Search Results

Search found 65 results on 3 pages for 'applicationhost'.

Page 3/3 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 

  • F# in ASP.NET, mathematics and testing

    - by DigiMortal
    Starting from Visual Studio 2010 F# is full member of .NET Framework languages family. It is functional language with syntax specific to functional languages but I think it is time for us also notice and study functional languages. In this posting I will show you some examples about cool things other people have done using F#. F# and ASP.NET As I am ASP/ASP.NET MVP I am – of course – interested in how people use different languages and technologies with ASP.NET. C# MVP Tomáš Petrícek writes about developing ASP.NET MVC applications using F#. He also shows how to use LINQ To SQL in F# (using F# PowerPack) and provides sample solution and Visual Studio 2010 template for F# MVC web applications. You may also find interesting how you can create controllers in F#. Excellent work, Tomáš! Vladimir Matveev has interesting example about how to use F# and ApplicationHost class to process ASP.NET requests ouside of IIS. This is simple and very straight-forward example and I strongly suggest you to take a look at it. Very cool example is project Strom in Codeplex. Storm is web services testing tool that is fully written on F#. Take a look at this site because Codeplex offers also source code besides binaries. Math Functional languages are strong in fields like mathematics and physics. When I wrote my C# example about BigInteger class I found out that recursive version of Fibonacci algorithm in C# is not performing well. In same time I made same experiment on F# and in F# there were no performance problems with recursive version. You can find F# version of Fibonacci algorithm from Bob Palmer’s blog posting Fibonacci numbers in F#. Although golden spiral is useful for solving many problems I looked for some practical code example and found one. Kean Walmsley published in his Through the Interface blog very interesting posting Creating Fibonacci spirals in AutoCAD using F#. There are also other cool examples you may be interested in. Using numerical components by Extreme Optimization  it is possible to make some numerical integration (quadrature method) using F# (also C# example is available). fsharp.it introduces factorials calculation on F#. Robert Pickering has made very good work on programming The Game of Life in Silverlight and F# – I definitely suggest you to try out this example as it is very illustrative too. Who wants something more complex may take a look at Newton basin fractal example in F# by Jonathan Birge. Testing After some searching and surfing I found out that there is almost everything available for F# to write tests and test your F# code. FsCheck - FsCheck is a port of Haskell's QuickCheck. Important parts of the manual for using FsCheck is almost literally "adapted" from the QuickCheck manual and paper. Any errors and omissions are entirely my responsibility. FsTest - This project is designed to Language Oriented Programming constructs around unit testing and behavior testing in F#. The goal of this project is to create a Domain Specific Language for testing F# code in a way that makes sense for functional programming. FsUnit - FsUnit makes unit-testing with F# more enjoyable. It adds a special syntax to your favorite .NET testing framework. xUnit.NET - xUnit.net is a developer testing framework, built to support Test Driven Development, with a design goal of extreme simplicity and alignment with framework features. It is compatible with .NET Framework 2.0 and later, and offers several runners: console, GUI, MSBuild, and Visual Studio integration via TestDriven.net, CodeRush Test Runner and Resharper. It also offers test project integration for ASP.NET MVC. Getting started Well, as a first thing you need Visual Studio 2010. Then take a look at these resources: F# samples @ MSDN Microsoft F# Developer Center @ MSDN F# Language Reference @ MSDN F# blog F# forums Real World Functional Programming: With Examples in F# and C# (Amazon) Happy F#-ing! :)

    Read the article

  • Removing HttpModule for specific path in ASP.NET / IIS 7 application?

    - by soccerdad
    Most succinctly, my question is whether an ASP.NET 4.0 app running under IIS 7 integrated mode should be able to honor this portion of my Web.config file: <location path="auth/windows"> <system.webServer> <modules> <remove name="FormsAuthentication"/> </modules> </system.webServer> </location> I'm experimenting with mixed mode authentication (Windows and Forms - I know there are other questions on S.O. about the topic). Using IIS Manager, I've disabled Anonymous authentication to auth/windows/winauth.aspx, which is within the location path above. I have Failed Request Tracing set up to trace various HTTP status codes, including 302s. When I request the winauth.aspx page, a 302 HTTP status code is returned. If I look at the request trace, I can see that a 401 (unauthorized) was originally generated by the AnonymousAuthenticationModule. However, the FormsAuthenticationModule converts that to a 302, which is what the browser sees. So it seems as though my attempt to remove that module from the pipeline for pages in that path isn't working. But I'm not seeing any complaints anywhere (event viewer, yellow pages of death, etc.) that would indicate it's an invalid configuration. I want the 401 returned to the browser, which presumably would include an appropriate WWW-Authenticate header. A couple of other points: a) I do have <authentication mode="Forms"> in my Web.config, and that is what the 302 redirects to; b) I got the "name" of the module I'm trying to remove from the inetserv\config\applicationHost.config file. Anyone had any luck removing modules in this fashion? Thanks much, Donnie

    Read the article

  • Enabling Http caching and compression in IIS 7 for asp.net websites

    - by anil.kasalanati
    Caching – There are 2 ways to set Http caching 1-      Use Max age property 2-      Expires header. Doing the changes via IIS Console – 1.       Select the website for which you want to enable caching and then select Http Responses in the features tab       2.       Select the Expires webcontent and on changing the After setting you can generate the max age property for the cache control    3.       Following is the screenshot of the headers   Then you can use some tool like fiddler and see 302 response coming from the server. Doing it web.config way – We can add static content section in the system.webserver section <system.webServer>   <staticContent>             <clientCache cacheControlMode="UseMaxAge" cacheControlMaxAge="365.00:00:00" />   </staticContent> Compression - By default static compression is enabled on IIS 7.0 but the only thing which falls under that category is CSS but this is not enough for most of the websites using lots of javascript.  If you just thought by enabling dynamic compression would fix this then you are wrong so please follow following steps –   In some machines the dynamic compression is not enabled and following are the steps to enable it – Open server manager Roles > Web Server (IIS) Role Services (scroll down) > Add Role Services Add desired role (Web Server > Performance > Dynamic Content Compression) Next, Install, Wait…Done!   ?  Roles > Web Server (IIS) ?  Role Services (scroll down) > Add Role Services     Add desired role (Web Server > Performance > Dynamic Content Compression)     Next, Install, Wait…Done!     Enable  - ?  Open server manager ?  Roles > Web Server (IIS) > Internet Information Services (IIS) Manager   Next pane: Sites > Default Web Site > Your Web Site Main pane: IIS > Compression         Then comes the custom configuration for encrypting javascript resources. The problem is that the compression in IIS 7 completely works on the mime types and by default there is a mismatch in the mime types Go to following location C:\Windows\System32\inetsrv\config Open applicationHost.config The mimemap is as follows  <mimeMap fileExtension=".js" mimeType="application/javascript" />   So the section in the staticTypes should be changed          <add mimeType="application/javascript" enabled="true" />     Doing the web.config way –   We can add following section in the system.webserver section <system.webServer> <urlCompression doDynamicCompression="false"  doStaticCompression="true"/> More Information/References – ·         http://weblogs.asp.net/owscott/archive/2009/02/22/iis-7-compression-good-bad-how-much.aspx ·         http://www.west-wind.com/weblog/posts/98538.aspx  

    Read the article

  • GZip compression with WCF hosted on IIS7

    - by joniba
    So I'm going to add my query to the small ocean of questions on the subject. I'm trying to enable GZip compression on large soap responses from a WCF service. So far, I've followed instructions here and in a variety of other places to enable dynamic compression on IIS. Here's my dynamicTypes section from the applicationHost.config: <dynamicTypes> <add mimeType="text/*" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="message/*" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/x-javascript" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/atom+xml" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/xaml+xml" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/xop+xml" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="application/soap+xml" enabled="true" /> <add mimeType="*/*" enabled="false" /> </dynamicTypes> And also: <urlCompression doDynamicCompression="true" dynamicCompressionBeforeCache="true" /> Though I'm not so clear on why that's needed. Threw some extra mime-types in there just in case. I've implemented IClientMessageInspector to add Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate to my client's HttpRequests. Here's an example of a request-header taken from fiddler: POST http://[omitted]/TestMtomService/TextService.svc HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Host: [omitted] Content-Length: 542 Expect: 100-continue Now, this doesn't work. There's simply no compression happening, no matter what the size of the message (tried up to 1.5Mb). I've looked at this post, but have not run into an exception as he describes, so I haven't tried the CodeProject implementation that he proposes. Also I've seen a lot of other implementations that are supposed to get this to work, but cannot make sense of them (e.g., msdn's GZip encoder). Why would I need to implement the encoder, or the code-project solution? Shouldn't IIS take care of the compression? So what else do I need to do to get this to work? Joni

    Read the article

  • IIS7 web farm - local or shared content?

    - by rbeier
    We're setting up an IIS7 web farm with two servers. Should each server have its own local copy of the content, or should they pull content directly from a UNC share? What are the pros and cons of each approach? We currently have a single live server WEB1, with content stored locally on a separate partition. A job periodically syncs WEB1 to a standby server WEB2, using robocopy for content and msdeploy for config. If WEB1 goes down, Nagios notifies us, and we manually run a script to move the IP addresses to WEB2's network interface. Both servers are actually VMs running on separate VMWare ESX 4 hosts. The servers are domain-joined. We have around 50-60 live sites on WEB1 - mostly ASP.NET, with a few that are just static HTML. Most are low-traffic "microsites". A few have moderate traffic, but none are massive. We'd like to change this so both WEB1 and WEB2 are actively serving content. This is mainly for reliability - if WEB1 goes down, we don't want to have to manually intervene to fail things over. Spreading the load is also nice, but the load is not high enough right now for us to need this. We're planning to configure our firewall to balance traffic across the two servers. It will detect when a server goes down and will send all the traffic to the remaining live server. We're planning to use sticky sessions for now... eventually we may move to SQL Server session state and stateless load balancing. But we need a way for the servers to share content. We were originally planning to move all the content to a UNC share. Our storage provider says they can set up a highly available SMB share for us. So if we go the UNC route, the storage shouldn't be a single point of failure. But we're wondering about the downsides to this approach: We'll need to change the physical paths for each site and virtual directory. There are also some projects that have absolute paths in their web.config files - we'll have to update those as well. We'll need to create a domain user for the web servers to access the share, and grant that user appropriate permissions. I haven't looked into this yet - I'm not sure if the application pool identity needs to be changed to this user, or if there's another way to tell IIS to use this account when connecting to the share. Sites will no longer be able to access their content if there's ever an Active Directory problem. In general, it just seems a lot more complicated, with more moving parts that could break. Our storage provider would create a volume for us on their redundant SAN. If I understand correctly, this SAN volume would be mounted on a VM running in their redundant VMWare environment; this VM would then expose the SMB share to our web servers. On the other hand, a benefit of the shared content approach is that we'd only need to deploy code to one place, and there would never be a temporary inconsistency between multiple copies of the content. This thread is pretty interesting, though some of these people are working at a much larger scale. I've just been discussing content so far, but we also need to think about configuration. I don't know if we can just use DFS replication for the applicationHost.config and other files, or if it's best to use the shared configuration feature with the config on a UNC share. What do you think? Thanks for your help, Richard

    Read the article

  • How do I manipulate Handler Mappings cleanly in IIS7 using the Microsoft.Web.Administration namespac

    - by Kev
    I asked this over on Stack Overflow but maybe it's something an experienced IIS 7 administrator might know more about, so I'm asking here as well. When manipulating Handler Mappings using the Microsoft.Web.Administration namespace, is there a way to remove the <remove name="handler name"> tag added at the site level. For example, I have a site which inherits all the handler mappings from the global handler mappings configuration. In applicationHost.config the <location> tag initially looks like this: <location path="60030 - testsite-60030.com"> <system.webServer> <security> <authentication> <anonymousAuthentication userName="" /> </authentication> </security> </system.webServer> </location> To remove a handler I use code similar this: string siteName = "60030 - testsite-60030.com"; string handlerToRemove = "ASPClassic"; using(ServerManager sm = new ServerManager()) { Configuration siteConfig = serverManager.GetApplicationHostConfiguration(); ConfigurationSection handlersSection = siteConfig.GetSection("system.webServer/handlers", siteName); ConfigurationElementCollection handlersCollection = handlersSection.GetCollection(); ConfigurationElement handlerElement = handlersCollection .Where(h => h["name"].Equals(handlerMapping.Name)).Single(); handlersCollection.Remove(handlerElement); } The equivalent APPCMD instruction would be: appcmd set config "60030 - autotest-60030.com" -section:system.webServer/handlers /-[name='ASPClassic'] /commit:apphost This results in the site's <location> tag looking like: <location path="60030 - testsite-60030.com"> <system.webServer> <security> <authentication> <anonymousAuthentication userName="" /> </authentication> </security> <handlers> <remove name="ASPClassic" /> </handlers> </system.webServer> </location> So far so good. However if I re-add the ASPClassic handler this results in: <location path="60030 - testsite-60030.com"> <system.webServer> <security> <authentication> <anonymousAuthentication userName="" /> </authentication> </security> <handlers> <!-- Why doesn't <remove> get removed instead of tacking on an <add> directive? --> <remove name="ASPClassic" /> <add name="ASPClassic" path="*.asp" verb="GET,HEAD,POST" modules="IsapiModule" scriptProcessor="%windir%\system32\inetsrv\asp.dll" resourceType="File" /> </handlers> </system.webServer> </location> This happens when using both the Microsoft.Web.Administration namespace and C# or using the following APPCMD command: appcmd set config "60030 - autotest-60030.com" -section:system.webServer/handlers /+[name='ASPClassic',path='*.asp',verb=;'GET,HEAD,POST',modules='IsapiModule',scriptProcessor='%windir%\system32\inetsrv\asp.dll',resourceType='File'] /commit:apphost This can result in a lot of cruft over time for each website that's had a handler removed then re-added programmatically. Is there a way to just remove the <remove name="ASPClassic" /> tag using the Microsoft.Web.Administration namespace code or APPCMD?

    Read the article

  • mod_mono 'Service Temporarily Unavailable' issue

    - by Charlie Somerville
    I've deployed an ASP.NET web application on a Linux (Debian) server running Apache 2.2 and mod_mono 1.9 It's working well, however Mono occasionally segfaults and uses the entire CPU which causes the website to stop working and display 'Service Temporarily Unavailable' Killing mono fixes it, but obviously this isn't a good solution. I tailed the system log after this happened and I saw the following error messages from the kernel: Apr 20 01:49:37 charliesomerville kernel: [1596436.204158] mono[17909]: segfault at b645f671 ip b645f671 sp b4ffb604 error 4<6>mono[19047]: segfault at b645f66e ip b645f66e sp b4bf7604 error 4<6>mono[18017]: segfault at b645f66e ip b645f66e sp b52fe604 error 4<6>mono[19668]: segfault at b645f5e6 ip b645f5e6 sp b48f4604 error 4<6>mono[22565]: segfault at b645f674 ip b645f674 sp b45f1604 error 4<6>mono[17700]: segfault at b645f661 ip b645f661 sp b51fd604 error 4<6>mono[19596]: segfault at b645f5e6 ip b645f5e6 sp b49f5604 error 4 Apr 20 01:49:37 charliesomerville kernel: [1596436.208172] mono[23219]: segfault at b645f66e ip b645f66e sp b44f0604 error 4 At the end of Apache's error.log are the following errors: [Tue Apr 20 03:10:23 2010] [error] (70014)End of file found: read_data failed [Tue Apr 20 03:10:23 2010] [error] Command stream corrupted, last command was 1 [Tue Apr 20 03:10:23 2010] [error] Command stream corrupted, last command was 1 [Tue Apr 20 03:10:23 2010] [error] Command stream corrupted, last command was 1 System.ArgumentNullException: null key Parameter name: key at System.Collections.Hashtable.get_Item (System.Object key) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationCallbacks.GetSerializationCallbacks (System.Type t) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.ObjectManager.RaiseOnDeserializingEvent (System.Object obj) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.ObjectReader.ReadObjectContent (System.IO.BinaryReader reader, System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.TypeMetadata metadata, Int64 objectId, System.Object& objectInstance, System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationInfo& info) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.ObjectReader.ReadObjectInstance (System.IO.BinaryReader reader, Boolean isRuntimeObject, Boolean hasTypeInfo, System.Int64& objectId, System.Object& value, System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationInfo& info) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.ObjectReader.ReadObject (BinaryElement element, System.IO.BinaryReader reader, System.Int64& objectId, System.Object& value, System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationInfo& info) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.ObjectReader.ReadNextObject (System.IO.BinaryReader reader) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.ObjectReader.ReadObjectGraph (System.IO.BinaryReader reader, Boolean readHeaders, System.Object& result, System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.Header[]& headers) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.BinaryFormatter.NoCheckDeserialize (System.IO.Stream serializationStream, System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.HeaderHandler handler) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.BinaryFormatter.Deserialize (System.IO.Stream serializationStream) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.CADSerializer.DeserializeObject (System.IO.MemoryStream mem) [0x00000] at System.Runtime.Remoting.RemotingServices.GetDomainProxy (System.AppDomain domain) [0x00000] at System.AppDomain.CreateDomain (System.String friendlyName, System.Security.Policy.Evidence securityInfo, System.AppDomainSetup info) [0x00000] at System.Web.Hosting.ApplicationHost.CreateApplicationHost (System.Type hostType, System.String virtualDir, System.String physicalDir) [0x00000] at Mono.WebServer.VPathToHost.CreateHost (Mono.WebServer.ApplicationServer server, Mono.WebServer.WebSource webSource) [0x00000] at Mono.WebServer.ApplicationServer.GetApplicationForPath (System.String vhost, Int32 port, System.String path, Boolean defaultToRoot) [0x00000] at (wrapper remoting-invoke-with-check) Mono.WebServer.ApplicationServer:GetApplicationForPath (string,int,string,bool) at Mono.WebServer.ModMonoWorker.GetOrCreateApplication (System.String vhost, Int32 port, System.String filepath, System.String virt) [0x00000] at Mono.WebServer.ModMonoWorker.InnerRun (System.Object state) [0x00000] at Mono.WebServer.ModMonoWorker.Run (System.Object state) [0x00000] [Tue Apr 20 03:10:26 2010] [error] (70014)End of file found: read_data failed [Tue Apr 20 03:10:26 2010] [error] Command stream corrupted, last command was -1 Along with the above errors, Apache's error.log is packed with hundreds (if not thousands) of the following error: Maximum number (20) of concurrent mod_mono requests to /tmp/mod_mono_dashboard_default_2.lock reached. Droping request. At the moment, I'm thinking there might be something wrong with configuration here (it's basically running on out-of-the-box config)

    Read the article

  • VS 2010 SP1 (Beta) and IIS Express

    - by ScottGu
    Last month we released the VS 2010 Service Pack 1 (SP1) Beta.  You can learn more about the VS 2010 SP1 Beta from Jason Zander’s two blog posts about it, and from Scott Hanselman’s blog post that covers some of the new capabilities enabled with it.  You can download and install the VS 2010 SP1 Beta here. IIS Express Earlier this summer I blogged about IIS Express.  IIS Express is a free version of IIS 7.5 that is optimized for developer scenarios.  We think it combines the ease of use of the ASP.NET Web Server (aka Cassini) currently built-into VS today with the full power of IIS.  Specifically: It’s lightweight and easy to install (less than 5Mb download and a quick install) It does not require an administrator account to run/debug applications from Visual Studio It enables a full web-server feature set – including SSL, URL Rewrite, and other IIS 7.x modules It supports and enables the same extensibility model and web.config file settings that IIS 7.x support It can be installed side-by-side with the full IIS web server as well as the ASP.NET Development Server (they do not conflict at all) It works on Windows XP and higher operating systems – giving you a full IIS 7.x developer feature-set on all Windows OS platforms IIS Express (like the ASP.NET Development Server) can be quickly launched to run a site from a directory on disk.  It does not require any registration/configuration steps. This makes it really easy to launch and run for development scenarios. Visual Studio 2010 SP1 adds support for IIS Express – and you can start to take advantage of this starting with last month’s VS 2010 SP1 Beta release. Downloading and Installing IIS Express IIS Express isn’t included as part of the VS 2010 SP1 Beta.  Instead it is a separate ~4MB download which you can download and install using this link (it uses WebPI to install it).  Once IIS Express is installed, VS 2010 SP1 will enable some additional IIS Express commands and dialog options that allow you to easily use it. Enabling IIS Express for Existing Projects Visual Studio today defaults to using the built-in ASP.NET Development Server (aka Cassini) when running ASP.NET Projects: Converting your existing projects to use IIS Express is really easy.  You can do this by opening up the project properties dialog of an existing project, and then by clicking the “web” tab within it and selecting the “Use IIS Express” checkbox. Or even simpler, just right-click on your existing project, and select the “Use IIS Express…” menu command: And now when you run or debug your project you’ll see that IIS Express now starts up and runs automatically as your web-server: You can optionally right-click on the IIS Express icon within your system tray to see/browse all of sites and applications running on it: Note that if you ever want to revert back to using the ASP.NET Development Server you can do this by right-clicking the project again and then select the “Use Visual Studio Development Server” option (or go into the project properties, click the web tab, and uncheck IIS Express).  This will revert back to the ASP.NET Development Server the next time you run the project. IIS Express Properties Visual Studio 2010 SP1 exposes several new IIS Express configuration options that you couldn’t previously set with the ASP.NET Development Server.  Some of these are exposed via the property grid of your project (select the project node in the solution explorer and then change them via the property window): For example, enabling something like SSL support (which is not possible with the ASP.NET Development Server) can now be done simply by changing the “SSL Enabled” property to “True”: Once this is done IIS Express will expose both an HTTP and HTTPS endpoint for the project that we can use: SSL Self Signed Certs IIS Express ships with a self-signed SSL cert that it installs as part of setup – which removes the need for you to install your own certificate to use SSL during development.  Once you change the above drop-down to enable SSL, you’ll be able to browse to your site with the appropriate https:// URL prefix and it will connect via SSL. One caveat with self-signed certificates, though, is that browsers (like IE) will go out of their way to warn you that they aren’t to be trusted: You can mark the certificate as trusted to avoid seeing dialogs like this – or just keep the certificate un-trusted and press the “continue” button when the browser warns you not to trust your local web server. Additional IIS Settings IIS Express uses its own per-user ApplicationHost.config file to configure default server behavior.  Because it is per-user, it can be configured by developers who do not have admin credentials – unlike the full IIS.  You can customize all IIS features and settings via it if you want ultimate server customization (for example: to use your own certificates for SSL instead of self-signed ones). We recommend storing all app specific settings for IIS and ASP.NET within the web.config file which is part of your project – since that makes deploying apps easier (since the settings can be copied with the application content).  IIS (since IIS 7) no longer uses the metabase, and instead uses the same web.config configuration files that ASP.NET has always supported – which makes xcopy/ftp based deployment much easier. Making IIS Express your Default Web Server Above we looked at how we can convert existing sites that use the ASP.NET Developer Web Server to instead use IIS Express.  You can configure Visual Studio to use IIS Express as the default web server for all new projects by clicking the Tools->Options menu  command and opening up the Projects and Solutions->Web Projects node with the Options dialog: Clicking the “Use IIS Express for new file-based web site and projects” checkbox will cause Visual Studio to use it for all new web site and projects. Summary We think IIS Express makes it even easier to build, run and test web applications.  It works with all versions of ASP.NET and supports all ASP.NET application types (including obviously both ASP.NET Web Forms and ASP.NET MVC applications).  Because IIS Express is based on the IIS 7.5 codebase, you have a full web-server feature-set that you can use.  This means you can build and run your applications just like they’ll work on a real production web-server.  In addition to supporting ASP.NET, IIS Express also supports Classic ASP and other file-types and extensions supported by IIS – which also makes it ideal for sites that combine a variety of different technologies. Best of all – you do not need to change any code to take advantage of it.  As you can see above, updating existing Visual Studio web projects to use it is trivial.  You can begin to take advantage of IIS Express today using the VS 2010 SP1 Beta. Hope this helps, Scott

    Read the article

  • IIS7 FTP Setup - An error occured during the authentication process. 530 End Login failed

    - by robmzd
    I'm having a problem very similar to IIS 7.5 FTP IIS Manager Users Login Fail (530) on Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard. I have created an FTP site and IIS Manager user but am having trouble logging in. I could really do with getting this working with the IIS Manager user rather than by creating a new system user since I'm fairly restricted with those accounts. Here is the output when connecting locally through command prompt: C:\Windows\system32>ftp localhost Connected to MYSERVER. 220 Microsoft FTP Service User (MYSERVER:(none)): MyFtpLogin 331 Password required for MyFtpLogin. Password: *** 530-User cannot log in. Win32 error: Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password. Error details: An error occured during the authentication process. 530 End Login failed. I have followed the guide to configure ftp with iis manager authentication in iis 7 and Adding FTP Publishing to a Web Site in IIS 7 Things I have done and checked: The FTP Service is installed (along with FTP Extensibility). Local Service and Network Service have been given access to the site folder Permission has been given to the config files Granted read/write permissions to the FTP Root folder The Management Service is installed and running Enable remote connections is ticked with 'Windows credentials or IIS manager credentials' selected The IIS Manager User has been added to the server (root connection in the IIS connections branch) The new FTP site has been added IIS Manager Authentication has been added to the FTP authentication providers The IIS Manager user has been added to the IIS Manager Permissions list for the site Added Read/Write permissions for the user in the FTP Authorization Rules Here's a section of the applicationHost config file associated with the FTP site <site name="MySite" id="8"> <application path="/" applicationPool="MyAppPool"> <virtualDirectory path="/" physicalPath="D:\Websites\MySite" /> </application> <bindings> <binding protocol="http" bindingInformation="*:80:www.mydomain.co.uk" /> <binding protocol="ftp" bindingInformation="*:21:www.mydomain.co.uk" /> </bindings> <ftpServer> <security> <ssl controlChannelPolicy="SslAllow" dataChannelPolicy="SslAllow" /> <authentication> <basicAuthentication enabled="true" /> <customAuthentication> <providers> <add name="IisManagerAuth" enabled="true" /> </providers> </customAuthentication> </authentication> </security> </ftpServer> </site> ... <location path="MySite"> <system.ftpServer> <security> <authorization> <add accessType="Allow" users="MyFtpLogin" permissions="Read, Write" /> </authorization> </security> </system.ftpServer> </location> If I connect to the Site (not FTP) from my local IIS Manager using the same IIS Manager account details then it connects fine, I can browse files and change settings as I would locally (though I don't seem to have an option to upload files). Trying to connect via FTP though either through the browser or FileZilla etc... gives me: Status: Resolving address of www.mydomain.co.uk Status: Connecting to 123.456.12.123:21... Status: Connection established, waiting for welcome message... Response: 220 Microsoft FTP Service Command: USER MyFtpLogin Response: 331 Password required for MyFtpLogin. Command: PASS ********* Response: 530 User cannot log in. Error: Critical error Error: Could not connect to server I have tried collecting etw traces for ftp sessions, in the logs I get a FailBasicLogon followed by a FailCustomLogon, but no other info: FailBasicLogon SessionId={cad26a97-225d-45ba-ab1f-f6acd9046e55} | ErrorCode=0x8007052E StartCustomLogon SessionId={cad26a97-225d-45ba-ab1f-f6acd9046e55} | LogonProvider=IisManagerAuth StartCallProvider SessionId={cad26a97-225d-45ba-ab1f-f6acd9046e55} | provider=IisManagerAuth EndCallProvider SessionId={cad26a97-225d-45ba-ab1f-f6acd9046e55} EndCustomLogon SessionId={cad26a97-225d-45ba-ab1f-f6acd9046e55} FailCustomLogon SessionId={cad26a97-225d-45ba-ab1f-f6acd9046e55} | ErrorCode=0x8007052E FailFtpCommand SessionId={cad26a97-225d-45ba-ab1f-f6acd9046e55} | ReturnValue=0x8007052E | SubStatus=ERROR_DURING_AUTHENTICATION In the normal FTP logs I just get: 2012-10-23 16:13:11 123.456.12.123 - 123.456.12.123 21 ControlChannelOpened - - 0 0 e2d4e935-fb31-4f2c-af79-78d75d47c18e - 2012-10-23 16:13:11 123.456.12.123 - 123.456.12.123 21 USER MyFtpLogin 331 0 0 e2d4e935-fb31-4f2c-af79-78d75d47c18e - 2012-10-23 16:13:11 123.456.12.123 - 123.456.12.123 21 PASS *** 530 1326 41 e2d4e935-fb31-4f2c-af79-78d75d47c18e - 2012-10-23 16:13:11 123.456.12.123 - 123.456.12.123 21 ControlChannelClosed - - 0 0 e2d4e935-fb31-4f2c-af79-78d75d47c18e - If anyone has any ideas than I would be very grateful to hear them. Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Receicing POST data in ASP.NET

    - by grast
    Hi, I want to use ASP for code generation in a C# desktop application. To achieve this, I set up a simple host (derived from System.MarshalByRefObject) that processes a System.Web.Hosting.SimpleWorkerRequest via HttpRuntime.ProcessRequest. This processes the ASPX script specified by the incoming request (using System.Net.HttpListener to wait for requests). The client-part is represented by a System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker that builds the System.Net.HttpWebRequest and receives the response from the server. A simplified version of my client-part-code looks like this: private void SendRequest(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { // create request with GET parameter var uri = "http://localhost:9876/test.aspx?getTest=321"; var request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(uri); // append POST parameter request.Method = "POST"; request.ContentType = "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"; var postData = Encoding.Default.GetBytes("postTest=654"); var postDataStream = request.GetRequestStream(); postDataStream.Write(postData, 0, postData.Length); // send request, wait for response and store/print content using (var response = (HttpWebResponse)request.GetResponse()) { using (var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.UTF8)) { _processsedContent = reader.ReadToEnd(); Debug.Print(_processsedContent); } } } My server-part-code looks like this (without exception-handling etc.): public void ProcessRequests() { // HttpListener at http://localhost:9876/ var listener = SetupListener(); // SimpleHost created by ApplicationHost.CreateApplicationHost var host = SetupHost(); while (_running) { var context = listener.GetContext(); using (var writer = new StreamWriter(context.Response.OutputStream)) { // process ASP script and send response back to client host.ProcessRequest(GetPage(context), GetQuery(context), writer); } context.Response.Close(); } } So far all this works fine as long as I just use GET parameters. But when it comes to receiving POST data in my ASPX script I run into trouble. For testing I use the following script: // GET parameters are working: var getTest = Request.QueryString["getTest"]; Response.Write("getTest: " + getTest); // prints "getTest: 321" // don't know how to access POST parameters: var postTest1 = Request.Form["postTest"]; // Request.Form is empty?! Response.Write("postTest1: " + postTest1); // so this prints "postTest1: " var postTest2 = Request.Params["postTest"]; // Request.Params is empty?! Response.Write("postTest2: " + postTest2); // so this prints "postTest2: " It seems that the System.Web.HttpRequest object I'm dealing with in ASP does not contain any information about my POST parameter "postTest". I inspected it in debug mode and none of the members did contain neither the parameter-name "postTest" nor the parameter-value "654". I also tried the BinaryRead method of Request, but unfortunately it is empty. This corresponds to Request.InputStream==null and Request.ContentLength==0. And to make things really confusing the Request.HttpMethod member is set to "GET"?! To isolate the problem I tested the code by using a PHP script instead of the ASPX script. This is very simple: print_r($_GET); // prints all GET variables print_r($_POST); // prints all POST variables And the result is: Array ( [getTest] = 321 ) Array ( [postTest] = 654 ) So with the PHP script it works, I can access the POST data. Why does the ASPX script don't? What am I doing wrong? Is there a special accessor or method in the Response object? Can anyone give a hint or even know how to solve this? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Receiving POST data in ASP.NET

    - by grast
    Hi, I want to use ASP for code generation in a C# desktop application. To achieve this, I set up a simple host (derived from System.MarshalByRefObject) that processes a System.Web.Hosting.SimpleWorkerRequest via HttpRuntime.ProcessRequest. This processes the ASPX script specified by the incoming request (using System.Net.HttpListener to wait for requests). The client-part is represented by a System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker that builds the System.Net.HttpWebRequest and receives the response from the server. A simplified version of my client-part-code looks like this: private void SendRequest(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { // create request with GET parameter var uri = "http://localhost:9876/test.aspx?getTest=321"; var request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(uri); // append POST parameter request.Method = "POST"; request.ContentType = "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"; var postData = Encoding.Default.GetBytes("postTest=654"); var postDataStream = request.GetRequestStream(); postDataStream.Write(postData, 0, postData.Length); // send request, wait for response and store/print content using (var response = (HttpWebResponse)request.GetResponse()) { using (var reader = new StreamReader(response.GetResponseStream(), Encoding.UTF8)) { _processsedContent = reader.ReadToEnd(); Debug.Print(_processsedContent); } } } My server-part-code looks like this (without exception-handling etc.): public void ProcessRequests() { // HttpListener at http://localhost:9876/ var listener = SetupListener(); // SimpleHost created by ApplicationHost.CreateApplicationHost var host = SetupHost(); while (_running) { var context = listener.GetContext(); using (var writer = new StreamWriter(context.Response.OutputStream)) { // process ASP script and send response back to client host.ProcessRequest(GetPage(context), GetQuery(context), writer); } context.Response.Close(); } } So far all this works fine as long as I just use GET parameters. But when it comes to receiving POST data in my ASPX script I run into trouble. For testing I use the following script: // GET parameters are working: var getTest = Request.QueryString["getTest"]; Response.Write("getTest: " + getTest); // prints "getTest: 321" // don't know how to access POST parameters: var postTest1 = Request.Form["postTest"]; // Request.Form is empty?! Response.Write("postTest1: " + postTest1); // so this prints "postTest1: " var postTest2 = Request.Params["postTest"]; // Request.Params is empty?! Response.Write("postTest2: " + postTest2); // so this prints "postTest2: " It seems that the System.Web.HttpRequest object I'm dealing with in ASP does not contain any information about my POST parameter "postTest". I inspected it in debug mode and none of the members did contain neither the parameter-name "postTest" nor the parameter-value "654". I also tried the BinaryRead method of Request, but unfortunately it is empty. This corresponds to Request.InputStream==null and Request.ContentLength==0. And to make things really confusing the Request.HttpMethod member is set to "GET"?! To isolate the problem I tested the code by using a PHP script instead of the ASPX script. This is very simple: print_r($_GET); // prints all GET variables print_r($_POST); // prints all POST variables And the result is: Array ( [getTest] = 321 ) Array ( [postTest] = 654 ) So with the PHP script it works, I can access the POST data. Why does the ASPX script don't? What am I doing wrong? Is there a special accessor or method in the Response object? Can anyone give a hint or even know how to solve this? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • nginx bad gateway 502 with mono fastcgi

    - by Bradley Lederholz Leatherwood
    Hello so I have been trying to get my website to run on mono (on ubuntu server) and I have followed these tutorials almost to the letter: However when my directory is not blank fastcgi logs reveal this: Notice Beginning to receive records on connection. Error Failed to process connection. Reason: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. I am not really sure what this means, and depending on what I do I can get another error that tells me the resource cannot be found: The resource cannot be found. Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. Requested URL: /Default.aspx/ Version information: Mono Runtime Version: 2.10.8 (tarball Thu Aug 16 23:46:03 UTC 2012) ASP.NET Version: 4.0.30319.1 If I should provide some more information please let me know. Edit: I am now getting a nginx gateway error. My nginx configuration file looks like this: server { listen 2194; server_name localhost; access_log $HOME/WWW/nginx.log; location / { root $HOME/WWW/dev/; index index.html index.html default.aspx Default.aspx Index.cshtml; fastcgi_index Views/Home/; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:8000; include /etc/nginx/fastcgi_params; } } Running the entire thing with xsp4 I have discovered what the "Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation." Handling exception type TargetInvocationException Message is Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. IsTerminating is set to True System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. Server stack trace: at System.Reflection.MonoCMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Reflection.MethodBase.Invoke (System.Object obj, System.Object[] parameters) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Runtime.Serialization.ObjectRecord.LoadData (System.Runtime.Serialization.ObjectManager manager, ISurrogateSelector selector, StreamingContext context) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Runtime.Serialization.ObjectManager.DoFixups () [0x00000] in :0 at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.ObjectReader.ReadNextObject (System.IO.BinaryReader reader) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.ObjectReader.ReadObjectGraph (BinaryElement elem, System.IO.BinaryReader reader, Boolean readHeaders, System.Object& result, System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.Header[]& headers) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.BinaryFormatter.NoCheckDeserialize (System.IO.Stream serializationStream, System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging.HeaderHandler handler) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Runtime.Serialization.Formatters.Binary.BinaryFormatter.Deserialize (System.IO.Stream serializationStream) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Runtime.Remoting.RemotingServices.DeserializeCallData (System.Byte[] array) [0x00000] in :0 at (wrapper xdomain-dispatch) System.AppDomain:DoCallBack (object,byte[]&,byte[]&) Exception rethrown at [0]: --- System.ArgumentException: Couldn't bind to method 'SetHostingEnvironment'. at System.Delegate.GetCandidateMethod (System.Type type, System.Type target, System.String method, BindingFlags bflags, Boolean ignoreCase, Boolean throwOnBindFailure) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Delegate.CreateDelegate (System.Type type, System.Type target, System.String method, Boolean ignoreCase, Boolean throwOnBindFailure) [0x00000] in :0 at System.Delegate.CreateDelegate (System.Type type, System.Type target, System.String method) [0x00000] in :0 at System.DelegateSerializationHolder+DelegateEntry.DeserializeDelegate (System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationInfo info) [0x00000] in :0 at System.DelegateSerializationHolder..ctor (System.Runtime.Serialization.SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext ctx) [0x00000] in :0 at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.MonoCMethod:InternalInvoke (System.Reflection.MonoCMethod,object,object[],System.Exception&) at System.Reflection.MonoCMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in :0 --- End of inner exception stack trace --- at (wrapper xdomain-invoke) System.AppDomain:DoCallBack (System.CrossAppDomainDelegate) at (wrapper remoting-invoke-with-check) System.AppDomain:DoCallBack (System.CrossAppDomainDelegate) at System.Web.Hosting.ApplicationHost.CreateApplicationHost (System.Type hostType, System.String virtualDir, System.String physicalDir) [0x00000] in :0 at Mono.WebServer.VPathToHost.CreateHost (Mono.WebServer.ApplicationServer server, Mono.WebServer.WebSource webSource) [0x00000] in :0 at Mono.WebServer.XSP.Server.RealMain (System.String[] args, Boolean root, IApplicationHost ext_apphost, Boolean quiet) [0x00000] in :0 at Mono.WebServer.XSP.Server.Main (System.String[] args) [0x00000] in :0

    Read the article

  • What’s new in ASP.NET 4.0: Core Features

    - by Rick Strahl
    Microsoft released the .NET Runtime 4.0 and with it comes a brand spanking new version of ASP.NET – version 4.0 – which provides an incremental set of improvements to an already powerful platform. .NET 4.0 is a full release of the .NET Framework, unlike version 3.5, which was merely a set of library updates on top of the .NET Framework version 2.0. Because of this full framework revision, there has been a welcome bit of consolidation of assemblies and configuration settings. The full runtime version change to 4.0 also means that you have to explicitly pick version 4.0 of the runtime when you create a new Application Pool in IIS, unlike .NET 3.5, which actually requires version 2.0 of the runtime. In this first of two parts I'll take a look at some of the changes in the core ASP.NET runtime. In the next edition I'll go over improvements in Web Forms and Visual Studio. Core Engine Features Most of the high profile improvements in ASP.NET have to do with Web Forms, but there are a few gems in the core runtime that should make life easier for ASP.NET developers. The following list describes some of the things I've found useful among the new features. Clean web.config Files Are Back! If you've been using ASP.NET 3.5, you probably have noticed that the web.config file has turned into quite a mess of configuration settings between all the custom handler and module mappings for the various web server versions. Part of the reason for this mess is that .NET 3.5 is a collection of add-on components running on top of the .NET Runtime 2.0 and so almost all of the new features of .NET 3.5 where essentially introduced as custom modules and handlers that had to be explicitly configured in the config file. Because the core runtime didn't rev with 3.5, all those configuration options couldn't be moved up to other configuration files in the system chain. With version 4.0 a consolidation was possible, and the result is a much simpler web.config file by default. A default empty ASP.NET 4.0 Web Forms project looks like this: <?xml version="1.0"?> <configuration> <system.web> <compilation debug="true" targetFramework="4.0" /> </system.web> </configuration> Need I say more? Configuration Transformation Files to Manage Configurations and Application Packaging ASP.NET 4.0 introduces the ability to create multi-target configuration files. This means it's possible to create a single configuration file that can be transformed based on relatively simple replacement rules using a Visual Studio and WebDeploy provided XSLT syntax. The idea is that you can create a 'master' configuration file and then create customized versions of this master configuration file by applying some relatively simplistic search and replace, add or remove logic to specific elements and attributes in the original file. To give you an idea, here's the example code that Visual Studio creates for a default web.Release.config file, which replaces a connection string, removes the debug attribute and replaces the CustomErrors section: <?xml version="1.0"?> <configuration xmlns:xdt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/XML-Document-Transform"> <connectionStrings> <add name="MyDB" connectionString="Data Source=ReleaseSQLServer;Initial Catalog=MyReleaseDB;Integrated Security=True" xdt:Transform="SetAttributes" xdt:Locator="Match(name)"/> </connectionStrings> <system.web> <compilation xdt:Transform="RemoveAttributes(debug)" /> <customErrors defaultRedirect="GenericError.htm" mode="RemoteOnly" xdt:Transform="Replace"> <error statusCode="500" redirect="InternalError.htm"/> </customErrors> </system.web> </configuration> You can see the XSL transform syntax that drives this functionality. Basically, only the elements listed in the override file are matched and updated – all the rest of the original web.config file stays intact. Visual Studio 2010 supports this functionality directly in the project system so it's easy to create and maintain these customized configurations in the project tree. Once you're ready to publish your application, you can then use the Publish <yourWebApplication> option on the Build menu which allows publishing to disk, via FTP or to a Web Server using Web Deploy. You can also create a deployment package as a .zip file which can be used by the WebDeploy tool to configure and install the application. You can manually run the Web Deploy tool or use the IIS Manager to install the package on the server or other machine. You can find out more about WebDeploy and Packaging here: http://tinyurl.com/2anxcje. Improved Routing Routing provides a relatively simple way to create clean URLs with ASP.NET by associating a template URL path and routing it to a specific ASP.NET HttpHandler. Microsoft first introduced routing with ASP.NET MVC and then they integrated routing with a basic implementation in the core ASP.NET engine via a separate ASP.NET routing assembly. In ASP.NET 4.0, the process of using routing functionality gets a bit easier. First, routing is now rolled directly into System.Web, so no extra assembly reference is required in your projects to use routing. The RouteCollection class now includes a MapPageRoute() method that makes it easy to route to any ASP.NET Page requests without first having to implement an IRouteHandler implementation. It would have been nice if this could have been extended to serve *any* handler implementation, but unfortunately for anything but a Page derived handlers you still will have to implement a custom IRouteHandler implementation. ASP.NET Pages now include a RouteData collection that will contain route information. Retrieving route data is now a lot easier by simply using this.RouteData.Values["routeKey"] where the routeKey is the value specified in the route template (i.e., "users/{userId}" would use Values["userId"]). The Page class also has a GetRouteUrl() method that you can use to create URLs with route data values rather than hardcoding the URL: <%= this.GetRouteUrl("users",new { userId="ricks" }) %> You can also use the new Expression syntax using <%$RouteUrl %> to accomplish something similar, which can be easier to embed into Page or MVC View code: <a runat="server" href='<%$RouteUrl:RouteName=user, id=ricks %>'>Visit User</a> Finally, the Response object also includes a new RedirectToRoute() method to build a route url for redirection without hardcoding the URL. Response.RedirectToRoute("users", new { userId = "ricks" }); All of these routines are helpers that have been integrated into the core ASP.NET engine to make it easier to create routes and retrieve route data, which hopefully will result in more people taking advantage of routing in ASP.NET. To find out more about the routing improvements you can check out Dan Maharry's blog which has a couple of nice blog entries on this subject: http://tinyurl.com/37trutj and http://tinyurl.com/39tt5w5. Session State Improvements Session state is an often used and abused feature in ASP.NET and version 4.0 introduces a few enhancements geared towards making session state more efficient and to minimize at least some of the ill effects of overuse. The first improvement affects out of process session state, which is typically used in web farm environments or for sites that store application sensitive data that must survive AppDomain restarts (which in my opinion is just about any application). When using OutOfProc session state, ASP.NET serializes all the data in the session statebag into a blob that gets carried over the network and stored either in the State server or SQL Server via the Session provider. Version 4.0 provides some improvement in this serialization of the session data by offering an enableCompression option on the web.Config <Session> section, which forces the serialized session state to be compressed. Depending on the type of data that is being serialized, this compression can reduce the size of the data travelling over the wire by as much as a third. It works best on string data, but can also reduce the size of binary data. In addition, ASP.NET 4.0 now offers a way to programmatically turn session state on or off as part of the request processing queue. In prior versions, the only way to specify whether session state is available is by implementing a marker interface on the HTTP handler implementation. In ASP.NET 4.0, you can now turn session state on and off programmatically via HttpContext.Current.SetSessionStateBehavior() as part of the ASP.NET module pipeline processing as long as it occurs before the AquireRequestState pipeline event. Output Cache Provider Output caching in ASP.NET has been a very useful but potentially memory intensive feature. The default OutputCache mechanism works through in-memory storage that persists generated output based on various lifetime related parameters. While this works well enough for many intended scenarios, it also can quickly cause runaway memory consumption as the cache fills up and serves many variations of pages on your site. ASP.NET 4.0 introduces a provider model for the OutputCache module so it becomes possible to plug-in custom storage strategies for cached pages. One of the goals also appears to be to consolidate some of the different cache storage mechanisms used in .NET in general to a generic Windows AppFabric framework in the future, so various different mechanisms like OutputCache, the non-Page specific ASP.NET cache and possibly even session state eventually can use the same caching engine for storage of persisted data both in memory and out of process scenarios. For developers, the OutputCache provider feature means that you can now extend caching on your own by implementing a custom Cache provider based on the System.Web.Caching.OutputCacheProvider class. You can find more info on creating an Output Cache provider in Gunnar Peipman's blog at: http://tinyurl.com/2vt6g7l. Response.RedirectPermanent ASP.NET 4.0 includes features to issue a permanent redirect that issues as an HTTP 301 Moved Permanently response rather than the standard 302 Redirect respond. In pre-4.0 versions you had to manually create your permanent redirect by setting the Status and Status code properties – Response.RedirectPermanent() makes this operation more obvious and discoverable. There's also a Response.RedirectToRoutePermanent() which provides permanent redirection of route Urls. Preloading of Applications ASP.NET 4.0 provides a new feature to preload ASP.NET applications on startup, which is meant to provide a more consistent startup experience. If your application has a lengthy startup cycle it can appear very slow to serve data to clients while the application is warming up and loading initial resources. So rather than serve these startup requests slowly in ASP.NET 4.0, you can force the application to initialize itself first before even accepting requests for processing. This feature works only on IIS 7.5 (Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2) and works in combination with IIS. You can set up a worker process in IIS 7.5 to always be running, which starts the Application Pool worker process immediately. ASP.NET 4.0 then allows you to specify site-specific settings by setting the serverAutoStartEnabled on a particular site along with an optional serviceAutoStartProvider class that can be used to receive "startup events" when the application starts up. This event in turn can be used to configure the application and optionally pre-load cache data and other information required by the app on startup.  The configuration settings need to be made in applicationhost.config: <sites> <site name="WebApplication2" id="1"> <application path="/" serviceAutoStartEnabled="true" serviceAutoStartProvider="PreWarmup" /> </site> </sites> <serviceAutoStartProviders> <add name="PreWarmup" type="PreWarmupProvider,MyAssembly" /> </serviceAutoStartProviders> Hooking up a warm up provider is optional so you can omit the provider definition and reference. If you do define it here's what it looks like: public class PreWarmupProvider System.Web.Hosting.IProcessHostPreloadClient { public void Preload(string[] parameters) { // initialization for app } } This code fires and while it's running, ASP.NET/IIS will hold requests from hitting the pipeline. So until this code completes the application will not start taking requests. The idea is that you can perform any pre-loading of resources and cache values so that the first request will be ready to perform at optimal performance level without lag. Runtime Performance Improvements According to Microsoft, there have also been a number of invisible performance improvements in the internals of the ASP.NET runtime that should make ASP.NET 4.0 applications run more efficiently and use less resources. These features come without any change requirements in applications and are virtually transparent, except that you get the benefits by updating to ASP.NET 4.0. Summary The core feature set changes are minimal which continues a tradition of small incremental changes to the ASP.NET runtime. ASP.NET has been proven as a solid platform and I'm actually rather happy to see that most of the effort in this release went into stability, performance and usability improvements rather than a massive amount of new features. The new functionality added in 4.0 is minimal but very useful. A lot of people are still running pure .NET 2.0 applications these days and have stayed off of .NET 3.5 for some time now. I think that version 4.0 with its full .NET runtime rev and assembly and configuration consolidation will make an attractive platform for developers to update to. If you're a Web Forms developer in particular, ASP.NET 4.0 includes a host of new features in the Web Forms engine that are significant enough to warrant a quick move to .NET 4.0. I'll cover those changes in my next column. Until then, I suggest you give ASP.NET 4.0 a spin and see for yourself how the new features can help you out. © Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2010Posted in ASP.NET  

    Read the article

  • URL Rewrite – Multiple domains under one site. Part II

    - by OWScott
    I believe I have it … I’ve been meaning to put together the ultimate outgoing rule for hosting multiple domains under one site.  I finally sat down this week and setup a few test cases, and created one rule to rule them all.  In Part I of this two part series, I covered the incoming rule necessary to host a site in a subfolder of a website, while making it appear as if it’s in the root of the site.  Part II won’t work without applying Part I first, so if you haven’t read it, I encourage you to read it now. However, the incoming rule by itself doesn’t address everything.  Here’s the problem … Let’s say that we host www.site2.com in a subfolder called site2, off of masterdomain.com.  This is the same example I used in Part I.   Using an incoming rewrite rule, we are able to make a request to www.site2.com even though the site is really in the /site2 folder.  The gotcha comes with any type of path that ASP.NET generates (I’m sure other scripting technologies could do the same too).  ASP.NET thinks that the path to the root of the site is /site2, but the URL is /.  See the issue?  If ASP.NET generates a path or a redirect for us, it will always add /site2 to the URL.  That results in a path that looks something like www.site2.com/site2.  In Part I, I mentioned that you should add a condition where “{PATH_INFO} ‘does not match’ /site2”.  That allows www.site2.com/site2 and www.site2.com to both function the same.  This allows the site to always work, but if you want to hide /site2 in the URL, you need to take it one step further. One way to address this is in your code.  Ultimately this is the best bet.  Ruslan Yakushev has a great article on a few considerations that you can address in code.  I recommend giving that serious consideration.  Additionally, if you have upgraded to ASP.NET 3.5 SP1 or greater, it takes care of some of the references automatically for you. However, what if you inherit an existing application?  Or you can’t easily go through your existing site and make the code changes?  If this applies to you, read on. That’s where URL Rewrite 2.0 comes in.  With URL Rewrite 2.0, you can create an outgoing rule that will remove the /site2 before the page is sent back to the user.  This means that you can take an existing application, host it in a subfolder of your site, and ensure that the URL never reveals that it’s in a subfolder. Performance Considerations Performance overhead is something to be mindful of.  These outbound rules aren’t simply changing the server variables.  The first rule I’ll cover below needs to parse the HTML body and pull out the path (i.e. /site2) on the way through.  This will add overhead, possibly significant if you have large pages and a busy site.  In other words, your mileage may vary and you may need to test to see the impact that these rules have.  Don’t worry too much though.  For many sites, the performance impact is negligible. So, how do we do it? Creating the Outgoing Rule There are really two things to keep in mind.  First, ASP.NET applications frequently generate a URL that adds the /site2 back into the URL.  In addition to URLs, they can be in form elements, img elements and the like.  The goal is to find all of those situations and rewrite it on the way out.  Let’s call this the ‘URL problem’. Second, and similarly, ASP.NET can send a LOCATION redirect that causes a redirect back to another page.  Again, ASP.NET isn’t aware of the different URL and it will add the /site2 to the redirect.  Form Authentication is a good example on when this occurs.  Try to password protect a site running from a subfolder using forms auth and you’ll quickly find that the URL becomes www.site2.com/site2 again.  Let’s term this the ‘redirect problem’. Solving the URL Problem – Outgoing Rule #1 Let’s create a rule that removes the /site2 from any URL.  We want to remove it from relative URLs like /site2/something, or absolute URLs like http://www.site2.com/site2/something.  Most URLs that ASP.NET creates will be relative URLs, but I figure that there may be some applications that piece together a full URL, so we might as well expect that situation. Let’s get started.  First, create a new outbound rule.  You can create the rule within the /site2 folder which will reduce the performance impact of the rule.  Just a reminder that incoming rules for this situation won’t work in a subfolder … but outgoing rules will. Give it a name that makes sense to you, for example “Outgoing – URL paths”. Precondition.  If you place the rule in the subfolder, it will only run for that site and folder, so there isn’t need for a precondition.  Run it for all requests.  If you place it in the root of the site, you may want to create a precondition for HTTP_HOST = ^(www\.)?site2\.com$. For the Match section, there are a few things to consider.  For performance reasons, it’s best to match the least amount of elements that you need to accomplish the task.  For my test cases, I just needed to rewrite the <a /> tag, but you may need to rewrite any number of HTML elements.  Note that as long as you have the exclude /site2 rule in your incoming rule as I described in Part I, some elements that don’t show their URL—like your images—will work without removing the /site2 from them.  That reduces the processing needed for this rule. Leave the “matching scope” at “Response” and choose the elements that you want to change. Set the pattern to “^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)”.  Make sure to replace ‘site2’ with your subfolder name in both places.  Yes, I realize this is a pretty messy looking rule, but it handles a few situations.  This rule will handle the following situations correctly: Original Rewritten using {R:1}{R:2} http://www.site2.com/site2/default.aspx http://www.site2.com/default.aspx http://www.site2.com/folder1/site2/default.aspx Won’t rewrite since it’s a sub-sub folder /site2/default.aspx /default.aspx site2/default.aspx /default.aspx /folder1/site2/default.aspx Won’t rewrite since it’s a sub-sub folder. For the conditions section, you can leave that be. Finally, for the rule, set the Action Type to “Rewrite” and set the Value to “{R:1}{R:2}”.  The {R:1} and {R:2} are back references to the sections within parentheses.  In other words, in http://domain.com/site2/something, {R:1} will be http://domain.com and {R:2} will be /something. If you view your rule from your web.config file (or applicationHost.config if it’s a global rule), it should look like this: <rule name="Outgoing - URL paths" enabled="true"> <match filterByTags="A" pattern="^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> Solving the Redirect Problem Outgoing Rule #2 The second issue that we can run into is with a client-side redirect.  This is triggered by a LOCATION response header that is sent to the client.  Forms authentication is a common example.  To reproduce this, password protect your subfolder and watch how it redirects and adds the subfolder path back in. Notice in my test case the extra paths: http://site2.com/site2/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fsite2%2fdefault.aspx I want to remove /site2 from both the URL and the ReturnUrl querystring value.  For semi-readability, let’s do this in 2 separate rules, one for the URL and one for the querystring. Create a second rule.  As with the previous rule, it can be created in the /site2 subfolder.  In the URL Rewrite wizard, select Outbound rules –> “Blank Rule”. Fill in the following information: Name response_location URL Precondition Don’t set Match: Matching Scope Server Variable Match: Variable Name RESPONSE_LOCATION Match: Pattern ^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*) Conditions Don’t set Action Type Rewrite Action Properties {R:1}{R:2} It should end up like so: <rule name="response_location URL"> <match serverVariable="RESPONSE_LOCATION" pattern="^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> Outgoing Rule #3 Outgoing Rule #2 only takes care of the URL path, and not the querystring path.  Let’s create one final rule to take care of the path in the querystring to ensure that ReturnUrl=%2fsite2%2fdefault.aspx gets rewritten to ReturnUrl=%2fdefault.aspx. The %2f is the HTML encoding for forward slash (/). Create a rule like the previous one, but with the following settings: Name response_location querystring Precondition Don’t set Match: Matching Scope Server Variable Match: Variable Name RESPONSE_LOCATION Match: Pattern (.*)%2fsite2(.*) Conditions Don’t set Action Type Rewrite Action Properties {R:1}{R:2} The config should look like this: <rule name="response_location querystring"> <match serverVariable="RESPONSE_LOCATION" pattern="(.*)%2fsite2(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> It’s possible to squeeze the last two rules into one, but it gets kind of confusing so I felt that it’s better to show it as two separate rules. Summary With the rules covered in these two parts, we’re able to have a site in a subfolder and make it appear as if it’s in the root of the site.  Not only that, we can overcome automatic redirecting that is caused by ASP.NET, other scripting technologies, and especially existing applications. Following is an example of the incoming and outgoing rules necessary for a site called www.site2.com hosted in a subfolder called /site2.  Remember that the outgoing rules can be placed in the /site2 folder instead of the in the root of the site. <rewrite> <rules> <rule name="site2.com in a subfolder" enabled="true" stopProcessing="true"> <match url=".*" /> <conditions logicalGrouping="MatchAll" trackAllCaptures="false"> <add input="{HTTP_HOST}" pattern="^(www\.)?site2\.com$" /> <add input="{PATH_INFO}" pattern="^/site2($|/)" negate="true" /> </conditions> <action type="Rewrite" url="/site2/{R:0}" /> </rule> </rules> <outboundRules> <rule name="Outgoing - URL paths" enabled="true"> <match filterByTags="A" pattern="^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> <rule name="response_location URL"> <match serverVariable="RESPONSE_LOCATION" pattern="^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> <rule name="response_location querystring"> <match serverVariable="RESPONSE_LOCATION" pattern="(.*)%2fsite2(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> </outboundRules> </rewrite> If you run into any situations that aren’t caught by these rules, please let me know so I can update this to be as complete as possible. Happy URL Rewriting!

