Search Results

Search found 54190 results on 2168 pages for 'http authentication'.

Page 13/2168 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • silverlight security with WCF service, Forms Authentication and Custom Form Ticket

    - by user74825
    I have a silverlight application with login on the silverlight page. It uses Forms Authentication with WCF authentication service and customer Membership Provider. Something like : http://blogs.msdn.com/phaniraj/archive/2009/09/10/using-the-ado-net-data-services-silverlight-client-library-in-x-domain-and-out-of-browser-scenarios-ii-forms-authentication.aspx So, SL page login page calls the WCF service authentication service, it validates using DB - brings back username and password. Now, in each subsequent calls (in Global.asax in Authenticate_Request, I get HttpContext.User.IsAuthenticated and HttpContext.User.UserName). I have all this working properly. But, I just don't want the username, but more information surrounding the user, like UserId, UserAddress, UserAssociateCustomer etc. I tried couple of different approaches. 1) Use HttpContext.Cache as a dictionary to save the item and get it off based on httpcontext.user.name, problem is cache can be erased if there memory is being used heavily. 2) Tried CustomFormsAuth Ticket, when forms authentication writes a ticket, I intercept CreatingCookie method and write additional info in formauthentication ticket, so that I can read it in subsequent requests, I am having problems with this approach, I don't find the ticket in subsequent requests. I read about how we should use REsponse.Redirect, but where do I redirect user from WCF call. How do you guys implement the above scenario? Any best practices.? Any issues you see with going on HTTPS? All examples (or most of them) just explains simple forms authentication with "I am logged in message".. Any suggestions ?

    Read the article

  • Forms authentication: disable redirect to the login page

    - by codeka
    I have an application that uses ASP.NET Forms Authentication. For the most part, it's working great, but I'm trying to add support for a simple API via an .ashx file. I want the ashx file to have optional authentication (i.e. if you don't supply an Authentication header, then it just works anonymously). But, depending on what you do, I want to require authentication under certain conditions. I thought it would be a simple matter of responding with status code 401 if the required authentication was not supplied, but it seems like the Forms Authentcation module is intercepting that and responding with a redirect to the login page instead. What I mean is, if my ProcessRequest method looks like this: public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { Response.StatusCode = 401; Response.StatusDescription = "Authentication required"; } Then instead of getting a 401 error code on the client, like I expect, I'm actually getting a 302 redirect to the login page. For nornal HTTP traffic, I can see how that would be useful, but for my API page, I want the 401 to go through unmodified so that the client-side caller can respond to it programmatically instead. Is there any way to do that?

    Read the article

  • REST and redirecting the response

    - by Duane Gran
    I'm developing a RESTful service. Here is a map of the current feature set: POST /api/document/file.jpg (creates the resource) GET /api/document/file.jpg (retrieves the resource) DELETE /api/document/file.jpg (removes the resource) So far, it does everything you might expect. I have a particular use case where I need to set up the browser to send a POST request using the multipart/form-data encoding for the document upload but when it is completed I want to redirect them back to the form. I know how to do a redirect, but I'm not certain about how the client and server should negotiate this behavior. Two approaches I'm considering: On the server check for the multipart/form-data encoding and, if present, redirect to the referrer when the request is complete. Add a service URI of /api/document/file.jpg/redirect to redirect to the referrer when the request is complete. I looked into setting an X header (X-myapp-redirect) but you can't tell the browser which headers to use like this. I manage the code for both the client and the server side so I'm flexible on solutions here. Is there a best practice to follow here?

    Read the article

  • HTTP events? Is there a standard / precedent for this?

    - by user619818
    Our architecture is HTTP servers (custom written) which whereby custom clients send a HTTP request for some information and information is returned just as HTTP works. But we need a special custom 'extension' which is a request which is a subscription for receiving asynchronous 'events' on a resource. For example the client sends an http request subscribing for events on some entity. As the 'entity' generates events they are passed to the http server and the http server must then lookup subscriptions for that entity and send the event message to all subscribed clients. Hope that makes sense. So my questions are: Has this been done before / or is there a standard I should be looking at? If no standard, any suggestions on how to implement? How does a http server send an unsolicited 'message' to a client?

