Search Results

Search found 15798 results on 632 pages for 'authentication required'.

Page 4/632 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to cache authentication in Linux using PAM/Kerberos authentication (for CVS)?

    - by Calonthar
    We have several Linux servers that authenticate Linux user passwords on our Windows Active Directory Server using PAM and Kerberos 5. The Linux distro we use is CentOS 6. On one system, we have several Version Control Systems like CVS and Subversion, both of which authenticate users throug PAM, such that users can use their normal Unix resp. Windows AD accounts. Since we started using Kerberos for password authentication, we experienced that CVS on a client machine is often much slower in establishing a connection. CVS authenticates the user on every request (eg. cvs diff, log, update...). Is is possible to cache the credentials that kerberos uses, sucht that is does not need to ask the Windows AD server every time a user executes a cvs action? Our PAM config /etc/pam.d/system-auth looks like the following: auth required pam_env.so auth sufficient pam_unix.so nullok try_first_pass auth requisite pam_succeed_if.so uid >= 500 quiet auth sufficient pam_krb5.so use_first_pass auth required pam_deny.so account required pam_unix.so broken_shadow account sufficient pam_succeed_if.so uid < 500 quiet account [default=bad success=ok user_unknown=ignore] pam_krb5.so account required pam_permit.so password requisite pam_cracklib.so try_first_pass retry=3 password sufficient pam_unix.so md5 shadow nullok try_first_pass use_authtok password sufficient pam_krb5.so use_authtok password required pam_deny.so session optional pam_keyinit.so revoke session required pam_limits.so session [success=1 default=ignore] pam_succeed_if.so service in crond quiet use_uid session required pam_unix.so session optional pam_krb5.so

    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

  • 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

  • Linux authentication via ADS -- allowing only specific groups in PAM

    - by Kenaniah
    I'm taking the samba / winbind / PAM route to authenticate users on our linux servers from our Active Directory domain. Everything works, but I want to limit what AD groups are allowed to authenticate. Winbind / PAM currently allows any enabled user account in the active directory, and pam_winbind.so doesn't seem to heed the require_membership_of=MYDOMAIN\\mygroup parameter. Doesn't matter if I set it in the /etc/pam.d/system-auth or /etc/security/pam_winbind.conf files. How can I force winbind to honor the require_membership_of setting? Using CentOS 5.5 with up-to-date packages. Update: turns out that PAM always allows root to pass through auth, by virtue of the fact that it's root. So as long as the account exists, root will pass auth. Any other account is subjected to the auth constraints. Update 2: require_membership_of seems to be working, except for when the requesting user has the root uid. In that case, the login succeeds regardless of the require_membership_of setting. This is not an issue for any other account. How can I configure PAM to force the require_membership_of check even when the current user is root? Current PAM config is below: auth sufficient pam_winbind.so auth sufficient pam_unix.so nullok try_first_pass auth requisite pam_succeed_if.so uid >= 500 quiet auth required pam_deny.so account sufficient pam_winbind.so account sufficient pam_localuser.so account required pam_unix.so broken_shadow password ..... (excluded for brevity) session required pam_winbind.so session required pam_mkhomedir.so skel=/etc/skel umask=0077 session required pam_limits.so session required pam_unix.so require_memebership_of is currently set in the /etc/security/pam_winbind.conf file, and is working (except for the root case outlined above).

    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

  • A dropdownlist list in ASP.NET MVC although not [required] field shows up as required and Model Sta

    - by VJ
    I have the following code- View- <% Html.BeginForm(); %> <div> <%= Html.DropDownList("DropDownSelectList", new SelectList( Model.DropDownSelectList, "Value", "Text"))%> Controller- public ActionResult Admin(string apiKey, string userId) { ChallengesAdminViewModel vm = new ChallengesAdminViewModel(); vm.ApiKey = apiKey; vm.UserId = userId; vm.DropDownSelectList = new List<SelectListItem>(); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem1); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem2); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem3); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem4); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem5); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem6); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem7); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult Admin(ChallengesAdminViewModel vm) { if (ModelState.IsValid)//Due to the null dropdownlist gives model state invalid { } } ViewModel- public class ChallengesAdminViewModel { [Required] public string ApiKey { get; set; } [Required] public string UserId { get; set; } public List<SelectListItem> DropDownSelectList { get; set; } } I dont know why it still requires the list although not required. I want to have only two attributes as required. So I wanted to know how do i declare or change that list to be not required and have my Model State Valid.

    Read the article

  • Although not [required] List field shows up as required and Model State is not Valid due to it bein

    - by VJ
    I have the following code- View- <% Html.BeginForm(); %> <div> <%= Html.DropDownList("DropDownSelectList", new SelectList( Model.DropDownSelectList, "Value", "Text"))%> Controller- public ActionResult Admin(string apiKey, string userId) { ChallengesAdminViewModel vm = new ChallengesAdminViewModel(); vm.ApiKey = apiKey; vm.UserId = userId; vm.DropDownSelectList = new List<SelectListItem>(); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem1); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem2); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem3); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem4); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem5); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem6); vm.DropDownSelectList.Add(listItem7); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult Admin(ChallengesAdminViewModel vm) { if (ModelState.IsValid)//Due to the null dropdownlist gives model state invalid { } } ViewModel- public class ChallengesAdminViewModel { [Required] public string ApiKey { get; set; } [Required] public string UserId { get; set; } public List<SelectListItem> DropDownSelectList { get; set; } } I dont know why it still requires the list although not required. I want to have only two attributes as required. So I wanted to know how do i declare or change that list to be not required and have my Model State Valid.

    Read the article

  • Authentication required by wireless network.

    - by Roman
    I would like to use a wireless network from Ubuntu. In the network drop-down menu I select a network (this is a University network I have an account there). Then I get a windows with the following fields: Wireless Security: [WPA&WPA2 Enterprise] Authentication: [Tunneled TLS] Anonymous Identity: [] CA Certificate: [(None)] Inner Authentication: [some letters] User Name: [] Password: [] I put there my user name and password and do not change default value and leave "Anonymous Identity"blank. As a result of that I get "Authentication required by wireless network". How can I solve this problem? I think it is important to notice that our system administrator tried to find some files (which are probably needed to be used as "CA Certificate"). He said that he does not know where this file is located on Ubuntu (he support only Windows). So, probably this is direction I need to go. I need to find this file. But may be I am wrong. May be something else needs to be done. Could you pleas help me with that?

    Read the article

  • Authentication required by wireless network

    - by Roman
    I would like to use a wireless network from Ubuntu. In the network drop-down menu I select a network (this is a University network I have an account there). Then I get a windows with the following fields: Wireless Security: [WPA&WPA2 Enterprise] Authentication: [Tunneled TLS] Anonymous Identity: [] CA Certificate: [(None)] Inner Authentication: [some letters] User Name: [] Password: [] I put there my user name and password and do not change default value and leave "Anonymous Identity"blank. As a result of that I get "Authentication required by wireless network". How can I solve this problem? I think it is important to notice that our system administrator tried to find some files (which are probably needed to be used as "CA Certificate"). He said that he does not know where this file is located on Ubuntu (he support only Windows). So, probably this is direction I need to go. I need to find this file. But may be I am wrong. May be something else needs to be done. Could you pleas help me with that?

    Read the article

  • Outlook Anywhere inconsistencies with authentication methods

    - by gravyface
    So I've read this question and attempted just about every other workaround I've found online. Problem seems completely illogical to me, anyways: SBS 2011, vanilla install; haven't touched anything in IIS or Exchange outside of what's been done through the checklist (brand new domain, completely new customer) except to import an existing wildcard certificate for *.example.com (which is valid, Remote Web Workplace and Outlook Web Access work fine). On the two test machines and one production machine running a mixture of Windows XP Pro, Windows 7 and Outlook 2003 through to 2010, I've had no problem saving the password after configuring Outlook Anywhere using the wrong authentication method. I repeat, I have had no issues using the wrong authentication method on these test machines; password saves the first time, no problem, can verify it exists in the credentials manager (Start Run control userpasswords2), close Outlook, reboot, go make a sammie, come back, credentials are still saved. When I say wrong, it's because I was choosing NTLM and Exchange (under Exchange Console Server Configuration Client Access) was set by default to use Basic. On two completely different machines setup by a co-worker, they had (under my guidance) used NTLM as well... except that frustratingly, Outlook would always ask for a password. One machine was Windows XP with Outlook 2010, the other was Windows 7 with Outlook 2003. When these two machines were set to use Basic -- the correct settings -- the option to save was there and now works without issue. Puzzled by how my machines could possibly work with the wrong authentication, I then went into one of them and changed the authentication method to Basic. Now here's where it gets a little crazy: if I go under Outlook and change the authentication to use the correct setting (Basic) it fails to save the password and Outlook prompts every time (without a "remember me" checkbox). I have not had a chance to change it to Basic on the other two machines to see if this is just a fluke or not, but something just isn't right here. My two hunches are either a missing/installed KB Update or perhaps a local security policy. I should add that none of the 5 test machines in the equation here have ever been joined to the domain.

    Read the article

  • Laptop authentication/logon via accelerometer tilt, flip, and twist

    - by wonsungi
    Looking for another application/technology: A number of years ago, I read about a novel way to authenticate and log on to a laptop. The user simply had to hold the laptop in the air and execute a simple series of tilts and flips to the laptop. By logging accelerometer data, this creates a unique signature for the user. Even if an attacker watched and repeated the exact same motions, the attacker could not replicate the user's movements closely enough. I am looking for information about this technology again, but I can't find anything. It may have been an actual feature on a laptop, or it may have just been a research project. I think I read about it in a magazine like Wired. Does anyone have more information about authentication via unique accelerometer signatures? Here are the closest articles I have been able to find: Knock-based commands for your Linux laptop Shake Well Before Use: Authentication Based on Accelerometer Data[PDF] Inferring Identity using Accelerometers in Television Remote Controls User Evaluation of Lightweight User Authentication with a Single Tri-Axis Accelerometer Identifying Users of Portable Devices from Gait Pattern with Accelerometers[PDF] 3D Signature Biometrics Using Curvature Moments[PDF] MoViSign: A novel authentication mechanism using mobile virtual signatures

    Read the article

  • IIS 6 Windows Authentication in ASP.Net app fails

    - by Kjensen
    I am trying to install an ASP.Net app on an IIS6 webserver. The site requires the user to authenticate with windows, and this works on several other apps on the same server. In IIS I have enabled anonymous access and windows authentication. In web.config, authentication is set to: <authentication mode="Windows"/> and authorization...: <authorization> <allow roles="Users"/> <deny users="*"/> </authorization> Ie. allow all users in role "Users" and deny everybody else. This is the approach that is working with several other apps on the same server. If I run the site, I am prompted for username and password. If I remove the line: <deny users="*"/> I can access the site and everything works - but the user credentials are not passed to the site (Page.User.Identity.Name returns a blank string in ASP.Net). The site has identical (inherited) file permissions as other working sites on the server. The only difference in authentication/authorization between this site and the other working sites is, that this runs Asp.Net 4 (but there are other working asp.net 4 sites on the server as well). What am I missing here? Where should I look?

    Read the article

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