    Read the article

  • Security Issues with Single Page Apps

    - by Stephen.Walther
    Last week, I was asked to do a code review of a Single Page App built using the ASP.NET Web API, Durandal, and Knockout (good stuff!). In particular, I was asked to investigate whether there any special security issues associated with building a Single Page App which are not present in the case of a traditional server-side ASP.NET application. In this blog entry, I discuss two areas in which you need to exercise extra caution when building a Single Page App. I discuss how Single Page Apps are extra vulnerable to both Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks and Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. This goal of this blog post is NOT to persuade you to avoid writing Single Page Apps. I’m a big fan of Single Page Apps. Instead, the goal is to ensure that you are fully aware of some of the security issues related to Single Page Apps and ensure that you know how to guard against them. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Attacks According to WhiteHat Security, over 65% of public websites are open to XSS attacks. That’s bad. By taking advantage of XSS holes in a website, a hacker can steal your credit cards, passwords, or bank account information. Any website that redisplays untrusted information is open to XSS attacks. Let me give you a simple example. Imagine that you want to display the name of the current user on a page. To do this, you create the following server-side ASP.NET page located at http://MajorBank.com/SomePage.aspx: <%@Page Language="C#" %> <html> <head> <title>Some Page</title> </head> <body> Welcome <%= Request["username"] %> </body> </html> Nothing fancy here. Notice that the page displays the current username by using Request[“username”]. Using Request[“username”] displays the username regardless of whether the username is present in a cookie, a form field, or a query string variable. Unfortunately, by using Request[“username”] to redisplay untrusted information, you have now opened your website to XSS attacks. Here’s how. Imagine that an evil hacker creates the following link on another website (hackers.com): <a href="/SomePage.aspx?username=<script src=Evil.js></script>">Visit MajorBank</a> Notice that the link includes a query string variable named username and the value of the username variable is an HTML <SCRIPT> tag which points to a JavaScript file named Evil.js. When anyone clicks on the link, the <SCRIPT> tag will be injected into SomePage.aspx and the Evil.js script will be loaded and executed. What can a hacker do in the Evil.js script? Anything the hacker wants. For example, the hacker could display a popup dialog on the MajorBank.com site which asks the user to enter their password. The script could then post the password back to hackers.com and now the evil hacker has your secret password. ASP.NET Web Forms and ASP.NET MVC have two automatic safeguards against this type of attack: Request Validation and Automatic HTML Encoding. Protecting Coming In (Request Validation) In a server-side ASP.NET app, you are protected against the XSS attack described above by a feature named Request Validation. If you attempt to submit “potentially dangerous” content — such as a JavaScript <SCRIPT> tag — in a form field or query string variable then you get an exception. Unfortunately, Request Validation only applies to server-side apps. Request Validation does not help in the case of a Single Page App. In particular, the ASP.NET Web API does not pay attention to Request Validation. You can post any content you want – including <SCRIPT> tags – to an ASP.NET Web API action. For example, the following HTML page contains a form. When you submit the form, the form data is submitted to an ASP.NET Web API controller on the server using an Ajax request: <!DOCTYPE html> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> <form data-bind="submit:submit"> <div> <label> User Name: <input data-bind="value:user.userName" /> </label> </div> <div> <label> Email: <input data-bind="value:user.email" /> </label> </div> <div> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </div> </form> <script src="Scripts/jquery-1.7.1.js"></script> <script src="Scripts/knockout-2.1.0.js"></script> <script> var viewModel = { user: { userName: ko.observable(), email: ko.observable() }, submit: function () { $.post("/api/users", ko.toJS(this.user)); } }; ko.applyBindings(viewModel); </script> </body> </html> The form above is using Knockout to bind the form fields to a view model. When you submit the form, the view model is submitted to an ASP.NET Web API action on the server. Here’s the server-side ASP.NET Web API controller and model class: public class UsersController : ApiController { public HttpResponseMessage Post(UserViewModel user) { var userName = user.UserName; return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK); } } public class UserViewModel { public string UserName { get; set; } public string Email { get; set; } } If you submit the HTML form, you don’t get an error. The “potentially dangerous” content is passed to the server without any exception being thrown. In the screenshot below, you can see that I was able to post a username form field with the value “<script>alert(‘boo’)</script”. So what this means is that you do not get automatic Request Validation in the case of a Single Page App. You need to be extra careful in a Single Page App about ensuring that you do not display untrusted content because you don’t have the Request Validation safety net which you have in a traditional server-side ASP.NET app. Protecting Going Out (Automatic HTML Encoding) Server-side ASP.NET also protects you from XSS attacks when you render content. By default, all content rendered by the razor view engine is HTML encoded. For example, the following razor view displays the text “<b>Hello!</b>” instead of the text “Hello!” in bold: @{ var message = "<b>Hello!</b>"; } @message   If you don’t want to render content as HTML encoded in razor then you need to take the extra step of using the @Html.Raw() helper. In a Web Form page, if you use <%: %> instead of <%= %> then you get automatic HTML Encoding: <%@ Page Language="C#" %> <% var message = "<b>Hello!</b>"; %> <%: message %> This automatic HTML Encoding will prevent many types of XSS attacks. It prevents <script> tags from being rendered and only allows &lt;script&gt; tags to be rendered which are useless for executing JavaScript. (This automatic HTML encoding does not protect you from all forms of XSS attacks. For example, you can assign the value “javascript:alert(‘evil’)” to the Hyperlink control’s NavigateUrl property and execute the JavaScript). The situation with Knockout is more complicated. If you use the Knockout TEXT binding then you get HTML encoded content. On the other hand, if you use the HTML binding then you do not: <!-- This JavaScript DOES NOT execute --> <div data-bind="text:someProp"></div> <!-- This Javacript DOES execute --> <div data-bind="html:someProp"></div> <script src="Scripts/jquery-1.7.1.js"></script> <script src="Scripts/knockout-2.1.0.js"></script> <script> var viewModel = { someProp : "<script>alert('Evil!')<" + "/script>" }; ko.applyBindings(viewModel); </script>   So, in the page above, the DIV element which uses the TEXT binding is safe from XSS attacks. According to the Knockout documentation: “Since this binding sets your text value using a text node, it’s safe to set any string value without risking HTML or script injection.” Just like server-side HTML encoding, Knockout does not protect you from all types of XSS attacks. For example, there is nothing in Knockout which prevents you from binding JavaScript to a hyperlink like this: <a data-bind="attr:{href:homePageUrl}">Go</a> <script src="Scripts/jquery-1.7.1.min.js"></script> <script src="Scripts/knockout-2.1.0.js"></script> <script> var viewModel = { homePageUrl: "javascript:alert('evil!')" }; ko.applyBindings(viewModel); </script> In the page above, the value “javascript:alert(‘evil’)” is bound to the HREF attribute using Knockout. When you click the link, the JavaScript executes. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) Attacks Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks rely on the fact that a session cookie does not expire until you close your browser. In particular, if you visit and login to MajorBank.com and then you navigate to Hackers.com then you will still be authenticated against MajorBank.com even after you navigate to Hackers.com. Because MajorBank.com cannot tell whether a request is coming from MajorBank.com or Hackers.com, Hackers.com can submit requests to MajorBank.com pretending to be you. For example, Hackers.com can post an HTML form from Hackers.com to MajorBank.com and change your email address at MajorBank.com. Hackers.com can post a form to MajorBank.com using your authentication cookie. After your email address has been changed, by using a password reset page at MajorBank.com, a hacker can access your bank account. To prevent CSRF attacks, you need some mechanism for detecting whether a request is coming from a page loaded from your website or whether the request is coming from some other website. The recommended way of preventing Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks is to use the “Synchronizer Token Pattern” as described here: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_%28CSRF%29_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet When using the Synchronizer Token Pattern, you include a hidden input field which contains a random token whenever you display an HTML form. When the user opens the form, you add a cookie to the user’s browser with the same random token. When the user posts the form, you verify that the hidden form token and the cookie token match. Preventing Cross-Site Request Forgery Attacks with ASP.NET MVC ASP.NET gives you a helper and an action filter which you can use to thwart Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks. For example, the following razor form for creating a product shows how you use the @Html.AntiForgeryToken() helper: @model MvcApplication2.Models.Product <h2>Create Product</h2> @using (Html.BeginForm()) { @Html.AntiForgeryToken(); <div> @Html.LabelFor( p => p.Name, "Product Name:") @Html.TextBoxFor( p => p.Name) </div> <div> @Html.LabelFor( p => p.Price, "Product Price:") @Html.TextBoxFor( p => p.Price) </div> <input type="submit" /> } The @Html.AntiForgeryToken() helper generates a random token and assigns a serialized version of the same random token to both a cookie and a hidden form field. (Actually, if you dive into the source code, the AntiForgeryToken() does something a little more complex because it takes advantage of a user’s identity when generating the token). Here’s what the hidden form field looks like: <input name=”__RequestVerificationToken” type=”hidden” value=”NqqZGAmlDHh6fPTNR_mti3nYGUDgpIkCiJHnEEL59S7FNToyyeSo7v4AfzF2i67Cv0qTB1TgmZcqiVtgdkW2NnXgEcBc-iBts0x6WAIShtM1″ /> And here’s what the cookie looks like using the Google Chrome developer toolbar: You use the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] action filter on the controller action which is the recipient of the form post to validate that the token in the hidden form field matches the token in the cookie. If the tokens don’t match then validation fails and you can’t post the form: public ActionResult Create() { return View(); } [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] [HttpPost] public ActionResult Create(Product productToCreate) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { // save product to db return RedirectToAction("Index"); } return View(); } How does this all work? Let’s imagine that a hacker has copied the Create Product page from MajorBank.com to Hackers.com – the hacker grabs the HTML source and places it at Hackers.com. Now, imagine that the hacker trick you into submitting the Create Product form from Hackers.com to MajorBank.com. You’ll get the following exception: The Cross-Site Request Forgery attack is blocked because the anti-forgery token included in the Create Product form at Hackers.com won’t match the anti-forgery token stored in the cookie in your browser. The tokens were generated at different times for different users so the attack fails. Preventing Cross-Site Request Forgery Attacks with a Single Page App In a Single Page App, you can’t prevent Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks using the same method as a server-side ASP.NET MVC app. In a Single Page App, HTML forms are not generated on the server. Instead, in a Single Page App, forms are loaded dynamically in the browser. Phil Haack has a blog post on this topic where he discusses passing the anti-forgery token in an Ajax header instead of a hidden form field. He also describes how you can create a custom anti-forgery token attribute to compare the token in the Ajax header and the token in the cookie. See: http://haacked.com/archive/2011/10/10/preventing-csrf-with-ajax.aspx Also, take a look at Johan’s update to Phil Haack’s original post: http://johan.driessen.se/posts/Updated-Anti-XSRF-Validation-for-ASP.NET-MVC-4-RC (Other server frameworks such as Rails and Django do something similar. For example, Rails uses an X-CSRF-Token to prevent CSRF attacks which you generate on the server – see http://excid3.com/blog/rails-tip-2-include-csrf-token-with-every-ajax-request/#.UTFtgDDkvL8 ). For example, if you are creating a Durandal app, then you can use the following razor view for your one and only server-side page: @{ Layout = null; } <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <title>Index</title> </head> <body> @Html.AntiForgeryToken() <div id="applicationHost"> Loading app.... </div> @Scripts.Render("~/scripts/vendor") <script type="text/javascript" src="~/App/durandal/amd/require.js" data-main="/App/main"></script> </body> </html> Notice that this page includes a call to @Html.AntiForgeryToken() to generate the anti-forgery token. Then, whenever you make an Ajax request in the Durandal app, you can retrieve the anti-forgery token from the razor view and pass the token as a header: var csrfToken = $("input[name='__RequestVerificationToken']").val(); $.ajax({ headers: { __RequestVerificationToken: csrfToken }, type: "POST", dataType: "json", contentType: 'application/json; charset=utf-8', url: "/api/products", data: JSON.stringify({ name: "Milk", price: 2.33 }), statusCode: { 200: function () { alert("Success!"); } } }); Use the following code to create an action filter which you can use to match the header and cookie tokens: using System.Linq; using System.Net.Http; using System.Web.Helpers; using System.Web.Http.Controllers; namespace MvcApplication2.Infrastructure { public class ValidateAjaxAntiForgeryToken : System.Web.Http.AuthorizeAttribute { protected override bool IsAuthorized(HttpActionContext actionContext) { var headerToken = actionContext .Request .Headers .GetValues("__RequestVerificationToken") .FirstOrDefault(); ; var cookieToken = actionContext .Request .Headers .GetCookies() .Select(c => c[AntiForgeryConfig.CookieName]) .FirstOrDefault(); // check for missing cookie or header if (cookieToken == null || headerToken == null) { return false; } // ensure that the cookie matches the header try { AntiForgery.Validate(cookieToken.Value, headerToken); } catch { return false; } return base.IsAuthorized(actionContext); } } } Notice that the action filter derives from the base AuthorizeAttribute. The ValidateAjaxAntiForgeryToken only works when the user is authenticated and it will not work for anonymous requests. Add the action filter to your ASP.NET Web API controller actions like this: [ValidateAjaxAntiForgeryToken] public HttpResponseMessage PostProduct(Product productToCreate) { // add product to db return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK); } After you complete these steps, it won’t be possible for a hacker to pretend to be you at Hackers.com and submit a form to MajorBank.com. The header token used in the Ajax request won’t travel to Hackers.com. This approach works, but I am not entirely happy with it. The one thing that I don’t like about this approach is that it creates a hard dependency on using razor. Your single page in your Single Page App must be generated from a server-side razor view. A better solution would be to generate the anti-forgery token in JavaScript. Unfortunately, until all browsers support a way to generate cryptographically strong random numbers – for example, by supporting the window.crypto.getRandomValues() method — there is no good way to generate anti-forgery tokens in JavaScript. So, at least right now, the best solution for generating the tokens is the server-side solution with the (regrettable) dependency on razor. Conclusion The goal of this blog entry was to explore some ways in which you need to handle security differently in the case of a Single Page App than in the case of a traditional server app. In particular, I focused on how to prevent Cross-Site Scripting and Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks in the case of a Single Page App. I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting that Single Page Apps are inherently less secure than server-side apps. Whatever type of web application you build – regardless of whether it is a Single Page App, an ASP.NET MVC app, an ASP.NET Web Forms app, or a Rails app – you must constantly guard against security vulnerabilities.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3