    Read the article

  • What is best practice for search engines when a website is under maintenance?

    - by jamescridland
    I need around a week to transition a heavily data-driven website from one back end to another. During that time I do plan to attempt to keep some pages live, but they won't all work well or look brilliant. Some pages won't work at all. What is the best way to ensure I don't scare Google? Should I hide everything from robots.txt, or mark everything that doesn't work as "503", or are there other things that I should be considering?

    Read the article

  • Verifying that a user comes from a 'partner' site?

    - by matt_tm
    We're building a Drupal module that is going to be given to trusted 'corporate partners'. When a user clicks on a link, he should be redirected to our site as if he's a logged in user. How should I verify that the user is indeed coming from that site? It does not look like 'HTTP_REFERER' is enough because it appears it can be faked. We are providing these partner sites with API Keys. If I receive the API-key as a POST value, sent over https, would that be a sufficient indicator that the user is a genuine partner-site user?

    Read the article

  • HaProxy - Http and SSL pass through config

    - by Bill
    I've currently got an HaProxy LB solution in place and everything is working fine however we are having an issue with a very few clients who cannot get to our site via HTTPS (SSL) they can browse our site in Http but as soon as they click on an absolute HTTPS link they are taken to our home page instead. Wondering if anyone can look at our config below and see if there's something awry. I believe we are on HaProxy 1.2.17 global log 127.0.0.1 local0 log 127.0.0.1 local1 notice #log loghost local0 info maxconn 6144 #debug #quiet user haproxy group haproxy defaults log global mode http option httplog option dontlognull retries 3 redispatch maxconn 2000 contimeout 5000 clitimeout 50000 srvtimeout 50000 stats auth # admin password stats uri /monitor listen webfarm # bind :80,:443 bind :443 mode tcp balance source #cookie SERVERID insert indirect #option httpclose #option forwardfor #option httpchk HEAD /check.cfm HTTP/1.0 server webA 111.10.10.1 #server webB 111.10.10.2 server webB 111.10.10.3 server webC 111.10.10.4 listen webfarmhttp :80 mode http balance source # option httpclose option forwardfor # option httpchk HEAD /check.cfm HTTP/1.0 option httpchk /check.cfm server webA 111.10.10.1 #server webB 111.10.10.2 server webB 111.10.10.3 server webC 111.10.10.4 listen monitor :8443 mode http balance roundrobin #cookie SERVERID insert indirect option httpclose option forwardfor #option httpchk HEAD /check.txt HTTP/1.0 #option httpchk HEAD /check.cfm HTTP/1.0 server webA 111.10.10.1 server webB 111.10.10.2

    Read the article

  • HTTP responses curl and wget different results

    - by Fab
    To check HTTP response header for a set of urls I send with curl the following request headers foreach ( $urls as $url ) { // Setup headers - I used the same headers from Firefox version 2.0.0.6 $header[ ] = "Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,"; $header[ ] = "text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5"; $header[ ] = "Cache-Control: max-age=0"; $header[ ] = "Connection: keep-alive"; $header[ ] = "Keep-Alive: 300"; $header[ ] = "Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7"; $header[ ] = "Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5"; $header[ ] = "Pragma: "; // browsers keep this blank. curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_URL, $url ); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, 'Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.google.com/bot.html)'); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER, $header); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_REFERER, 'http://www.google.com'); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_HEADER, true ); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_NOBODY, true ); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, true ); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION, true ); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_HTTPAUTH, CURLAUTH_ANY ); curl_setopt( $ch, CURLOPT_TIMEOUT, 10 ); //timeout 10 seconds } Sometimes I receive 200 OK which is good other time 301, 302, 307 which I consider good as well, but other times I receive weird status as 406, 500, 504 which should identify an invalid url but when I open it on the browser they are fine for example the script returns http://www.awe.co.uk/ => HTTP/1.1 406 Not Acceptable and wget returns wget http://www.awe.co.uk/ --2011-06-23 15:26:26-- http://www.awe.co.uk/ Resolving www.awe.co.uk... 77.73.123.140 Connecting to www.awe.co.uk|77.73.123.140|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Does anyone know which request header I am missing or adding in excess?

    Read the article

  • Why Wireshark does not recognize this HTTP response?

    - by Alois Mahdal
    I have a trivial CGI script that outputs simple text content. It's written in Perl and using CGI module and it specifies only the most basic headers: print $q->header( -type => 'text/plain', -Content_length => $length, ); print $stuff; There's no apparent issue with functionality, but I'm confused about the fact that Wireshark does not recognize the HTTP response as HTTP--it's marked as TCP. Here is request and response: GET /cgi-bin/memfile/memfile.pl?mbytes=1 HTTP/1.1 Host: 10.6.130.38 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: cs,en-us;q=0.7,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Connection: keep-alive HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:52:23 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.15 (Win32) mod_ssl/2.2.15 OpenSSL/0.9.8m Content-length: 1048616 Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100 Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 XXXXXXXX... And here is the packet overview (Full packet is here on pastebin) No. Time Source srcp Destination dstp Protocol Info tcp.stream abstime 5 0.112749 10.6.130.38 80 10.6.130.53 48072 TCP [TCP segment of a reassembled PDU] 0 20:52:23.228063 Frame 5: 1514 bytes on wire (12112 bits), 1514 bytes captured (12112 bits) Ethernet II, Src: Dell_97:29:ac (00:1e:4f:97:29:ac), Dst: Dell_3b:fe:70 (00:24:e8:3b:fe:70) Internet Protocol Version 4, Src: 10.6.130.38 (10.6.130.38), Dst: 10.6.130.53 (10.6.130.53) Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: http (80), Dst Port: 48072 (48072), Seq: 1, Ack: 330, Len: 1460 Now when I see this in Wireshark: there's usual TCP handshake then the GET request shown as HTTP with preview then the next packet contains the response, but is not marked as an HTTP response--just a generic "[TCP segment of a reassembled PDU]", and is not caught by "http.response" filter. Can somebody explain why Wireshark does not recognize it? Is there something wrong with the response?

    Read the article

  • Uploading to another domain gives HTTP code 405

    - by dragon112
    I'm trying to upload a file (which can be quite large) from the website of one server to the backend of another server using plupload. Lets say: domain 1 = http://www.websitedomain.com/uploadform domain 2 = http://www.backenddomain.com/uploadhandler Trying to upload i send the following: OPTIONS /main/uploadnetwork.php HTTP/1.1 Host: backenddomain.com Connection: keep-alive Access-Control-Request-Method: POST Origin: http://www.websitedomain.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/22.0.1229.79 Safari/537.4 Access-Control-Request-Headers: origin, content-type Accept: */* Referer: http://www.websitedomain.com/uploadform Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch Accept-Language: nl-NL,nl;q=0.8,en-US;q=0.6,en;q=0.4 Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.3 DNT: 1 But when I try to start the upload the server returns the following: HTTP/1.1 405 Method Not Allowed Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE Content-Type: text/html Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5 X-Powered-By: ASP.NET X-Powered-By-Plesk: PleskWin Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:41:57 GMT Content-Length: 999 After doing some research I found out that a browser does this to check if the server will accept the intended message. It looks like my server doesn't feel like accepting a simple POST call even tho i use post all the time. The Google Chrome console gives the following error: XMLHttpRequest cannot load http://www.backenddomain.com/uploadhandler. Origin http://www.websitedomain.com is not allowed by Access-Control-Allow-Origin. Does anyone know how to stop the browser from checking or how i can tell my server to just accept the POST?

    Read the article

  • WMS authentication plugin

    - by roul
    Hi, I'm trying to create a custom authentication plugin for WMS 2009 in C#. I managed to implement something that for some reason blocks all requests... [ComVisible(true)] [Guid("C0A0B38C-C4FE-43B5-BE9E-C100A83BBCEE")] public class AuthenticationPlugin : IWMSBasicPlugin, IWMSAuthenticationPlugin, IWMSAuthenticationContext private const string SubKey = "SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows Media\\Server\\RegisteredPlugins\\Authentication\\{C0A0B38C-C4FE-43B5-BE9E-C100A83BBCEE}"; [ComRegisterFunction] public static void RegisterFunction(Type t) { try { RegistryKey regHKLM = Registry.LocalMachine; regHKLM = regHKLM.CreateSubKey(SubKey); regHKLM.SetValue(null, "UC WMS Authentication plugin"); RegistryKey regHKCR = Registry.ClassesRoot; regHKCR = regHKCR.CreateSubKey("CLSID\\{C0A0B38C-C4FE-43B5-BE9E-C100A83BBCEE}\\Properties"); regHKCR.SetValue("Name", CustomC WMS Authentication plugin"); regHKCR.SetValue("Author", "Me"); regHKCR.SetValue("CopyRight", "Copyright 2009. All rights reserved"); regHKCR.SetValue("Description", "Enables custom WMS authentication"); } catch (Exception error) { Console.WriteLine(error.Message, "Inside RegisterFunction(). Cannot Register."); } } [ComUnregisterFunction] public static void UnRegisterFunction(Type t) { try { RegistryKey regHKLM = Registry.LocalMachine; regHKLM.DeleteSubKey(SubKey); RegistryKey regHKCR = Registry.ClassesRoot; regHKCR.DeleteSubKeyTree("CLSID\\{C0A0B38C-C4FE-43B5-BE9E-C100A83BBCEE}"); regHKCR.DeleteSubKeyTree("CSEventTest.CSEventPlugin"); } catch (Exception error) { Console.WriteLine(error.Message, "Cannot delete a subkey."); } } #region IWMSBasicPlugin Members public void InitializePlugin(IWMSContext serverContext, WMSNamedValues namedValues, IWMSClassObject classFactory) { } public void ShutdownPlugin() { } public void EnablePlugin(ref int flags, ref int heartbeatPeriod) { } public void DisablePlugin() { } public object GetCustomAdminInterface() { return null; } public void OnHeartbeat() { } #endregion #region IWMSAuthenticationPlugin Members public IWMSAuthenticationContext CreateAuthenticationContext() { return (IWMSAuthenticationContext)this; } public int GetFlags() { return Convert.ToInt32(WMS_AUTHENTICATION_FLAGS.WMS_AUTHENTICATION_ANONYMOUS, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture); } public string GetPackageName() { return "Custom WMS Authentication"; } public string GetProtocolName() { return "Basic"; } #endregion #region IWMSAuthenticationContext Members public void Authenticate(object responseBlob, IWMSContext userContext, IWMSContext presentationContext, IWMSCommandContext commandContext, IWMSAuthenticationCallback callBack, object context) { callBack.OnAuthenticateComplete(WMS_AUTHENTICATION_RESULT.WMS_AUTHENTICATION_SUCCESS, null, context); } public IWMSAuthenticationPlugin GetAuthenticationPlugin() { return (IWMSAuthenticationPlugin)this; } public string GetImpersonationAccountName() { return String.Empty; } public int GetImpersonationToken() { return 0; } public string GetLogicalUserID() { return this.GetImpersonationAccountName(); } #endregion } Can anyone spot why this is happening? Also, is there any way I could have a look at the code for the standard Anonymous Authentication plugin already installed on the server? Is it in an assembly somewhere? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • NPS EAP authentication failing after Windows Update

    - by sqlreader
    I have a Windows 2008 Std server running NPS. After applying the latest round of updates (including Root Certificates for April 2012 KB931125 (See:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933430/)), EAP authentication is failing due to being malformed. Sample error (Security/Event ID 6273), truncated for brevity: Authentication Details: Proxy Policy Name: Use Windows authentication for all users Network Policy Name: Wireless Access Authentication Provider: Windows Authentication Server: nps-host.corp.contoso.com Authentication Type: PEAP EAP Type: - Account Session Identifier: - Reason Code: 266 Reason: The message received was unexpected or badly formatted. The NPS policy (Wireless Access) is configured accordingly (for Constraints/Authentication methods) EAP Types: Microsoft: Protected EAP (PEAP) - with a valid certificate from ADCS Microsoft: Secured password (EAP-MSCHAP v2) Less secure authentication methods: Microsoft Encrypted Authentication version 2 (MS-CHAP-v2) User can change password after it has expired Microsoft Encrypted Authentication (MS-CHAP) User can change password after it has expired We've tested a different RADIUS server without the aforementioned patch, and removed EAP as an authentication type and experienced success. Has anyone else experienced this issue?

    Read the article

  • Freeradius authentication failed for unknown reason

    - by Moein7tl
    I followed this instruction to force freeradius to use mysql database. and run freeradius in debug mod. but it rejects all authentication. mysql database : mysql select * from radcheck; +----+----------+-----------+----+---------+ | id | username | attribute | op | value | +----+----------+-----------+----+---------+ | 1 | test | Password | == | test123 | | 2 | test | Auth-Type | == | Local | +----+----------+-----------+----+---------+ 2 rows in set (0.02 sec) radtest command : # radtest test test123 localhost 0 testing123 Sending Access-Request of id 235 to 127.0.0.1 port 1812 User-Name = "test" User-Password = "test123" NAS-IP-Address = 127.0.0.1 NAS-Port = 0 Message-Authenticator = 0x00000000000000000000000000000000 rad_recv: Access-Reject packet from host 127.0.0.1 port 1812, id=235, length=20 radiusd debug mod log: rad_recv: Access-Request packet from host 127.0.0.1 port 51034, id=235, length=74 User-Name = "test" User-Password = "test123" NAS-IP-Address = 127.0.0.1 NAS-Port = 0 Message-Authenticator = 0xbf111cbbae24fb0f0a558bfa26f53476 # Executing section authorize from file /usr/local/etc/raddb/sites-enabled/default +- entering group authorize {...} ++[preprocess] returns ok ++[chap] returns noop ++[mschap] returns noop ++[digest] returns noop [suffix] No '@' in User-Name = "test", looking up realm NULL [suffix] No such realm "NULL" ++[suffix] returns noop [eap] No EAP-Message, not doing EAP ++[eap] returns noop ++[files] returns noop ++[expiration] returns noop ++[logintime] returns noop [pap] WARNING! No "known good" password found for the user. Authentication may fail because of this. ++[pap] returns noop ERROR: No authenticate method (Auth-Type) found for the request: Rejecting the user Failed to authenticate the user. Using Post-Auth-Type Reject # Executing group from file /usr/local/etc/raddb/sites-enabled/default +- entering group REJECT {...} [attr_filter.access_reject] expand: %{User-Name} - test attr_filter: Matched entry DEFAULT at line 11 ++[attr_filter.access_reject] returns updated Delaying reject of request 20 for 1 seconds Going to the next request Waking up in 0.9 seconds. Sending delayed reject for request 20 Sending Access-Reject of id 235 to 127.0.0.1 port 51034 Waking up in 4.9 seconds. Cleaning up request 20 ID 235 with timestamp +4325 Ready to process requests. where is the problem and how should I solve it?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Windows-only Authentication Strategy problem

    - by Mike Thien
    I would like to use Windows-only Authentication in SQL Server for our web applications. In the past we've always created the all powerful 1 SQL Login for the web application. After doing some initial testing we've decided to create Windows Active Directory groups that mimic the security roles of the application (i.e. Administrators, Managers, Users/Operators, etc...) We've created mapped logins in SQL Server to these groups and given them access to the database for the application. In addition, we've created SQL Server database roles and assigned each group the appropriate role. This is working great. My issue revolves around that for most of the applications, everyone in the company should have read access to the reports (and hence the data). As far as I can tell, I have 2 options: 1) Create a read-only/viewer AD group and put everyone in it. 2) Use the "domain\domain users" group(s) and assign them the correct roles in SQL. What is the best and/or easiest way to allow everyone read access to specific database objects using a Windows-only Authentication method?

    Read the article

  • Apache mod_auth_kerb asking 2 authentication

    - by Rianto Wahyudi
    I've configured Apache to use mod_auth_kerberos. So far everything is working nicely for client thats connected to Active Directory and have their browser to ntlm enabled. When clients are not in the domain or the browser configurerd not to authenticate automatically, they are being prompted by 2 login prompt. The first login prompt is blank and the second one is the oen that we configured First Login prompt: http://www.screencast.com/t/ZGNlZTQwZm Second Login prompt : http://www.screencast.com/t/MDA2N2Fl From the log ( first authentication) : [Wed Jan 06 15:47:29 2010] [debug] src/mod_auth_kerb.c(1684): [client x.x.x.x] [pid 2562] kerb_authenticate_user entered with user (NULL) and auth_type Kerberos In the first loging prompt , I can put any text for username and password. Once the first login form submited, it will ask for the 2nd login prompt. Apache have following config : <Directory /web/apache2/htdocs> AllowOverride All AuthType Kerberos AuthName "Staff Access ONLY Kerb-Auth" KrbAuthRealms EXAMPLE.COM Krb5Keytab /etc/httpd/conf.d/example.ktab Allow from localhost Require valid-user <Directory> What could be the cause of the first authentication and how can I get rid of them ?

    Read the article

  • apache authentication

    - by veilig
    I'm trying to set up a local webserver on my network. I want to be able to be able to access the webserver from any machine inside my network w/out authenticating. and two extra domains need access to it w/out authenticating. Everyone else I would like to authenticate in. so far, I can get to it from inside my network. and the two extra domains can access my webserver, but everyone else is just hanging. They don't get an authentication or anything. can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong here? This is part of my apache's site-available file so far: <Directory /path/to/server/> Options Indexes FollowSymLinks -Multiviews Order Deny,Allow Deny from All Allow from 192.168 Allow from localhost Allow from domain1 Allow from domain2 AuthType Basic AuthName "my authentication" AuthUserFile /path/to/file Require valid-user Satisfy Any AllowOverride All <Files .htaccess> Order Allow,Deny Allow from All </Files> </Directory>

    Read the article

  • Central Authentication For Windows, Linux, Network Devices

    - by mojah
    I'm trying to find a way to centralize user management & authentication for a large collection of Windows & Linux Servers, including network devices (Cisco, HP, Juniper). Options include RADIUS/LDAP/TACACS/... Idea is to keep track with staff changes, and access towards these devices. Preferably a system that is compatible with both Linux, Windows & those network devices. Seems like Windows is the most stubborn of them all, for Linux & Network equipment it's easier to implement a solution (using PAM.D for instance). Should we look for an Active Directory/Domain Controller solution for Windows? Fun sidenote; we also manage client systems, that are often already in a domain. Trust-relationships between Domain Controllers isn't always an option for us (due to client security restrictions). I'd love to hear fresh ideas on how to implement such a centralized authentication "portal" for those systems.

    Read the article

  • The Story of secure user-authentication in squid

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry if the story is boring and messy, but most of it is real! =) /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • secure user-authentication in squid

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • secure user-authentication in squid: The Story

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • Certificate Authentication

    - by steve.mccall1
    Hi, I am currently working on deploying a website for staff to use remotely and would like to make sure it is secure. I was thinking would it be possible to set up some kind of certificate authentication where I would generate a certificate and install it on their laptop so they could access the website? I don't really want them to generate the certificates themselves though as that could easily go wrong. How easy / possible is this and how do I go about doing it? Thanks, Steve

    Read the article

  • Integrated Windows Authentication not working in IE only

    - by CoreyT
    In my site I have one folder that does not allow anonymous access. It is set up to use Integrated Windows Authentication as it is on an AD domain. The login works fine in Firefox, Chrome, even Safari, but not IE8. Has anyone encountered this before? I can't seem to find anyone else with a similar issue, except for where the login fails in all browsers of course.

    Read the article

  • ssh authentication with public-private key pair

    - by Rui Gonçalves
    Hi! I'm wonder if is possible to authenticate the same user with different public-private keys pairs on the same remote host. For all production servers, the public-private key pair has been generated for the same user and then exported to the backup server for allowing ssh authentication without human intervention. However, I'm having problems on some production servers, once the password prompt is always displayed. Thanks in advance for the help, Best regards!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >