Search Results

Search found 9658 results on 387 pages for 'authentication provider'.

Page 24/387 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• Can you call FB.login inside a callback from other FB methods (like FB.getLoginStatus) without triggering popup blockers?

  - by Erik Kallevig

  I'm trying to set up a pretty basic authentication logic flow with the FB JavaScript SDK to check a user's logged-in status and permissions before performing an action (and prompting the user to login with permissions if they are not)... User types a message into a textarea on my site to post to their Facebook feed and click's a 'post to facebook' button on my site. In response to the click, I check user's logged in status with FB.getLoginStatus In the callback to FB.getLoginStatus, if user is not logged in, prompt them to login (FB.login). In the callback to FB.login I then need to make sure they have the right permissions so I make a call to FB.api('/me/permissions') -- if they don't , I again prompt them to login (FB.login) The problem I'm running into is that anytime I try to call FB.login inside a callback to other FB methods, the browser seems to lose track of the origin of execution (the click) and thus will block the popup. I'm wondering if I'm missing some way to prompt the user to login after checking their status without the browser mistakenly thinking that it's not a user-initiated popup? I've currently fallen back to just calling FB.login() first regardless. The undesired side effect of this approach, however, is that if the user is already logged-in with permissions and I'm still calling FB.login, the auth popup will open and close immediately before continuing, which looks rather buggy despite being functional. It seems like checking a user's login status and permissions before doing something would be a common flow so I feel like I'm missing something. Here's some example code. <div onclick="onClickPostBtn()">Post to Facebook</div> <script> // Callback to click on Post button. function onClickPostBtn() { // Check if logged in, prompt to do so if not. FB.getLoginStatus(function(response) { if (response.status === 'connected') { checkPermissions(response.authResponse.accessToken); } else { FB.login(function(){}, {scope: 'publish_stream'}) } }); } // Logged in, check permissions. function checkPermissions(accessToken) { FB.api('/me/permissions', {'access_token': accessToken}, function(response){ // Logged in and authorized for this site. if (response.data && response.data.length) { // Parse response object to check for permission here... if (hasPermission) { // Logged in with permission, perform some action. } else { // Logged in without proper permission, request login with permissions. FB.login(function(){}, {scope: 'publish_stream'}) } // Logged in to FB but not authorized for this site. } else { FB.login(function(){}, {scope: 'publish_stream'}) } } ); } </script>

  Read the article

• TelerikProfileProvider with custom Membership Provider

  - by Larsenal

  I've setup two membership providers: my custom provider and the Sitefinity provider. My custom membership provider is set as the default. I want to use Sitefinity's Profile provider for both sets of users. However, the profile provider only seems to work for the users that I pull out of the Sitefinity membership provider. After poking around with Reflector a bit, it seems that the Telerik Profile Provider assumes that the username exists in its own DB. User userByName = this.Application.GetUserByName(userName); if (userByName != null) { // magic happens here... } All the magic only happens if it was able to retrieve the user locally. Seems to violate the principles of the providers. Shouldn't I be able to arbitrarily add properties to any user regardless of the membership provider? (I've also posted this on the Sitefinity forum, but haven't got a response yet. SO has spoiled me. I've come to expect an answer in minutes, not days.)

  Read the article

• Linux user authentication with Microsoft LDAP

  - by TusharG

  I'm trying to do following things: Login to CentOS over ssh: authentication needs to happen with Microsoft Ldap On successful login create a home directory for user in /home if directory exists take him to his home directory Put quota on /home/user directory of 5 GB Can someone please show me a link for Centos/redhat to authorize users with Microsoft Ldap? I have already tried: setup command from root - "Authentication configuration" - "[] User Information - Use Ldap" - Authentication - [] Use Ldap Authentication" - []/[*] Use TLS - Server: ldap://corporate.company.com - Base DN: dc=corporate,dc=company,dc=com" This does not authentication users with Microsoft LDAP

  Read the article

• LOCAL and RADIUS authentication on ASA

  - by ghp

  Have configured local authentication which was working fine.And today I wanted to implement RADIUS too .. but after I have done, Im unable to login to my firewall user-identity default-domain LOCAL aaa authentication ssh console LOCAL and RADIUS aaa-server RADIUS protocol radius aaa-server RADIUS (inside) host xyzabc Key zzzzzz aaa authentication ssh console RADIUS aaa authentication enable console RADIUS aaa authentication http console RADIUS Can someone help me login to my firewall

  Read the article

• IIS 7 Authentication: Certain users can't authenticate, while almost all others can.

  - by user35335

  I'm using IIS 7 Digest authentication to control access to a certain directory containing files. Users access the files through a department website from inside our network and outside. I've set NTFS permissions on the directory to allow a certain AD group to view the files. When I click a link to one of those files on the website I get prompted for a username and password. With most users everything works fine, but with a few of them it prompts for a password 3 times and then get: 401 - Unauthorized: Access is denied due to invalid credentials. But other users that are in the group can get in without a problem. If I switch it over to Windows Authentication, then the trouble users can log in fine. That directory is also shared, and users that can't log in through the website are able to browse to the share and view files in it, so I know that the permissions are ok. Here's the portion of the IIS log where I tried to download the file (/assets/files/secure/WWGNL.pdf): 2010-02-19 19:47:20 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx GET /assets/images/bullet.gif - 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 200 0 0 218 2010-02-19 19:47:20 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx GET /assets/images/bgOFF.gif - 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 200 0 0 218 2010-02-19 19:47:21 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx GET /assets/files/secure/WWGNL.pdf - 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 401 2 5 0 2010-02-19 19:47:36 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx GET /assets/files/secure/WWGNL.pdf - 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 401 1 2148074252 0 2010-02-19 19:47:43 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx GET /assets/files/secure/WWGNL.pdf - 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 401 1 2148074252 15 2010-02-19 19:47:46 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx GET /manager/media/script/_session.gif 0.19665693119168282 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 200 0 0 203 2010-02-19 19:47:46 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx POST /manager/index.php - 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 200 0 0 296 2010-02-19 19:47:56 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx GET /assets/files/secure/WWGNL.pdf - 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 401 1 2148074252 15 2010-02-19 19:47:59 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx GET /favicon.ico - 80 - 10.5.16.138 Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+6.1;+en-US)+AppleWebKit/532.5+(KHTML,+like+Gecko)+Chrome/4.0.249.89+Safari/532.5 404 0 2 0 Here's the Failed Logon attempt in the Security Log: Log Name: Security Source: Microsoft-Windows-Security-Auditing Date: 2/19/2010 11:47:43 AM Event ID: 4625 Task Category: Logon Level: Information Keywords: Audit Failure User: N/A Computer: WEB4.net.domain.org Description: An account failed to log on. Subject: Security ID: NULL SID Account Name: - Account Domain: - Logon ID: 0x0 Logon Type: 3 Account For Which Logon Failed: Security ID: NULL SID Account Name: jim.lastname Account Domain: net.domain.org Failure Information: Failure Reason: Unknown user name or bad password. Status: 0xc000006d Sub Status: 0xc000006a Process Information: Caller Process ID: 0x0 Caller Process Name: - Network Information: Workstation Name: - Source Network Address: 10.5.16.138 Source Port: 50065 Detailed Authentication Information: Logon Process: WDIGEST Authentication Package: WDigest Transited Services: - Package Name (NTLM only): - Key Length: 0 This event is generated when a logon request fails. It is generated on the computer where access was attempted. The Subject fields indicate the account on the local system which requested the logon. This is most commonly a service such as the Server service, or a local process such as Winlogon.exe or Services.exe. The Logon Type field indicates the kind of logon that was requested. The most common types are 2 (interactive) and 3 (network). The Process Information fields indicate which account and process on the system requested the logon. The Network Information fields indicate where a remote logon request originated. Workstation name is not always available and may be left blank in some cases. The authentication information fields provide detailed information about this specific logon request. - Transited services indicate which intermediate services have participated in this logon request. - Package name indicates which sub-protocol was used among the NTLM protocols. - Key length indicates the length of the generated session key. This will be 0 if no session key was requested. Event Xml: <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event"> <System> <Provider Name="Microsoft-Windows-Security-Auditing" Guid="{54849625-5478-4994-a5ba-3e3b0328c30d}" /> <EventID>4625</EventID> <Version>0</Version> <Level>0</Level> <Task>12544</Task> <Opcode>0</Opcode> <Keywords>0x8010000000000000</Keywords> <TimeCreated SystemTime="2010-02-19T19:47:43.890Z" /> <EventRecordID>2276316</EventRecordID> <Correlation /> <Execution ProcessID="612" ThreadID="692" /> <Channel>Security</Channel> <Computer>WEB4.net.domain.org</Computer> <Security /> </System> <EventData> <Data Name="SubjectUserSid">S-1-0-0</Data> <Data Name="SubjectUserName">-</Data> <Data Name="SubjectDomainName">-</Data> <Data Name="SubjectLogonId">0x0</Data> <Data Name="TargetUserSid">S-1-0-0</Data> <Data Name="TargetUserName">jim.lastname</Data> <Data Name="TargetDomainName">net.domain.org</Data> <Data Name="Status">0xc000006d</Data> <Data Name="FailureReason">%%2313</Data> <Data Name="SubStatus">0xc000006a</Data> <Data Name="LogonType">3</Data> <Data Name="LogonProcessName">WDIGEST</Data> <Data Name="AuthenticationPackageName">WDigest</Data> <Data Name="WorkstationName">-</Data> <Data Name="TransmittedServices">-</Data> <Data Name="LmPackageName">-</Data> <Data Name="KeyLength">0</Data> <Data Name="ProcessId">0x0</Data> <Data Name="ProcessName">-</Data> <Data Name="IpAddress">10.5.16.138</Data> <Data Name="IpPort">50065</Data> </EventData> </Event>

  Read the article

• Best criteria for choosing a DNS provider : Redundancy, Locations, Cost, IPV6, Reliability

  - by antoinet

  What criteria should I use to choose a good DNS provider? Redundancy - Your DNS service should use at least 4 nameservers. You should also check for the use of anycast servers such as Amazon Route 53 and dyn.com services. Worldwide server location - Servers shall be located worldwide, not just in one country! Ipv6 support - It shall be possible to declare an AAAA entry to your server if it supports IPV6 Cost is of course an issue. Some service are free, Amazon Route 53 seems quite cheap. Reliability : SLA is also important, it demonstrate that reliability is measured. Your dns provider shall then state for a refund in case a failure is encountered. Anything else? For reference, a couple of links for more information: http://serverfault.com/questions/216330/why-should-i-use-amazon-route-53-over-my-registrars-dns-servers http://aws.amazon.com/route53/ http://dyn.com/dns/

  Read the article

• ASP.NET Membership Provider Setup

  - by Ben Griswold

  In this screencast, Noah and I show you how to quickly get started with the ASP.NET Membership Provider.  We’ll take you through basic features and setup and walk you through membership table creation with the ASP.NET SQL Server Wizard. I’ve written about the ASP.NET Membership Provider and setup before.  If you missed the post, this introductory video may be for you.     This is one of our first screencasts.  If you have feedback, I’d love to hear it.

  Read the article

• Google I/O 2010 - Building your own Google Wave provider

  Google I/O 2010 - Building your own Google Wave provider Google I/O 2010 - Open source Google Wave: Building your own wave provider Wave 101 Dan Peterson, Jochen Bekmann, JD Zamfirescu Pereira, David LaPalomento (Novell) Learn how to build your own wave service. Google is open sourcing the lion's share of the code that went into creating Google Wave to help bootstrap a network of federated providers. This talk will discuss the state of the reference implementation: the software architecture, how you can plug it into your own use cases -- and how you can contribute to the code and definition of the underlying specification. For all I/O 2010 sessions, please go to code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 8 0 ratings Time: 59:03 More in Science & Technology

  Read the article

• EclipseLink Moxy Provider for JAX-RS and JAX-WS

  - by arungupta

  EclipseLink MOXy is a JAXB provider bundled in GlassFish 3.1.2. In addition to JAXB RI, it provides XPath Based Mapping, better support for JPA entities, native JSON binding and many other features. Learn more about MOXy and JAXB examples on their wiki. Blaise blogged about how MOXy can be leveraged to create a JAX-WS service.You just need to provide data-binding attribute in sun-jaxws.xml and then all the XPath-based mapping can be specified on JAXB beans. MOXy can also be used as JAX-RS JSON provider on server-side and client-side. How are you using MOXy in your applications ?

  Read the article

• mitigating lost emails when switching provider

  - by sam

  were about to change to gmail from a webmail provided by our hosting provider, i understand changing the mx records and all. But my main worry was if there would be any emails that would fall through the gaps of the two systems during change over. Im not familiar with the ins and outs of how the mx record works, is it like a dns record change, ie. it needs to propagate ? If thats the case would there be a period were its left my current email provider but not switched to the new gmail account ? Thus allowing emails not be delivered or worse lost ?

  Read the article

• How to transfer domain from Godaddy to another provider

  - by licorna

  I'm currently using godaddy for all of my company domains, and I'm very unsatisfied with their service, specially with their site, so we are trying to migrate those domains to another provider. The question is, How do I transfer my domains to another domain registrar? I'm not talking about transferring domain records (A, MX...) but to use the same domains with another provider, and redo all the configuration again. For example, one of our blogs is hosted in Slicehost and we feel very confortable with their record editing tool. As I have read prowebmasters I can see other people not very satisfied with Godaddy service. Thanks! edit: Thanks for the answers, they were all very informative.

  Read the article

• .NET 2.0 Configuration and Provider Model

  Use .NET 2.0 configuration features for building a pluggable provider framework for your application.

  Read the article

• How to Pick the Right Web Host Provider

  This buyers' guide provides everything you need to know to choose the right Web host provider for your small business ecommerce site.

  Read the article

• How to Pick the Right Web Host Provider

  This buyers' guide provides everything you need to know to choose the right Web host provider for your small business ecommerce site.

  Read the article

• Membership Provider and Role Manager

  This article will explain you how to work with Membership Provider and Role Manager in ASP.Net web application deeply.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to persist two profiles with the Profile Provider Model?

  - by NickGPS

  I have a website that needs to store two sets of user data into separate data stores. The first set of data is used by the SiteCore CMS and holds information about the user. The second set of data is used by a personalisation application that stores its own user data. The reason they aren't stored together in the same profile object is because the personalisation application is used across multiple websites that do not all use SiteCore. I am able to create multiple Profile Providers - I currently have one from SiteCore and a custom provider that I have written and these both work in isolation. The problem exists when you try to configure both in the same web.config file. It seems you can only specify a single Profile object in the web.config file, rather than one for each provider. This means that regardless of which provider is being used the .Net framework sends through the profile object that is specified in the "inherits" parameter in the profile section of the web.config file. My questions are - Is it possible to specify a different Profile object for each Profile Provider? If so, how and where is this specified? Thanks, Nick

  Read the article

• Should we develop a custom membership provider in this case?

  - by Allen

  I'll be adding a bounty to this, probably 200, more if you guys think its appropriate. I wont accept an answer until I can add a bounty so feel free to go ahead and answer now Summary Long story short, we've been tasked with gutting the authentication and authorization parts of a fairly old and bloated asp.net application that previously had all of these components written from scratch. Since our application isn't a typical one, and none of us have experience in asp.net's built in membership provider stuff, we're not sure if we should roll our own authentication and authorization again or if we should try to work within the asp.net membership provider mindset and develop our own membership provider. Our Application We have a fairly old asp.net application that gets installed at customer locations to service clients on a LAN. Admins create users (users do not sign up) and depending on the install, we may have the software integrated with LDAP. Currently, the LDAP integration bulk-imports the users to our database and when they login, it authenticates against LDAP so we dont have to manage their passwords. Nothing amazing there. Admins can assign users to 1 group and they can change the authorization of that group to manage access to various parts of the software. Groups are maintained by Admins (web based UI) and as said earlier, granted / denied permissions to certain functionality within the application. All this was completely written from the ground up without using any of the built in .net authorization or authentication. We literally have IsLoggedIn() methods that check for login and redirect to our login page if they aren't. Our Rewrite We've been tasked to integrate more tightly with LDAP, they want us to tie groups in our application to groups (or whatever types of containers that LDAP uses) in LDAP so that when a customer opt's to use our LDAP integration, they dont have to manage their users in LDAP AND in our application. The new way, they will simply create users in LDAP, add them to Groups in LDAP and our application will see that they belong to the appropriate LDAP group and authenticate and authorize them. In addition, we've been granted the go ahead to completely rip out the User authentication and authorization code and completely re-do it. Our Problem The problem is that none of us have any experience with asp.net membership provider functionality. The little bit of exposure I have to it makes me worry that it was not intended to be used for an application such as ours. Though, developing our own ASP.NET Membership Provider and Role Manager sounds like it would be a great experience and most likely the appropriate thing to do. Basically, I'm looking for advice, should we be using the ASP.NET Membership provider & Role Management API or should we continue to roll our own? I know this decision will be influenced by our requirements so I'm going over them below Our Requirements Just a quick n dirty list Maintain the ability to have a db of users and authenticate them and give admins (only, not users) the ability to CRUD users Allow the site to integrate with LDAP, when this is chosen, they don't want any users stored in the DB, only the relationship between Groups as they exist in our app / db and the Groups/Containers as they exist in LDAP. .net 3.5 is being used (mix of asp.net webforms and asp.net mvc) Has to work in ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC (shouldn't be a problem I'm guessing) This can't be user centric, administrators need to be the only ones that CRUD (or import via ldap) users and groups We have to be able to Auth via LDAP when its configured to do so I always try to monitor my questions closely so feel free to ask for more info. Also, as a general summary of what I'm looking for in an answer is just. "You should/shouldn't use xyz, here's why". Links regarding asp.net membership provider and role management stuff are very welcome, most of the stuff I'm finding is 5+ years old. Edit: Added some stuff to "Our Rewrite"

  Read the article

• Increase Security by Enabling Two-Factor Authentication on Your Google Account

  - by Jason Fitzpatrick

  You can easily increase the security of your Google account by enabling two-factor authentication; flip it on today for a free security boost. It’s not a new feature but it’s a feature worth giving a second look. Watch the above video for a quick overview of Google’s two-factor authentication system. Essentially your mobile phone becomes the second authentication tool–you use your password + a code sent to your phone to log into your account. It’s a great way to easily increase the security of your Google account, it’s free, and you can set it so that you only have to validate your home computer once every 30 days. Google Two-Step Verification [via Google+] HTG Explains: When Do You Need to Update Your Drivers? How to Make the Kindle Fire Silk Browser *Actually* Fast! Amazon’s New Kindle Fire Tablet: the How-To Geek Review

  Read the article

• How to connect to Windows Server 2008 Remote Desktop with Network Level Authentication Required

  - by Lobo

  I have an Ubuntu 11.10 and I want to connect via remote desktop to a Windows Server 2008 R2. In the properties of remote desktop connection to Windows Server 2008, is set to "safer". Specifically, the selected option is "Allow connections only from computers running Remote Desktop with Network Level Authentication." In my Ubuntu, I used Remmina to connect to Windows Server 2008. Remmina can not connect to a Windows Server 2008 with the option "Network Level Authentication" (shown in the previous paragraph). The error message I Remmina returns is as follows: "Disable the connection to the server RPD: IPWINDOWSSERVER2008" How or what program I can connect by remote desktop to a Windows Server 2008 you have selected the option "Network Level Authentication"? Thanks for the help, Greetings! PD: Excuse for my English.

  Read the article

• Using both domain users and local users for Squid authentication?

  - by Massimo

  I'm working on a Squid proxy which needs to authenticate users against an Active Directory domain; this works fine, Samba was correctly set up and Squid authenticates users via ntlm_auth. Relevant lines in squid.conf: auth_param ntlm program /usr/bin/ntlm_auth --helper-protocol=squid-2.5-ntlmssp auth_param ntlm children 5 auth_param ntlm keep_alive on acl Authenticated proxy_auth REQUIRED http_access allow Authenticated http_access deny all Now, I need a way to allow access to users which don't have a domain account. I know I could create an "internet user" account in the domain, but this would allow access, although limited, to domain resources (file shares, etc.); I need something that will allow only Internet access. The ideal solution would be using a local account on the proxy server, either a Linux account or a Squid one; I know Squid supports this, but I'm unable to have it use both domain authentication and Squid/local authentication if domain auth is unsuccesful. Can this be done? How?

  Read the article

• How do I disable Windows authentication on a SQL Server instance?

  - by leonita

  How do I disable Windows authentication on a SQL Server instance?

  Read the article

• Need Users to Re-authenticate with NTLM

  - by Trey Carroll

  I'm NTLM (authenication="windows" in the web.config) with an asp.net mvc 2.0 site. Right now once a user logs in it keeps them logged in for weeks at a time. The use of the application is being opened up to users who share computers that use logged in service accounts. I need the site to reprompt each user for their AD credentials each time in order to handle these users. (Activity on the site must be linked to a uniquely identified user.) Thanks for any help that you can provide. Trey Carroll

  Read the article

• How do you prevent brute force attacks on RESTful data services

  - by Adrian Grigore

  Hi, I'm about to implement an RESTful API to our website (based on WCF data services, but that probably does not matter). All data offered via this API belongs to certain users of my server, so I need to make sure only those users have access to my resources. For this reason, all requests have to be performed with a login/password combination as part of the request. What's the recommended approach for preventing brute force attacks in this scenario? I was thinking of logging failed requests denied due to wrong credentials and ignoring requests originating from the same IP after a certain threshold of failed requests has been exceeded. Is this the standard approach, or am I a missing something important? Thanks, Adrian

  Read the article

• IsAuthenticated is false! weird behaviour + review question

  - by Naor

  This is the login function (after I validate user name and password, I load user data into "user" variable and call Login function: public static void Login(IUser user) { HttpResponse Response = HttpContext.Current.Response; HttpRequest Request = HttpContext.Current.Request; FormsAuthenticationTicket ticket = new FormsAuthenticationTicket(1, user.UserId.ToString(), DateTime.Now, DateTime.Now.AddHours(12), false, UserResolver.Serialize(user)); HttpCookie cookie = new HttpCookie(FormsAuthentication.FormsCookieName, FormsAuthentication.Encrypt(ticket)); cookie.Path = FormsAuthentication.FormsCookiePath; Response.Cookies.Add(cookie); string redirectUrl = user.HomePage; Response.Redirect(redirectUrl, true); } UserResolver is the following class: public class UserResolver { public static IUser Current { get { IUser user = null; if (HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated) { FormsIdentity id = (FormsIdentity)HttpContext.Current.User.Identity; FormsAuthenticationTicket ticket = id.Ticket; user = Desrialize(ticket.UserData); } return user; } } public static string Serialize(IUser user) { StringBuilder data = new StringBuilder(); StringWriter w = new StringWriter(data); string type = user.GetType().ToString(); //w.Write(type.Length); w.WriteLine(user.GetType().ToString()); StringBuilder userData = new StringBuilder(); XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(user.GetType()); serializer.Serialize(new StringWriter(userData), user); w.Write(userData.ToString()); w.Close(); return data.ToString(); } public static IUser Desrialize(string data) { StringReader r = new StringReader(data); string typeStr = r.ReadLine(); Type type=Type.GetType(typeStr); string userData = r.ReadToEnd(); XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(type); return (IUser)serializer.Deserialize(new StringReader(userData)); } } And the global.asax implements the following: void Application_PostAuthenticateRequest(Object sender, EventArgs e) { IPrincipal p = HttpContext.Current.User; if (p.Identity.IsAuthenticated) { IUser user = UserResolver.Current; Role[] roles = user.GetUserRoles(); HttpContext.Current.User = Thread.CurrentPrincipal = new GenericPrincipal(p.Identity, Role.ToString(roles)); } } First question: Am I do it right? Second question - weird thing! The user variable I pass to Login has 4 members: UserName, Password, Name, Id. When UserResolver.Current executed, I got the user instance. I descided to change the user structure - I add an array of Warehouse object. Since that time, when UserResolver.Current executed (after Login), HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated was false and I couldn't get the user data. When I removed the Warehouse[] from user structure, it starts to be ok again and HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated become true after I Login. What is the reason to this weird behaviour?

  Read the article

• Ruby ways to authenticate using headers?

  - by webdestroya

  I am designing an API system in Ruby-on-Rails, and I want to be able to log queries and authenticate users. However, I do not have a traditional login system, I want to use an APIkey and a signature that users can submit in the HTTP headers in the request. (Similar to how Amazon's services work) Instead of requesting /users/12345/photos/create I want to be able to request /photos/create and submit a header that says X-APIKey: 12345 and then validate the request with a signature. Are there any gems that can be adapted to do that? Or better yet, any gems that do this without adaptation? Or do you feel that it would be wiser to just have them send the API key in each request using the POST/GET vars?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >