Search Results

Search found 92246 results on 3690 pages for 'user authentication'.

Page 35/3690 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

  • Logging on to server creates duplicate user profiles in Documents & Setting

    - by Tech
    Windows Server 2003. I am having a problem with the creation of new user profiles when logging in remotely to a terminal server. The new user profile gets added under Documents & Settings as username.domainname. Deleting the new profile does not allow the original profile to be reverted to. Went logging on to the server again, it creates another new user profile. Nothing was changed in the Active Directory or security settings. How do I get the original profile to be used?

    Read the article

  • Windows domain login to temporary user

    - by amyassin
    We have a Windows domain with about 60 user accounts. Sometimes when a user logs in to his computer (already his account is created and has files there) windows logs him to a temporary user, displaying his name and everything, but without his files and data. This problem is rare and is solved simply by logging out and logging in. I noticed that it occurs at a close timings; they all happen at the same day if they did. My question is why does that happen? I want to trace the problem because it is so annoying when it happens, and I can't find a relative event that may be causing it: no server is down when it happens, no system maintenance or anything. We're running Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard, SP2 in the Domain Controller (and the same for the additional DC). The machines where this problem happened before are running Windows XP and Windows 7.

    Read the article

  • Getting Apache to serve same directory with different authentication over SSL?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I have set up VisualSVN server, a Subversion server that internally uses Apache, to serve my subversion repositories. I've managed to integrate WebSVN into it as well, and just now was able to get it to serve my repositories through WebSVN without having to authenticate, ie. no username or password prompt comes up. This is good. However, with this set up there is apparently no way for me to authenticate to WebSVN at all, which means all my private repositories are now invisible as far as WebSVN goes. I noticed there is a "Listen 81" directive in the .conf file, since I'm running the server on port 81 instead of 80, so I was wondering if I could set up a https:// connection to a different port, that did require authentication? The reason I need access to my private repositories is that I have linked my bug tracking system to the subversion repositories, so if I click a link in the bug tracking system, it will take me to diffs for the relevant files in WebSVN, and some products are in private repositories. Here's my Location section for WebSVN: <Location /websvn/> Options FollowSymLinks SVNListParentPath on SVNParentPath "C:/Repositories/" SVNPathAuthz on AuthName "Subversion Repository" AuthType Basic AuthBasicProvider file AuthUserFile "C:/Repositories/htpasswd" AuthzSVNAccessFile "C:/Repositories/authz" Satisfy Any Require valid-user </Location> Is there any way I can set up a separate section for a different port, say 8100, that does not have the Satisfy Any directive there, which is what enable anonymous access. Note that a different sub-directory on the server is acceptable as well, so /websvn_secure/, if I can make a location section for that and effectively serve the same content only without the Satisfy Any directive, that'd be good too.

    Read the article

  • File upload fails when user is authenticated. Using IIS7 Integrated mode.

    - by Nikkelmann
    These are the user identities my website tells me that it uses: Logged on: NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE (Can not write any files at all) and Not logged on: WSW32\IUSR_77 (Can write files to any folder) I have a ASP.NET 4.0 website on a shared hosting IIS7 web server running in Integrated mode with 32-bit applications support enabled and MSSQL 2008. Using classic mode is not an option since I need to secure some static files and I use Routing. In my web.config file I have set the following: <system.webServer> <modules runAllManagedModulesForAllRequests="true" /> </system.webServer> My hosting company says that Impersonation is enabled by default on machine level, so this is not something I can change. I asked their support and they referred me to this article: http://www.codinghub.net/2010/08/differences-between-integrated-mode-and.html Citing this part: Different windows identity in Forms authentication When Forms Authentication is used by an application and anonymous access is allowed, the Integrated mode identity differs from the Classic mode identity in the following ways: * ServerVariables["LOGON_USER"] is filled. * Request.LogognUserIdentity uses the credentials of the [NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE] account instead of the [NT AUTHORITY\INTERNET USER] account. This behavior occurs because authentication is performed in a single stage in Integrated mode. Conversely, in Classic mode, authentication occurs first with IIS 7.0 using anonymous access, and then with ASP.NET using Forms authentication. Thus, the result of the authentication is always a single user-- the Forms authentication user. AUTH_USER/LOGON_USER returns this same user because the Forms authentication user credentials are synchronized between IIS 7.0 and ASP.NET. A side effect is that LOGON_USER, HttpRequest.LogonUserIdentity, and impersonation no longer can access the Anonymous user credentials that IIS 7.0 would have authenticated by using Classic mode. How do I set up my website so that it can use the proper identity with the proper permissions? I've looked high and low for any answers regarding this specific problem, but found nil so far... I hope you can help!

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Importance of User Without Login

    - by pinaldave
    Some questions are very open ended and it is very hard to come up with exact requirements. Here is one question I was asked in recent User Group Meeting. Question: “In recent version of SQL Server we can create user without login. What is the use of it?” Great question indeed. Let me first attempt to answer this question but after reading my answer I need your help. I want you to help him as well with adding more value to it. Answer: Let us visualize a scenario. An application has lots of different operations and many of them are very sensitive operations. The common practice was to do give application specific role which has more permissions and access level. When a regular user login (not system admin), he/she might have very restrictive permissions. The application itself had a user name and password which means applications can directly login into the database and perform the operation. Developers were well aware of the username and password as it was embedded in the application. When developer leaves the organization or when the password was changed, the part of the application had to be changed where the same username and passwords were used. Additionally, developers were able to use the same username and password and login directly to the same application. In earlier version of SQL Server there were application roles. The same is later on replaced by “User without Login”. Now let us recreate the above scenario using this new “User without Login”. In this case, User will have to login using their own credentials into SQL Server. This means that the user who is logged in will have his/her own username and password. Once the login is done in SQL Server, the user will be able to use the application. Now the database should have another User without Login which has all the necessary permissions and rights to execute various operations. Now, Application will be able to execute the script by impersonating “user without login – with more permissions”. Here there is assumed that user login does not have enough permissions and another user (without login) there are more rights. If a user knows how the application is using the database and their various operations, he can switch the context to user without login making him enable for doing further modification. Make sure to explicitly DENY view definition permission on the database. This will make things further difficult for user as he will have to know exact details to get additional permissions. If a user is System Admin all the details which I just mentioned in above three paragraphs does not apply as admin always have access to everything. Additionally, the method describes above is just one of the architecture and if someone is attempting to damage the system, they will still be able to figure out a workaround. You will have to put further auditing and policy based management to prevent such incidents and accidents. I guess this is my answer. I read it multiple times but I still feel that I am missing something. There should be more to this concept than what I have just described. I have merely described one scenario but there will be many more scenarios where this situation will be useful. Now is your turn to help – please leave a comment with the additional suggestion where exactly “User without Login” will be useful as well did I miss anything when I described above scenario. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Security, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • sshd: How to enable PAM authentication for specific users under

    - by Brad
    I am using sshd, and allow logins with public key authentication. I want to allow select users to log in with a PAM two-factor authentication module. Is there any way I can allow PAM two-factor authentication for a specifc user? I don't want users - By the same token - I only want to enable password authentication for specific accounts. I want my SSH daemon to reject the password authentication attempts to thwart would-be hackers into thinking that I will not accept password authentication - except for the case in which someone knows my heavily guarded secret account, which is password enabled. I want to do this for cases in which my SSH clients will not let me do either secret key, or two-factor authentication.

    Read the article

  • A little guidance setting up FTP server authentication on Windows Server 2008 R2 standard?

    - by Ropstah
    I have a (clean) server running Windows Server 2008 R2 standard. I would just like to use it for serving a website and a FTP server through IIS. IIS is installed and serves my website propery. I have now added a FTP site but when I try to logon using my user/pass i get the following error: 530 User cannot login From this article (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/200475) I understand that these four causes can be pointed out: The Allow only anonymous connections security setting has been turned on in the Microsoft Management Console (MMC). Not the case The username does not have the Log on locally permission in User Manager. The user is in the Users group, however I'm not able to logon through RDP. I tried configuring this by following this article through GPMC however this only works when I'm logged in as a domain user on a domain controller which I'm not: I'm logged in as administrator The username does not have the Access this computer from the network permission in User Manager. Not sure what this implies...? The Domain Name was not specified together with the username (in the form of DOMAIN\username). Tried adding the server name: server\username, not working... I am an absolute server noob and I'd just like to be able to connect through FTP... Any guidance is highly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET WebAPI Security 3: Extensible Authentication Framework

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In my last post, I described the identity architecture of ASP.NET Web API. The short version was, that Web API (beta 1) does not really have an authentication system on its own, but inherits the client security context from its host. This is fine in many situations (e.g. AJAX style callbacks with an already established logon session). But there are many cases where you don’t use the containing web application for authentication, but need to do it yourself. Examples of that would be token based authentication and clients that don’t run in the context of the web application (e.g. desktop clients / mobile). Since Web API provides a nice extensibility model, it is easy to implement whatever security framework you want on top of it. My design goals were: Easy to use. Extensible. Claims-based. ..and of course, this should always behave the same, regardless of the hosting environment. In the rest of the post I am outlining some of the bits and pieces, So you know what you are dealing with, in case you want to try the code. At the very heart… is a so called message handler. This is a Web API extensibility point that gets to see (and modify if needed) all incoming and outgoing requests. Handlers run after the conversion from host to Web API, which means that handler code deals with HttpRequestMessage and HttpResponseMessage. See Pedro’s post for more information on the processing pipeline. This handler requires a configuration object for initialization. Currently this is very simple, it contains: Settings for the various authentication and credential types Settings for claims transformation Ability to block identity inheritance from host The most important part here is the credential type support, but I will come back to that later. The logic of the message handler is simple: Look at the incoming request. If the request contains an authorization header, try to authenticate the client. If this is successful, create a claims principal and populate the usual places. If not, return a 401 status code and set the Www-Authenticate header. Look at outgoing response, if the status code is 401, set the Www-Authenticate header. Credential type support Under the covers I use the WIF security token handler infrastructure to validate credentials and to turn security tokens into claims. The idea is simple: an authorization header consists of two pieces: the schema and the actual “token”. My configuration object allows to associate a security token handler with a scheme. This way you only need to implement support for a specific credential type, and map that to the incoming scheme value. The current version supports HTTP Basic Authentication as well as SAML and SWT tokens. (I needed to do some surgery on the standard security token handlers, since WIF does not directly support string-ified tokens. The next version of .NET will fix that, and the code should become simpler then). You can e.g. use this code to hook up a username/password handler to the Basic scheme (the default scheme name for Basic Authentication). config.Handler.AddBasicAuthenticationHandler( (username, password) => username == password); You simply have to provide a password validation function which could of course point back to your existing password library or e.g. membership. The following code maps a token handler for Simple Web Tokens (SWT) to the Bearer scheme (the currently favoured scheme name for OAuth2). You simply have to specify the issuer name, realm and shared signature key: config.Handler.AddSimpleWebTokenHandler(     "Bearer",     http://identity.thinktecture.com/trust,     Constants.Realm,     "Dc9Mpi3jaaaUpBQpa/4R7XtUsa3D/ALSjTVvK8IUZbg="); For certain integration scenarios it is very useful if your Web API can consume SAML tokens. This is also easily accomplishable. The following code uses the standard WIF API to configure the usual SAMLisms like issuer, audience, service certificate and certificate validation. Both SAML 1.1 and 2.0 are supported. var registry = new ConfigurationBasedIssuerNameRegistry(); registry.AddTrustedIssuer( "d1 c5 b1 25 97 d0 36 94 65 1c e2 64 fe 48 06 01 35 f7 bd db", "ADFS"); var adfsConfig = new SecurityTokenHandlerConfiguration(); adfsConfig.AudienceRestriction.AllowedAudienceUris.Add( new Uri(Constants.Realm)); adfsConfig.IssuerNameRegistry = registry; adfsConfig.CertificateValidator = X509CertificateValidator.None; // token decryption (read from configuration section) adfsConfig.ServiceTokenResolver = FederatedAuthentication.ServiceConfiguration.CreateAggregateTokenResolver(); config.Handler.AddSaml11SecurityTokenHandler("SAML", adfsConfig); Claims Transformation After successful authentication, if configured, the standard WIF ClaimsAuthenticationManager is called to run claims transformation and validation logic. This stage is used to transform the “technical” claims from the security token into application claims. You can either have a separate transformation logic, or share on e.g. with the containing web application. That’s just a matter of configuration. Adding the authentication handler to a Web API application In the spirit of Web API this is done in code, e.g. global.asax for web hosting: protected void Application_Start() {     AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();     ConfigureApis(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration);     RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilters.Filters);     RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);     BundleTable.Bundles.RegisterTemplateBundles(); } private void ConfigureApis(HttpConfiguration configuration) {     configuration.MessageHandlers.Add( new AuthenticationHandler(ConfigureAuthentication())); } private AuthenticationConfiguration ConfigureAuthentication() {     var config = new AuthenticationConfiguration     {         // sample claims transformation for consultants sample, comment out to see raw claims         ClaimsAuthenticationManager = new ApiClaimsTransformer(),         // value of the www-authenticate header, // if not set, the first scheme added to the handler collection is used         DefaultAuthenticationScheme = "Basic"     };     // add token handlers - see above     return config; } You can find the full source code and some samples here. In the next post I will describe some of the samples in the download, and then move on to authorization. HTH

    Read the article

  • java client program to send digest authentication request using HttpClient API

    - by Rajesh
    I have restlet sample client program which sends the digest request. Similar to this I need java client program which sends a digest request using HttpClient api. Can anybody send me sample code. Thanks in advance. Reference reference = new Reference("http://localhost:8092/authenticate"); Client client = new Client(Protocol.HTTP); Request request = new Request(Method.GET, reference); Response response = client.handle(request); System.out.println("response: "+response.getStatus()); Form form = new Form(); form.add("username", "rajesh"); form.add("uri", reference.getPath()); // Loop over the challengeRequest objects sent by the server. for (ChallengeRequest challengeRequest : response .getChallengeRequests()) { // Get the data from the server's response. if (ChallengeScheme.HTTP_DIGEST .equals(challengeRequest.getScheme())) { Series<Parameter> params = challengeRequest.getParameters(); form.add(params.getFirst("nonce")); form.add(params.getFirst("realm")); form.add(params.getFirst("domain")); form.add(params.getFirst("algorithm")); form.add(params.getFirst("qop")); } } // Compute the required data String a1 = Engine.getInstance().toMd5( "rajesh" + ":" + form.getFirstValue("realm") + ":" + "rajesh"); String a2 = Engine.getInstance().toMd5( request.getMethod() + ":" + form.getFirstValue("uri")); form.add("response", Engine.getInstance().toMd5( a1 + ":" + form.getFirstValue("nonce") + ":" + a2)); ChallengeResponse challengeResponse = new ChallengeResponse( ChallengeScheme.HTTP_DIGEST, "", ""); challengeResponse.setCredentialComponents(form); // Send the completed request request.setChallengeResponse(challengeResponse); response = client.handle(request); // Should be 200. System.out.println(response.getStatus());

    Read the article

  • Rails User-Profile model challenges

    - by Craig
    I am attempting to create an enrollment process similar to SO's: route to an OpenID provider provider returns the user's information to the UsersController (a guess) UsersController creates user, then routes to the ProfilesController's new or edit action. For now, I'm simply trying to create the user, then route to the ProfilesController's new or edit action (not sure which I should be using). Here's what I have thus far: Models: class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :profile end class Profile < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user end Routes: map.resources :users do |user| user.resource :profile end new_user_profile GET /users/:user_id/profile/new(.:format) {:controller=>"profiles", :action=>"new"} edit_user_profile GET /users/:user_id/profile/edit(.:format) {:controller=>"profiles", :action=>"edit"} user_profile GET /users/:user_id/profile(.:format) {:controller=>"profiles", :action=>"show"} PUT /users/:user_id/profile(.:format) {:controller=>"profiles", :action=>"update"} DELETE /users/:user_id/profile(.:format) {:controller=>"profiles", :action=>"destroy"} POST /users/:user_id/profile(.:format) {:controller=>"profiles", :action=>"create"} users GET /users(.:format) {:controller=>"users", :action=>"index"} POST /users(.:format) {:controller=>"users", :action=>"create"} new_user GET /users/new(.:format) {:controller=>"users", :action=>"new"} edit_user GET /users/:id/edit(.:format) {:controller=>"users", :action=>"edit"} user GET /users/:id(.:format) {:controller=>"users", :action=>"show"} PUT /users/:id(.:format) {:controller=>"users", :action=>"update"} DELETE /users/:id(.:format) {:controller=>"users", :action=>"destroy"} Controllers: class UsersController < ApplicationController # generate new-user form def new @user = User.new end # process new-user-form post def create @user = User.new(params[:user]) if @user.save redirect_to new_user_profile_path(@user) ... end end # generate edit-user form def edit @user = User.find(params[:id]) end # process edit-user-form post def update @user = User.find(params[:id]) respond_to do |format| if @user.update_attributes(params[:user]) flash[:notice] = 'User was successfully updated.' format.html { redirect_to(users_path) } format.xml { head :ok } ... end end end class ProfilesController < ApplicationController before_filter :get_user def get_user @user = User.find(params[:user_id]) end # generate new-profile form def new @user.profile = Profile.new @profile = @user.profile end # process new-profile-form post def create @user.profile = Profile.new(params[:profile]) @profile = @user.profile respond_to do |format| if @profile.save flash[:notice] = 'Profile was successfully created.' format.html { redirect_to(@profile) } format.xml { render :xml => @profile, :status => :created, :location => @profile } ... end end end # generate edit-profile form def edit @profile = @user.profile end # generate edit-profile-form post def update @profile = @user.profile respond_to do |format| if @profile.update_attributes(params[:profile]) flash[:notice] = 'Profile was successfully updated.' # format.html { redirect_to(@profile) } format.html { redirect_to(user_profile(@user)) } format.xml { head :ok } else format.html { render :action => "edit" } format.xml { render :xml => @profile.errors, :status => :unprocessable_entity } end end end Edit-User View: ... <% form_for(@user) do |f| %> ... New-Profile View: ... <% form_for([@user,@profile]) do |f| %> .. I'm having two problems: When saving an edit to the User model, the UsersController attempts to route to http://localhost:3000/users/1/profile.%23%3Cprofile:0x10438e3e8%3E, instead of http://localhost:3000/users/1/profile When the new-profile form is being rendered, it throws an error that reads: undefined method `user_profiles_path' for # Is it better to create a blank profile when the user is created (in the UsersController), then edit it OR follow the rest-ful convention of creating the profile in the ProfilesController (as I have done)? What am I missing? I did review Associating Two Models in Rails (user and profile), but it didn't address my needs. Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • Forms authentication ignored in virtual application

    - by Christo Fur
    I have an admin site swet up as a virtual applcation inside of another website. I would like visitors to the sub directory (the virtual application) to be promtped for credentials using the same Forms autheentication set up on the main parent site Have tried all sorts of things but can't get it to work including Removing all ,, and sections from the virtual-app web.config Copying the same ,, and sections from the parent to the virtual-app web.config Using a virtual directory instead of virtual application But I never get promted for credentials Anyone know how to get this setup? thanks

    Read the article

  • How to do HTTP authentication with Goliath/Heroku?

    - by David
    I'm using Goliath as my app server, and I am trying to convert "Ruby – Secure staging environment of your public app from users and bots" so it applies to my Goliath application. I am trying to use Rack::Static but I'm not sure how to write the code. I was trying something like: class Application < Goliath::API use(Rack::Lock) But I am not really sure how to translate the link I posted. I'm open to other alternatives, I just need my whole site password protected.

    Read the article

  • Retry web service call if authentication failure requires re-login

    - by Pete
    I'm consuming a web service from C#, and the web service requires a login call and then uses cookie sessions. The web service will time out sessions after a certain timeframe, after which the client will have to re-login. I'd like to find a way to automatically catch the soap fault the service sends back in this scenario, and handle it by re-logging in and then retrying the previously attempted call. I would prefer to do this somehow automatically for all the web service methods in question, rather than having to manually wrap the calls with the retry logic. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Restful authentication between two GAE apps.

    - by user259349
    Hello everyone, i am trying to write a restful google app engine application (python) that accepts requests only from another GAE that i wrote. I dont like any of the ways that i thought of to get this done, please advice if you know of something better than: Get SSL setup, and simply add the credentials on the request that my consuming app will send. I dont like it cause SSL will slow things down. Security by obsecurity. Add a random number in my request that is in Xmod0, where X is a secret number that both applications know. I just,,,, dont like this. Check the HTTP header to see where is the request coming from. This option is the one that i hate the least, not alot of processing, and spoofing an HTTP request is not really worth it, for my application's data. Is there any other clean solution for this?

    Read the article

  • Interpretation of empty User-agent

    - by Amit Agrawal
    How should I interpret a empty User-agent? I have some custom analytics code and that code has to analyze only human traffic. I have got a working list of User-agents denoting human traffic, and bot traffic, but the empty User-agent is proving to be problematic. And I am getting lots of traffic with empty user agent - 10%. Additionally - I have crafted the human traffic versus bot traffic user agent list by analyzing my current logs. As such I might be missing a lot of entries in there. Is there a well maintained list of user agents denoting bot traffic, OR the inverse a list of user agents denoting human traffic?

    Read the article

  • Authlogic Current User Question - hiding admin links...

    - by bgadoci
    I think I am missing something while using the Authlogic gem w/ Rails. To set the stage I have multiple users and each user can create posts and comments. Upon the display of a post or comment I would like to give the user who created them the option to edit or destroy. I am successfully using the following code to hide and show elements based on if a user is logged in or not but can't seem to find out how to only show these links to the actual user who created them...not any user that is logged in. <% if current_user %> <%= link_to 'Edit', edit_question_path(question) %> | <%= link_to 'Destroy', question, :confirm => 'Are you sure?', :method => :delete %> <% else %> <p>nothing to see here</p> <% end %> Here is the def of current_user located in the application controller in case I need to change something here. class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base helper :all # include all helpers, all the time protect_from_forgery # See ActionController::RequestForgeryProtection for details# helper_method :current_user private def current_user_session return @current_user_session if defined?(@current_user_session) @current_user_session = UserSession.find end def current_user return @current_user if defined?(@current_user) @current_user = current_user_session && current_user_session.record end end

    Read the article

  • XmlDataProvider authentication Http issue

    - by Allen Ho
    Hi, I have an XMLDataProvider IsAsynchronous="True" x:Key="xmlData" Source="http://192.168.15.90/text.xml"/ The only problem is the Source requires authtication. I can get around this but using a HttpWebRequest in which I can pass in NetworkCredentials, but I was just wondering if there was a simpler way of passing in credentials to the XMLDataProvider

    Read the article

  • User signup in REST API

    - by Bhaktavatsalam Nallanthighal
    I have a PHP web application that I want to make accessible across multiple clients. So, I'm trying to make it more like an API. My question is: How would I handle the creation of new users using the API? If I have a URL like http://example.com/user/signup which takes new user details and creates a new user via a POST request, wouldn't it be a problem that people can misuse it and create fake users easily?

    Read the article

  • Authentication using exchange.

    - by user300435
    Hello, my client has an exchange server and offers free email accounts to his clients and partners. His clients need access to some web applications through login and password and need to be authenticated . i thought about creating a custom asp.net membership provider that hits exchange instead of the regular aspnetdb store. Is there a way to authenticate these users against exhange with their exchange provided email/username and password ? thank you.

    Read the article

  • Cakephp ACL authentication issue - I'm locked out

    - by Baseer
    I've followed the CakePHP Cookbook ACL tutorial And as of right now I'm just trying to add users using the scaffolding method. I'm trying to go to /users/add but it always redirects me to the login screen even though I have added $this->Auth->allow('*'); in beforeFilter() temporarily to allow access to all pages. I've done this in both the UsersController and GroupsController as the tutorial asked. Below is my code for UsersController which I think will be the most relevant of all the files. Let me know if any other piece of code is required. <?php class UsersController extends AppController { var $name = 'Users'; var $scaffold; function beforeFilter() { parent::beforeFilter(); $this->Auth->allow('*'); } function login() { //Auth Magic } function logout() { //Leave empty for now. } } ?> I think I've pretty much followed the tutorial, any ideas as to what I may be missing? Thanks. I've been stuck on this for a while. =(

    Read the article

  • WPF integrate Windows live authentication for windows health vault

    - by AnD
    Hi all, I'm just wondering if there's any way for WPF application integrated with windows live ID? and it's actually for windows health vault [www.healthvault.com] so health vault is using windows live id or open id to login into their system. and what i gonna do is, creating wpf application (instead of web application) for health vault, so all of the login form username pass and everything is handled inside the wpf application without showing/using any internet browser. so since this's quite new for me, i hope if there's somebody ever did this before especially for health vault system that run on standalone wpf app. alright, so that's it, thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Checking Drupal authentication from external PHP

    - by peppergrower
    This may well be simple, but I'm new to Drupal. The organization I work for switched to Drupal a little while ago, but there's still some legacy code in various external PHP files that would be cumbersome to convert over to work within Drupal. However, it would be very nice to be able to restrict access to some of these pages based on a person being authenticated against Drupal. (Some pages are administrative and are currently visible to anyone who knows the URL, for instance. Yes, poor design, but that's what I inherited...) How can I check with Drupal, from an external PHP file, to see if the person visiting a given page has authenticated?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >