Search Results

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

Page 4/387 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • AD, Windows-NT Authentication queries

    - by rockbala
    Need Help on the following questions. When a users login (on a computer in the network) is validated against AD what is/are the authentication method used? When a users login is validated in Windows NT environment (not AD) what is/are the authentication method used? If all user's account is on AD, is it possible to change the authentication mechanism only (or protocols) from AD to NT and vice versa (if possible)? If part/whole of question 3 is valid, where should one look to change these authentication methods ? What is the difference between AD and Windows-NT authentication ? Windows server 2008 Domain controller used. Regards, Balaji

    Read the article

  • Does Basic User Authentication require 2-Phase communiation?

    - by RED SOFT ADAIR-StefanWoe
    My Application connects to the Internet to HTTP Services using boost::asio. Recently we added support for HTTP Proxys and Basic User Authentication. We implemented Basic User Authentication by just sending Authentication parameters with every HTTP call if a user configured a proxy in our program. Parameters are sent as described here: Authorization: Basic <base64 Encoded username:password> This works at least for one user and his proxy server. Other users report that their Proxy server replys with 407 Proxy Authentication Required My guess is that some proxy servers accept 1 one phase authentication and that others don't. I do not find any information that a 2 Phase communication is requested where the access always is denied for the first call by returning 407 and that only a second call is accepted. Our program yet does not retry the call if a 407 has been returned. Do we have to add this? I asked this question before on stackoverflow but did not get a sufficient answer.

    Read the article

  • How should an API use http basic authentication

    - by user1626384
    When an API requires that a client authenticates to it, i've seen two different scenarios used and I am wondering which case I should use for my situation. Example 1. An API is offered by a company to allow third parties to authenticate with a token and secret using HTTP Basic. Example 2. An API accepts a username and password via HTTP Basic to authenticate an end user. Generally they get a token back for future requests. My Setup: I will have an JSON API that I use as my backend for a mobile and web app. It seems like good practice for both the mobile and web app to send along a token and secret so only these two apps can access the API blocking any other third party. But the mobile and web app allow users to login and submit posts, view their data, etc. So I would want them to login via HTTP Basic as well on each request. Do I somehow use a combination of both these methods or only send the end user credentials (username and token) on each request? If I only send the end user credentials, do I store them in a cookie on the client?

    Read the article

  • Picasa 3.9 login fails with 2-factor authentication

    - by Paul Pomes
    I've installed Picasa 3.9 via the instructions at webupd8, however the login window keeps failing with the message, "You must be connected to the Internet to use this feature." If "Try again" is tried I'll successfully pass the first login screen of username and password. Next I'm prompted for the verification code which then takes me back to the "You must be connected to the Internet to use this feature" screen again.

    Read the article

  • Authentication for users on a Single Page App?

    - by John H
    I have developed a single page app prototype that is using Backbone on the front end and going to consume from a thin RESTful API on the server for it's data. Coming from heavy server side application development (php and python), I have really enjoyed the new different design approach with a thick client side MVC but am confused on how best to restrict the app to authenticated users who log in. I prefer to have the app itself behind a login and would also like to implement other types of logins eventually (openid, fb connect, etc) in addition to the site's native login. I am unclear how this is done and have been searching - but unsuccessful in finding information that made it clear to me. In the big picture, what is the current best practice for registering users and requiring them to login to use your single page app? Once a user is logged in, how are the api requests authenticated? Can I store a session but how do I detect for this session in the API calls? Any answers to this would be much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Windows authentication to SQL Server via IIS and PHP

    - by Jeff
    We're running a PHP 5.4 application on Server 2008 R2. We would like to connect to a SQL Server 2008 database, on a separate server, using Windows authentication (must be Windows authentication--the DB admins won't let us connect any other way). I have downloaded the SQL Server drivers for PHP and installed them. IIS is configured for Windows authentication, and anonymous authentication has been disabled. $_SERVER['AUTH_USER'] reports our currently logged on Windows account. In php.ini, we have set fastcgi.impersonate = 1. When we setup a connection using the following code from Microsoft: $serverName = "sqlserver\sqlserver"; $connectionInfo = array( "Database"=>"some_db"); /* Connect using Windows Authentication. */ $conn = sqlsrv_connect( $serverName, $connectionInfo); if( $conn === false ) { echo "Unable to connect.</br>"; die( print_r( sqlsrv_errors(), true)); } We are presented with the following error message: Unable to connect. Array ( [0] => Array ( [0] => 28000 [SQLSTATE] => 28000 [1] => 18456 [code] => 18456 [2] => [Microsoft][SQL Server Native Client 11.0][SQL Server]Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITY\ANONYMOUS LOGON'. [message] => [Microsoft][SQL Server Native Client 11.0][SQL Server]Login failed for user 'NT AUTHORITY\ANONYMOUS LOGON'. ) Is it possible to connect to SQL Server 2008 via PHP using Windows authentication? Are there any additional required settings we need to make on IIS, SQL Server, or any other component (like a domain controller)?

    Read the article

  • How to use PHP-based authentication from non-PHP based AJAX app?

    - by DavidR
    I've been asked to create a stand-alone webapp using "straight" HTML and Javascript that does user authentication against an existing PHP app (backend is MySQL). Unfortunately, I really don't have a firm grasp on how PHP authentication works, and I'd rather not invest a lot of time in learning PHP just for this particular case. I can see two possibilites so far 1) create a PHP wrapper around my new app and use native PHP authentication (don't like this) 2) create a simple REST-ful webservice around the PHP authentication (don't know how to do this) Anything else I should consider? Help is much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • android content provider robustness on provider crash

    - by user1298992
    On android platforms (confirmed on ICS), if a content provider dies while a client is in the middle of a query (i.e. has a open cursor) the framework decides to kill the client processes holding a open cursor. Here is a logcat output when i tried this with a download manager query that sleeps after doing a query. The "sleep" was to reproduce the problem. you can imagine it happening in a regular use case when the provider dies at the right/wrong time. And then do a kill of com.android.media (which hosts the downloadProvider). "Killing com.example (pid 12234) because provider com.android.providers.downloads.DownloadProvider is in dying process android.process.media" I tracked the code for this in ActivityManagerService::removeDyingProviderLocked Is this a policy decision or is the cursor access unsafe after the provider has died? It looks like the client cursor is holding a fd for an ashmem location populated by the CP. Is this the reason the clients are killed instead of throwing an exception like Binders when the server (provider) dies ?

    Read the article

  • How can I make subversion reset the stored passwords/users and remember my authentication credential

    - by NicDumZ
    Hello folks! Background: I used to have everything working just fine on my fresh install: $ svn co https://domain:443/ test1 Error validating server certificate for 'https://domain:443': - The certificate is not issued by a trusted authority. Use the fingerprint to validate the certificate manually! Certificate information: - Hostname: **REMOVED** - Valid: **REMOVED** - Issuer: **REMOVED** - Fingerprint: **checked with issuer and REMOVED** (R)eject, accept (t)emporarily or accept (p)ermanently? p Authentication realm: <https://domain:443> Subversion repository Password for 'nicdumz-machine-hostname': Authentication realm: <https://domain:443> Subversion repository Username: nicdumz Password for 'nicdumz': # proceeds to checkout correctly $ svn co https://domain:443/ test2 # checkouts nicely, without asking for my password. At some point I needed to commit stuff using a different account. So I did that $ svn ci --username other.user Authentication realm: <https://domain:443> Subversion repository Password for 'other.user': # works fine But since then, everytime I want to commit as 'nicdumz' (default user, all repos have been checked-out with that user), it prompts me for my password: $ svn ci Authentication realm: <https://domain:443> Subversion repository Password for 'nicdumz': Hey come on, why :) The same happens if I want a fresh checkout, since read-access is also protected. So I tried fixing the issue by myself. I read around that ~/.subversion/auth was storing credentials, so I removed it from the way: $ cd ~/.subversion $ mv auth oldauth $ mkdir auth It seemed to work at first, because svn had forgotten about certificate validation: $ svn co https://domain:443/ test3 Error validating server certificate for 'https://domain:443': - The certificate is not issued by a trusted authority. Use the fingerprint to validate the certificate manually! Certificate information: - Hostname: **REMOVED** - Valid: **REMOVED** - Issuer: **REMOVED** - Fingerprint: **checked with issuer and REMOVED** (R)eject, accept (t)emporarily or accept (p)ermanently? p Authentication realm: <https://domain:443> Subversion repository Password for 'nicdumz-machine-hostname': Authentication realm: <https://domain:443> Subversion repository Username: nicdumz Password for 'nicdumz': # proceeds to checkout correctly $ svn up Authentication realm: <https://domain:443> Subversion repository Password for 'nicdumz': What? how is this happening? If you have suggestions to investigate more about the behaviour, I am very interested. If I'm correct, there is no way to do a verbose svn up or anything of the like, so I'm not sure should I go for investigation. Oh, and for what it's worth: $ svn --version svn, version 1.6.6 (r40053) compiled Oct 26 2009, 06:19:08 Copyright (C) 2000-2009 CollabNet. Subversion is open source software, see http://subversion.tigris.org/ This product includes software developed by CollabNet (http://www.Collab.Net/). The following repository access (RA) modules are available: * ra_neon : Module for accessing a repository via WebDAV protocol using Neon. - handles 'http' scheme - handles 'https' scheme * ra_svn : Module for accessing a repository using the svn network protocol. - with Cyrus SASL authentication - handles 'svn' scheme * ra_local : Module for accessing a repository on local disk. - handles 'file' scheme * ra_serf : Module for accessing a repository via WebDAV protocol using serf. - handles 'http' scheme - handles 'https' scheme

    Read the article

  • jax-ws, authentication for php clents

    - by kislo_metal
    Scenario: Server is glassfish with jax-ws web services and clients is php based What type of authentication for web services is more computable with php based clients ? HTTP Basic Authentication HTTPS Client Authentication Mutual Authentication (is it supported ?) Digest Authentication (is it supported ?) Description : Specifying an Authentication Mechanism Thank you!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC 4/Web API Single Page App for Mobile Devices ... Needs Authentication

    - by lmttag
    We have developed an ASP.NET MVC 4/Web API single page, mobile website (also using jQuery Mobile) that is intended to be accessed only from mobile devices (e.g., iPads, iPhones, Android tables and phones, etc.), not desktop browsers. This mobile website will be hosted internally, like an intranet site. However, since we’re accessing it from mobile devices, we can’t use Windows authentication. We still need to know which user (and their role) is logging in to the mobile website app. We tried simply using ASP.NET’s forms authentication and membership provider, but couldn’t get it working exactly the way we wanted. What we need is for the user to be prompted for a user name and password only on the first time they access the site on their mobile device. After they enter a correct user name and password and have been authenticated once, each subsequent time they access the site they should just go right in. They shouldn’t have to re-enter their credentials (i.e., something needs to be saved locally to each device to identify the user after the first time). This is where we had troubles. Everything worked as expected the first time. That is, the user was prompted to enter a user name and password, and, after doing that, was authenticated and allowed into the site. The problem is every time after the browser was closed on the mobile device, the device and user were not know and the user had to re-enter user name and password. We tried lots of things too. We tried setting persistent cookies in JavaScript. No good. The cookies weren’t there to be read the second time. We tried manually setting persistent cookies from ASP.NET. No good. We, of course, used FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(model.UserName, true); as part of the form authentication framework. No good. We tried using HTML5 local storage. No good. No matter what we tried, if the user was on a mobile device, they would have to log in every single time. (Note: we’ve tried on an iPad and iPhone running both iOS 5.1 and 6.0, with Safari configure to allow cookies, and we’ve tried on Android 2.3.4.) Is there some trick to getting a scenario like this working? Or, do we have to write some sort of custom authentication mechanism? If so, how? And, what? Or, should we use something like claims-based authentication and WIF? Or??? Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Web Service Authentication in C# Web Application i.e Details on Digest and Basic Authentication

    - by NSK
    Details on all Web Service Authentication methods and How to apply those?? i.e Way to apply Basic and Digest Authentication in C# Web Application. More: I'm creating a Web Service and want to deploy it on IIS 5.0. In order to authenticate user I want to use Digest Authentication. How this is done? The authentication should contain some through which the user is checked inside database for authentication and then if valid user then return success or else failure...

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 9.10 RSA authentication: ssh fails, filezilla runs fine

    - by MariusPontmercy
    This is quite a mistery for me. I usually use passwordless RSA authentication to login into my remote *nix servers with ssh and sftp. Never had any problem until now. I cannot connect to an Ubuntu 9.10 machine: user@myclient$ ssh -i .ssh/Ganymede_key [email protected] [...] debug1: Host 'ganymede.server.com' is known and matches the RSA host key. debug1: Found key in /home/user/.ssh/known_hosts:14 debug2: bits set: 494/1024 debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature correct debug2: kex_derive_keys debug2: set_newkeys: mode 1 debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS debug2: set_newkeys: mode 0 debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS received debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST sent debug2: service_accept: ssh-userauth debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug2: key: .ssh/Ganymede_key (0xb96a0ef8) debug2: key: .ssh/Ganymede_key ((nil)) debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Offering public key: .ssh/Ganymede_key debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug1: Trying private key: .ssh/Ganymede_key debug1: read PEM private key done: type RSA debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug2: we did not send a packet, disable method debug1: Next authentication method: keyboard-interactive debug2: userauth_kbdint debug2: we sent a keyboard-interactive packet, wait for reply debug2: input_userauth_info_req debug2: input_userauth_info_req: num_prompts 1 Then it falls back to password authentication. If I disable password authentication on the remote machine my connection attempt just fails with a "Permission denied (publickey)." state. Same thing for sftp from command line. The "funny" thing is that the exact same RSA key works like a charm with a Filezilla sftp session instead: 12:08:00 Trace: Offered public key from "/home/user/.filezilla/keys/Ganymede_key" 12:08:00 Trace: Offer of public key accepted, trying to authenticate using it. 12:08:01 Trace: Access granted 12:08:01 Trace: Opened channel for session 12:08:01 Trace: Started a shell/command 12:08:01 Status: Connected to ganymede.server.com 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ConnectParseResponse() 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Status: Retrieving directory listing... 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::SendNextCommand() 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ChangeDirSend() 12:08:02 Command: pwd 12:08:02 Response: Current directory is: "/root" 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ParseSubcommandResult(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ListSubcommandResult() 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Status: Directory listing successful Any thoughts? M

    Read the article

  • Set up basic Windows Authentication to connect to SQL Server 2008 from a small, trusted network

    - by Margaret
    I'm guessing that this is documented somewhere on Microsoft's site, but thus far I haven't found it. I'm trying to set up a Windows Server 2008 box to have SQL Server 2008 with Windows Authentication (Mixed Mode, actually, but anyway) for work. We have a number of client machines that will need access to the databases, and I would like to keep configuration as simple as feasible. Here's what I've done so far: Install SQL Server 2008 selecting Mixed Mode Create a new 'Standard' (rather than Administrator) Windows login entitled "UserLogin" (with intent to use it as the access account) Create an SQL Server Login for Server\UserLogin and assign it 'Windows Authentication' Log in as UserLogin, check that I'm able to connect to SQL Server using WIndows Authentication, then log out again Start on the first client (Windows XPSP2, SQL Server 2005): Run C:\WINDOWS\system32\rundll32.exe keymgr.dll, KRShowKeyMgr Click "Add", enter the server name in the box, Server\UserLogin in the Username, and UserLogin's password in the Password field. Click "Ok" then "Close" Attempt to access SQL Server 2005 using Windows authentication. Succeed. Confetti! Start on the second client (Windows 7, SQL Server 2008): Run C:\WINDOWS\system32\rundll32.exe keymgr.dll, KRShowKeyMgr Click "Add", enter the server name in the box, Server\UserLogin in the Username, and UserLogin's password in the Password field. Click "Ok" then "Close" Attempt to access SQL Server 2008 using Windows authentication. Receive an error "Login failed. The login is from an untrusted domain and cannot be used with Windows authentication" Assume that this translates to "You can't have two connections from the same account" (Yes, I know that doesn't make sense, but I'm a bit like that) Go back to the server, create a second Windows account, give it SQL Server rights. Go back to the second client, create a new passkey for the second login, try logging in again. Continue to receive the same error. Is this all overly complex and there's an easy way to do what I'm trying to accomplish? Or am I missing some ultra-obvious step that would make everything behave as desired? Most of the stuff that's coming up when I try to Google seems to be along the lines of "My ASP.NET application isn't working!", which obviously isn't all that much use.

    Read the article

  • Squid, authentication, Outlook Anywhere, Windows 7 and HTTP 1.1 = NIGHTMARE

    - by Massimo
    I'm running a Squid proxy (latest version, 3.1.4) on Linux CentOS 5.4 with Samba 3.5.4, in order to allow authenticated web access for domain users; everything works fine, and even Windows 7 clients are fully supported. Authentication is transparent for domain users, while it is explicitly requested for non-domain ones, and it works if the user can provide valid domain credentials. All nice and good. Then, Outlook Anywhere kicks in and pain and suffering ensue. When Outlook (be it 2007 or 2010, it doesn't matter) runs on Windows XP clients, it connects gracefully through the Squid proxy to its remote Exchange server. When it runs on Windows 7, it doesn't. If the authentication requirement is lifted from the proxy, everything works on Windows 7 too, so the problem is obviously related to NTLM authentication with Squid. Digging more deeply (WireShark), I discovered Outlook Anywhere uses HTTP 1.1 when it runs on Windows 7, while it uses HTTP 1.0 when on Windows XP. And it looks like Squid, even in its latest incarnation, still has some serious troubles handling HTTP 1.1 properly, particularly when SSL and proxy authentication are thrown in the mix. While waiting for Squid to fully and officially support HTTP 1.1 (and it looks like this could take quite a long time), I'm looking for one of the following solutions: Make Squid handle this correctly, if it is at all possible. Identify Outlook Anywhere connections and have Squid not require authentication for them. But it isn't easy: again, the behaviour of Outlook differs when running on Windows XP and Windows 7, and while on Windows XP Outlook sends a really nice user-agent string of "MSRPC", on Windows 7 it doesn't send any (why? WHY?!?). Force Outlook Anywhere to use HTTP 1.0 even when running on Windows 7. And no, this is not as simple as deselecting "use HTTP 1.1" in Internet Explorer, looks like Outlook ignores that setting and chooses on its own which protocol to use. Any other feasible solution which doesn't involve whitelisting specific destination Exchange servers, which is the last-resort solution I'm trying to avoid.

    Read the article

  • IIS6 intranet site using integrated authentication fails to load when accessed externally

    - by maik
    I've developed a couple of internal sites for my organization that use integrated authentication. Ultimately we want these sites to be accessible externally to users with domain-joined computers. The sites work as expected on domain computers while on the internal network. The problem comes when I take my laptop home and try to access those sites. IIS only has integrated authentication enabled for the two sites. When I browse to the site using IE8 I get a username/password prompt asking for domain credentials. I can put those in and it will work, but the goal is to use the cached token for integrated authentication. Next I reasoned that IE wouldn't response to an integrated auth request (is NTLM the right term for this?) unless the site was trusted. I tried adding the site to Trusted Sites but I get the same behavior as the before. I then added the site to Local Intranet sites and that is where things get weird. I get a generic error page from IE, no error code or anything. Just for funsies I loaded up Firefox (which I had previously set up to use integrated authentication) and I added this new site to network.automatic-ntlm-auth.trusted-uris. Much to my surprise I was able to load the pages up with no problem at all and saw exactly what I was expecting (including verification that the integrated authentication worked). My mind is a bit boggled at the moment as I'm not really sure where to go from here. I was hoping some of you may be able to provide some insight.

    Read the article

  • Windows Authentication Website Asking for Credentials

    - by ChrisHDog
    I have a website that has ASP.Net Impersonation Enabled and Windows Authentication Enabled. When navigating to that site using IE8 with "Enable Integrated Windows Authentication" (under Tools - Internet Options - Advanced) checked, the browser pops-up a "Windows Security" dialog box asking for User name and Password. My understanding was that this was automatically passed through and I would not need to type in those details. Additional Information: If I uncheck "Enable Integrated Windows Authentication" I do not get the pop-up window and it appears to work was intended (though that is the opposite of what I would be expecting) If I enable Windows Authentication in Firefox I do not get the pop-up window (i.e. works as intended) Are there some settings or similar that could have been set to create this behavior? Or has anyone else seen similar behavior and know how to fix?

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Application Request Routing with Windows Authentication

    - by theplatz
    I'm running into a problem trying to get Windows Authentication working in an environment that uses Microsoft Application Request Routing and was hoping someone might be able to help. The problem I'm running into is that only some requests are authenticated, while others fail with 401 errors. I have followed the Special Case of Running IIS 7.0 in a Web Farm instructions found at http://blogs.msdn.com/b/webtopics/archive/2009/01/19/service-principal-name-spn-checklist-for-kerberos-authentication-with-iis-7-0.aspx to no avail. My current server setup looks like the following: ARR Two servers set up with IIS shared configuration using IIS 7.5 on Windows 2008 R2 Anonymous authentication turned on for the Default Web Site Web Farm Two servers running IIS 7.5 on Windows 2008 R2 Three web sites set up using port binding to differentiate between virtual hosts. Ports being used are 8000, 8001, and 8002 Application pools for Windows Authentication all use a common domain account SPN added to domain account for http/<virthalhost-name>:<port-number> and http/<virtualhost-name>.<fully-qualified-domain>:<port-number> The IIS logs show the following when authentication is working/failing. If I understand correctly, all requests should show DOMAIN\User_Name: 2012-11-19 15:03:17 CLUSTER-IP-ADDRESS GET /home/stylesheets/techweb.landing.css - 8002 DOMAIN\User_Name ARR-HOST-1-IP-ADDRESS 200 0 0 62 2012-11-19 15:03:17 CLUSTER-IP-ADDRESS GET /home/images/user-background-right.gif - 8002 - ARR-HOST-1-IP-ADDRESS 401 2 5 0 2012-11-19 15:03:17 CLUSTER-IP-ADDRESS GET /home/images/user-background-left.gif - 8002 DOMAIN\User_Name ARR-HOST-IP-ADDRESS 200 0 0 31 2012-11-19 15:03:17 CLUSTER-IP-ADDRESS GET /home/images/user-icon.png - 8002 - ARR-HOST-1-IP-ADDRESS 401 2 5 0 2012-11-19 15:03:17 CLUSTER-IP-ADDRESS GET /home/images/user-icon.png - 8002 - ARR-HOST-1-IP-ADDRESS 401 1 2148074248 0 2012-11-19 15:03:17 CLUSTER-IP-ADDRESS GET /home/images/application-icon.png - 8002 - ARR-HOST-1-IP-ADDRESS 401 1 2148074248 0 2012-11-19 15:03:17 CLUSTER-IP-ADDRESS GET /home/images/user-background-right.gif - 8002 - ARR-HOST-1-IP-ADDRESS 401 1 3221225581 15 2012-11-19 15:03:17 CLUSTER-IP-ADDRESS GET /home/images/building.gif - 8002 DOMAIN\User_Name ARR-HOST-2-IP-ADDRESS 200 0 0 218 Does anyone know what might cause this problem and how I can resolve it?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 9.10 RSA authentication: ssh fails, filezilla runs fine

    - by MariusPontmercy
    This is quite a mistery for me. I usually use passwordless RSA authentication to login into my remote *nix servers with ssh and sftp. Never had any problem until now. I cannot connect to an Ubuntu 9.10 machine: user@myclient$ ssh -i .ssh/Ganymede_key [email protected] [...] debug1: Host 'ganymede.server.com' is known and matches the RSA host key. debug1: Found key in /home/user/.ssh/known_hosts:14 debug2: bits set: 494/1024 debug1: ssh_rsa_verify: signature correct debug2: kex_derive_keys debug2: set_newkeys: mode 1 debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS sent debug1: expecting SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS debug2: set_newkeys: mode 0 debug1: SSH2_MSG_NEWKEYS received debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST sent debug2: service_accept: ssh-userauth debug1: SSH2_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT received debug2: key: .ssh/Ganymede_key (0xb96a0ef8) debug2: key: .ssh/Ganymede_key ((nil)) debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug1: Next authentication method: publickey debug1: Offering public key: .ssh/Ganymede_key debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug1: Trying private key: .ssh/Ganymede_key debug1: read PEM private key done: type RSA debug2: we sent a publickey packet, wait for reply debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,password,keyboard-interactive debug2: we did not send a packet, disable method debug1: Next authentication method: keyboard-interactive debug2: userauth_kbdint debug2: we sent a keyboard-interactive packet, wait for reply debug2: input_userauth_info_req debug2: input_userauth_info_req: num_prompts 1 Then it falls back to password authentication. If I disable password authentication on the remote machine my connection attempt just fails with a "Permission denied (publickey)." state. Same thing for sftp from command line. The "funny" thing is that the exact same RSA key works like a charm with a Filezilla sftp session instead: 12:08:00 Trace: Offered public key from "/home/user/.filezilla/keys/Ganymede_key" 12:08:00 Trace: Offer of public key accepted, trying to authenticate using it. 12:08:01 Trace: Access granted 12:08:01 Trace: Opened channel for session 12:08:01 Trace: Started a shell/command 12:08:01 Status: Connected to ganymede.server.com 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ConnectParseResponse() 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Status: Retrieving directory listing... 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::SendNextCommand() 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ChangeDirSend() 12:08:02 Command: pwd 12:08:02 Response: Current directory is: "/root" 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ParseSubcommandResult(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ListSubcommandResult() 12:08:02 Trace: CSftpControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Trace: CControlSocket::ResetOperation(0) 12:08:02 Status: Directory listing successful Any thoughts? M

    Read the article

  • Multi- authentication scenario for a public internet service using Kerberos

    - by StrangeLoop
    I have a public web server which has users coming from internet (via HTTPS) and from a corporate intranet. I wish to use Kerberos authentication for the intranet users so that they would be automatically logged in the web application without the need to provide any login/password (assuming they are already logged to the Windows domain). For the users coming from internet I want to provide traditional basic/form- based authentication. User/password data for these users would be stored internally in a database used by the application. Web application will be configured to use Kerberos authentication for users coming from specific intranet ip networks and basic/form- based authentication will be used for the rest of the users. From a security perspective, are there some risks involved in this kind of setup or is this a generally accepted solution? My understanding is that server doesn't need access to KDC (see Kerberos authentication, service host and access to KDC) and it can be completely isolated from AD and corporate intranet. The server has a keytab file stored locally that is used to decrypt tickets sent by the users coming from intranet. The tickets only contain username and domain of the incoming user. Server never sees the passwords of authenticated users. If the server would be hacked and the keytab file compromised, it would mean that attacker could forge tickets for any domain user and get access to the web application as any user. But typically this is the case anyway if hacker gains access to the keytab file on the local filesystem. The encryption key contained in the keytab file is based on the service account password in AD and is in hashed form, I guess it is very difficult to brute force this password if strong Kerberos encryption like AES-256-SHA1 is used. As the server has no network access to intranet, even the compromised service account couldn't be directly used for anything.

    Read the article

  • Google chrome proxy authentication dialogue timeout

    - by Nihar Sarangi
    I am on a network that uses LDAP proxy for authentication based on a username and password. Whenever I start Google Chrome, it pops up with a proxy authentication dialogue, but the dialogue disappears automatically after variable amount of time (sometimes it stays for 5 seconds some times less than 1 second). I have found the same issue with Chromium also. Is there any configuration I can set to control this timeout, or say, auto-authenticate with my authentication details from the shell or DE (Gnome3 on Arch)?

    Read the article

  • Turning off ASP.Net WebForms authentication for one sub-directory

    - by Keith
    I have a large enterprise application containing both WebForms and MVC pages. It has existing authentication and authorisation settings that I don't want to change. The WebForms authentication is configured in the web.config: <authentication mode="Forms"> <forms blah... blah... blah /> </authentication> <authorization> <deny users="?" /> </authorization> Fairly standard so far. I have a REST service that is part of this big application and I want to use HTTP authentication instead for this one service. So, when a user attempts to get JSON data from the REST service it returns an HTTP 401 status and a WWW-Authenticate header. If they respond with a correctly formed HTTP Authorization response it lets them in. The problem is that WebForms overrides this at a low level - if you return 401 (Unauthorised) it overrides that with a 302 (redirection to login page). That's fine in the browser but useless for a REST service. I want to turn off the authentication setting in the web.config: <location path="rest"> <system.web> <authentication mode="None" /> <authorization><allow users="?" /></authorization> </system.web> </location> The authorisation bit works fine, but when I try to change the authentication I get an exception: It is an error to use a section registered as allowDefinition='MachineToApplication' beyond application level. I'm configuring this at application level though - it's in the root web.config How do I override the authentication so that all of the rest of the site uses WebForms authentication and this one directory uses none? This is similar to another question: 401 response code for json requests with ASP.NET MVC, but I'm not looking for the same solution - I don't want to just remove the WebForms authentication and add new custom code globally, there's far to much risk and work involved. I want to change just the one directory in configuration.

    Read the article

  • Membership Provider Parte 1

    - by Jason Ulloa
    Asp.net ha sido una de las tecnologías creadas por Microsoft de mas rápido crecimiento por la facilidad para los desarrolladores de crear sitios web. Una de las partes de mayor importancia que tiene asp.net es el contar con el Membership Provider o proveedor de Membrecía, que permite la creación, manejo y mantenimiento de un sistema completo de control y autenticación de usuarios. Para dar inicio a la serie de post que escribiré sobre que es Membeship y cuáles son las funcionalidades principales daremos unas definiciones. Tal como se menciono anteriormente con el membership provider podemos crear un sistema de control de usuarios completos, entre las funcionalidades principales podemos encontrar: * Creación de usuarios * Almacenamiento de información en base de datos * Autenticación, bloqueos y seguimiento Otras de las ventajas que cabe resaltar, es que, algunos de los controles de asp.net ya traen "naturalmente" en sus funciones la implementación del membership provider, tal como el control "Login" o los controles de estado de usuario, lo cual nos permite que con solo arrastrarlos al diseñador estén funcionando. Membership provider es poderoso, pero su funcionalidad y seguridad se ven aumentadas cuando se integra con otros proveedores de asp.net como lo son RoleProvider y Profile Provider (estos los discutiremos en otros post). En la siguiente figura, podemos ver como se distribuyen algunoS provider creados por Microsoft Antes de iniciar con la implementación de membership debes conocer cosas básicas como el espacio de nombres al que pertenece, el cual es: System.Web.Security que se encuentra dentro del ensamblado System.Web. Algo que debe tomarse en cuenta, es que, para poder utilizar cualquiera de los miembros de la clase, debemos hacer la referencia respectiva. Por defecto, el membership provider está diseñado para trabajar directamente con SQL Server, de ahí que su nombre completo seria SQL Membership Provider. Sin embargo, debido a su gran flexibilidad podemos extenderlo a cualquier base de datos o bien modificarlo para adapatarlo a nuestras necesidades. En los siguientes posts, discutiremos como crear un proveedor personalizado utilizando Entity Framework, separando las capas de acceso y datos y cuáles son las principales funciones que podemos aplicar. En palabras básicas y sin entrar muy hondo en el tema, hemos descrito el objetivo del Membership Provider, para todos los que desean ampliar pueden hacerlo en: http://msdn.microsoft.com/es-es/library/system.web.security.membership%28v=vs.100%29.aspx

    Read the article

  • Implementing a 2 Legged OAuth Provider

    - by Rob Wilkerson
    I'm trying to find my way around the OAuth spec, its requirements and any implementations I can find and, so far, it really seems like more trouble than its worth because I'm having trouble finding a single resource that pulls it all together. Or maybe it's just that I'm looking for something more specialized than most tutorials. I have a set of existing APIs--some in Java, some in PHP--that I now need to secure and, for a number of reasons, OAuth seems like the right way to go. Unfortunately, my inability to track down the right resources to help me get a provider up and running is challenging that theory. Since most of this will be system-to-system API usage, I'll need to implement a 2-legged provider. With that in mind... Does anyone know of any good tutorials for implementing a 2-legged OAuth provider with PHP? Given that I have securable APIs in 2 languages, do I need to implement a provider in both or is there a way to create the provider as a "front controller" that I can funnel all requests through? When securing PHP services, for example, do I have to secure each API individually by including the requisite provider resources on each? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >