider, it checks if it can be cast to an ExtendedMembershipProvider before doing anything else. So, what do you do? Options: If you want to use the new AccountController, you'll either need to use the SimpleMembershipProvider or another valid ExtendedMembershipProvider. This is pretty straightforward. If you want to use an existing ASP.NET Membership Provider in ASP.NET MVC 4, you can't use the new AccountController. You can do a few things: Replace  the AccountController.cs and AccountModels.cs in an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet project with one from an ASP.NET MVC 3 application (you of course won't have OAuth support). Then, if you want, you can go through and remove other things that were built around SimpleMembership - the OAuth partial view, the NuGet packages (e.g. the DotNetOpenAuthAuth package, etc.) Use an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet application template and add in a Universal Providers NuGet package. Then copy in the AccountController and AccountModel classes. Create an ASP.NET MVC 3 project and upgrade it to ASP.NET MVC 4 using the steps shown in the ASP.NET MVC 4 release notes. None of these are particularly elegant or simple. Maybe we (or just me?) can do something to make this simpler - perhaps a NuGet package. However, this should be an edge case - hopefully the cases where you'd need to create a new ASP.NET but use legacy ASP.NET Membership Providers should be pretty rare. Please let me (or, preferably the team) know if that's an incorrect assumption. Membership in the ASP.NET 4.5 project template ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms took a different approach which builds off ASP.NET Membership. Instead of using the WebMatrix security assemblies, Web Forms uses Microsoft.AspNet.Membership.OpenAuth assembly. I'm no expert on this, but from a bit of time in ILSpy and Visual Studio's (very pretty) dependency graphs, this uses a Membership Adapter to save OAuth data into an EF managed database while still running on top of ASP.NET Membership. Note: There may be a way to use this in ASP.NET MVC 4, although it would probably take some plumbing work to hook it up. How does this fit in with Universal Providers (System.Web.Providers)? Just to summarize: Universal Providers are intended for cases where you have an existing ASP.NET Membership Provider and you want to use it with another SQL Server database backend (other than SQL Server). It doesn't require agents to handle expired session cleanup and other background tasks, it piggybacks these tasks on other calls. Universal Providers are not really, strictly speaking, universal - at least to my way of thinking. They only work with databases in the SQL Server family. Universal Providers do not work with Simple Membership. The Universal Providers packages include some web config transforms which you would normally want when you're using them. What about the Web Site Administration Tool? Visual Studio includes tooling to launch the Web Site Administration Tool (WSAT) to configure users and roles in your application. WSAT is built to work with ASP.NET Membership, and is not compatible with Simple Membership. There are two main options there: Use the WebSecurity and OAuthWebSecurity API to manage the users and roles Create a web admin using the above APIs Since SimpleMembership runs on top of your database, you can update your users as you would any other data - via EF or even in direct database edits (in development, of course)

    Read the article

  • Using mozilla firefox with utf-8 addresses (in greek) on mac

    - by Panagiotis
    Very often when I use firefox (any version from 10+) and I type my utf-8 seo url it behaves strangely. For example it randomly cuts the url and adds the url again at whole like this: http://www.mysite.com/????G????S/???? would make it as http://www.mysite.com/????G???http://www.mysite.com/????G????S/???? resulting in converting the url to urlencoded letters and 404 errors. I am using Lion with the latest firefox (yes I have uninstalled it once and reinstalled it).

    Read the article

  • "Turn Off The Lights" on any website?

    - by gojira
    On Youtube, there is this nice button (easy to overlook - top left of the video) which lets one "turn off the lights": the site background changes from white to black, the text color changes from black to grey. There is an unrelated plug-in for Firefox called "Turned Off The Lights", which has a very similar functionality. This makes websites so much easier to read. However, both technologies only work on YouTube. Is there anything to achive the same effect for all websites? Preferably with Firefox? I.e.: I want to have very dark background and light text color on all websites viewed with Firefox, how can I do that?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127  | Next Page >