Search Results

Search found 11365 results on 455 pages for 'authorization basic'.

Page 4/455 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Authorization/Licensing of Webservice

    - by Burhan
    I have developed a web service which accepts the login credentials from the XML message passed to it. I have concerns over this method as the developer who consumes the service can easily share the login credentials and my service can be called from some other application that uses the same credentials. Is there any way that I can issue a 'license' to some specific applications? So that, even if credentials are shared among the consuming apps, only authorized ones can successfully consume the service. P.S: I thought about implementing IP restrictions but that doesn't serve the purpose as we may have different applications installed on a same server (we do have such a scenario implemented).

    Read the article

  • Authorization in Rails

    - by sev
    Who can show me how I must use declarative_authorization (http://github.com/stffn/declarative_authorization) with restfult_authentication (http://github.com/technoweenie/restful-authentication)?

    Read the article

  • Visual Basic 2010 Language Enhancements

    Earlier this month Microsoft released Visual Studio 2010, the .NET Framework 4.0 (which includes ASP.NET 4.0), and new versions of their core programming languages: C# 4.0 and Visual Basic 10 (also referred to as Visual Basic 2010). Previously, the C# and Visual Basic programming languages were managed by two separate teams within Microsoft, which helps explain why features found in one language was not necessarily found in the other. For example, C# 3.0 introduced collection initializers, which enable developers to define the contents of a collection when declaring it; however, Visual Basic 9 did not support collection initializers. Conversely, Visual Basic has long supported optional parameters in methods, whereas C# did not. Recently, Microsoft merged the Visual Basic and C# teams to help ensure that C# and Visual Basic grow together. As explained by Microsoft program manager Jonathan Aneja, "The intent is to make the languages advance together. When major functionality is introduced in one language, it should appear in the other as well. ... [T]hat any task you can do in one language should be as simple in the other." To this end, with version 4.0 C# now supports optional parameters and named arguments, two features that have long been part of Visual Basic's vernacular. And, likewise, Visual Basic has been updated to include a number of C# features that it was previously missing. This article explores some of these new features that were added to Visual Basic 2010. Read on to learn more! Read More >

    Read the article

  • Visual Basic 2010 Language Enhancements

    Earlier this month Microsoft released Visual Studio 2010, the .NET Framework 4.0 (which includes ASP.NET 4.0), and new versions of their core programming languages: C# 4.0 and Visual Basic 10 (also referred to as Visual Basic 2010). Previously, the C# and Visual Basic programming languages were managed by two separate teams within Microsoft, which helps explain why features found in one language was not necessarily found in the other. For example, C# 3.0 introduced collection initializers, which enable developers to define the contents of a collection when declaring it; however, Visual Basic 9 did not support collection initializers. Conversely, Visual Basic has long supported optional parameters in methods, whereas C# did not. Recently, Microsoft merged the Visual Basic and C# teams to help ensure that C# and Visual Basic grow together. As explained by Microsoft program manager Jonathan Aneja, "The intent is to make the languages advance together. When major functionality is introduced in one language, it should appear in the other as well. ... [T]hat any task you can do in one language should be as simple in the other." To this end, with version 4.0 C# now supports optional parameters and named arguments, two features that have long been part of Visual Basic's vernacular. And, likewise, Visual Basic has been updated to include a number of C# features that it was previously missing. This article explores some of these new features that were added to Visual Basic 2010. Read on to learn more! Read More >Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Improving WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization - Part 2

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In the last post I showed you how to take control over the invocation of ClaimsAuthorizationManager. Then you have complete freedom over the claim types, the amount of claims and the values. In addition I added two attributes that invoke the authorization manager using an “application claim type”. This way it is very easy to distinguish between authorization calls that originate from WIF’s per-request authorization and the ones from “within” you application. The attribute comes in two flavours: a CAS attribute (invoked by the CLR) and an ASP.NET MVC attribute (for MVC controllers, invoke by the MVC plumbing). Both also feature static methods to easily call them using the application claim types. The CAS attribute is part of Thinktecture.IdentityModel on Codeplex (or via NuGet: Install-Package Thinktecture.IdentityModel). If you really want to see that code ;) There is also a sample included in the Codeplex donwload. The MVC attribute is currently used in Thinktecture.IdentityServer – and I don’t currently plan to make it part of the library project since I don’t want to add a dependency on MVC for now. You can find the code below – and I will write about its usage in a follow-up post. public class ClaimsAuthorize : AuthorizeAttribute {     private string _resource;     private string _action;     private string[] _additionalResources;     /// <summary>     /// Default action claim type.     /// </summary>     public const string ActionType = "http://application/claims/authorization/action";     /// <summary>     /// Default resource claim type     /// </summary>     public const string ResourceType = "http://application/claims/authorization/resource";     /// <summary>     /// Additional resource claim type     /// </summary>     public const string AdditionalResourceType = "http://application/claims/authorization/additionalresource"          public ClaimsAuthorize(string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         _action = action;         _resource = resource;         _additionalResources = additionalResources;     }     public static bool CheckAccess(       string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         return CheckAccess(             Thread.CurrentPrincipal as IClaimsPrincipal,             action,             resource,             additionalResources);     }     public static bool CheckAccess(       IClaimsPrincipal principal, string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         var context = CreateAuthorizationContext(             principal,             action,             resource,             additionalResources);         return ClaimsAuthorization.CheckAccess(context);     }     protected override bool AuthorizeCore(HttpContextBase httpContext)     {         return CheckAccess(_action, _resource, _additionalResources);     }     private static WIF.AuthorizationContext CreateAuthorizationContext(       IClaimsPrincipal principal, string action, string resource, params string[] additionalResources)     {         var actionClaims = new Collection<Claim>         {             new Claim(ActionType, action)         };         var resourceClaims = new Collection<Claim>         {             new Claim(ResourceType, resource)         };         if (additionalResources != null && additionalResources.Length > 0)         {             additionalResources.ToList().ForEach(ar => resourceClaims.Add(               new Claim(AdditionalResourceType, ar)));         }         return new WIF.AuthorizationContext(             principal,             resourceClaims,             actionClaims);     } }

    Read the article

  • Improving WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization - Part 3 (Usage)

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In the previous posts I showed off some of the additions I made to WIF’s authorization infrastructure. I now want to show some samples how I actually use these extensions. The following code snippets are from Thinktecture.IdentityServer on Codeplex. The following shows the MVC attribute on the WS-Federation controller: [ClaimsAuthorize(Constants.Actions.Issue, Constants.Resources.WSFederation)] public class WSFederationController : Controller or… [ClaimsAuthorize(Constants.Actions.Administration, Constants.Resources.RelyingParty)] public class RelyingPartiesAdminController : Controller In other places I used the imperative approach (e.g. the WRAP endpoint): if (!ClaimsAuthorize.CheckAccess(principal, Constants.Actions.Issue, Constants.Resources.WRAP)) {     Tracing.Error("User not authorized");     return new UnauthorizedResult("WRAP", true); } For the WCF WS-Trust endpoints I decided to use the per-request approach since the SOAP actions are well defined here. The corresponding authorization manager roughly looks like this: public class AuthorizationManager : ClaimsAuthorizationManager {     public override bool CheckAccess(AuthorizationContext context)     {         var action = context.Action.First();         var id = context.Principal.Identities.First();         // if application authorization request         if (action.ClaimType.Equals(ClaimsAuthorize.ActionType))         {             return AuthorizeCore(action, context.Resource, context.Principal.Identity as IClaimsIdentity);         }         // if ws-trust issue request         if (action.Value.Equals(WSTrust13Constants.Actions.Issue))         {             return AuthorizeTokenIssuance(new Collection<Claim> { new Claim(ClaimsAuthorize.ResourceType, Constants.Resources.WSTrust) }, id);         }         return base.CheckAccess(context);     } } You see that it is really easy now to distinguish between per-request and application authorization which makes the overall design much easier. HTH

    Read the article

  • Bypass IIS Basic Authentication for localhost

    - by George
    I'd like to have a website authenticated with basic auth, but then also allow the website to access itself locally. That is, I want to allow unauthenticated access only from localhost. In IIS I have only basic authentication enabled (not worrying about SSL for now), and I have the correct file system permissions such that outside users can login successfully and view the website. I have tried setting IIS_IUSR as owner of the directory, and added IUSR with modify permissions, however I'm still getting a 401 error when the website tries to access itself. Anyone have any idea how to get this to work?

    Read the article

  • Update saved password for basic authentication using a script

    - by Kalamane
    I have a website that uses basic authentication as described on this webpage. Each of the computers I manage have the password saved in their browser. There is only one username and password for this. After someone logs in to the site this way, they are presented with their individual username and password prompt as part of the web page. The purpose of the initial username/password is to discourage non-technical employees that aren't supposed to be using the page from even viewing it. So far, when we've had to change this password, I've manually gone to each computer and updated the saved password. I'm writing a startup script to configure other aspects of these systems so that I can maintain them easier. I'd like to be able to update the saved password via this script. The operating system running on these machines is Windows XP SP3 and the browsers they're using to access this site are IE8 and IE9. How can I update the saved basic authentication information for a website via a script?

    Read the article

  • Does using Apache Basic Auth affect yum installations?

    - by MJB
    I don't have further information yet, but I am going to be troubleshooting this in the morning and I wanted to get a head-start. Is there any reason that a yum install (that worked fine yesterday) would fail after I set up basic authentication in Apache last night? I have searched with google and SF for almost an hour and can't find anything relevant.

    Read the article

  • CUPS basic auth error through web interface

    - by Inaimathi
    I'm trying to configure CUPS to allow remote administration through the web interface. There's enough documentation out there that I can figure out what to change in my cupsd.conf (changing Listen localhost:631 to Port 631, and adding Allow @LOCAL to the /, /admin and /admin/conf sections). I'm now at the point where I can see the CUPS interface from another machine on the same network. The trouble is, when I try to Add Printer, I'm asked for a username and password, but my response is rejected even when I know I've gotten it right (I assume it's asking for the username and password of someone in the lpadmin group on the server machine; I've sshed in with credentials its rejecting, and the user I'm using has been added to the lpadmin group). If I disable auth outright, by changing DefaultAuthType Basic to DefaultAuthType None, I get an "Unauthorized" error instead of a password request when I try to Add Printer. What am I doing wrong? Is there a way of letting users from the local network to administer the print server through the CUPS web interface? EDIT: By request, my complete cupsd.conf (spoiler: minimally edited default config file that comes with the edition of CUPS from the Debian wheezy repos): LogLevel warn MaxLogSize 0 SystemGroup lpadmin Port 631 # Listen localhost:631 Listen /var/run/cups/cups.sock Browsing On BrowseOrder allow,deny BrowseAllow all BrowseLocalProtocols CUPS dnssd # DefaultAuthType Basic DefaultAuthType None WebInterface Yes <Location /> Order allow,deny Allow @LOCAL </Location> <Location /admin> Order allow,deny Allow @LOCAL </Location> <Location /admin/conf> AuthType Default Require user @SYSTEM Order allow,deny Allow @LOCAL </Location> # Set the default printer/job policies... <Policy default> # Job/subscription privacy... JobPrivateAccess default JobPrivateValues default SubscriptionPrivateAccess default SubscriptionPrivateValues default # Job-related operations must be done by the owner or an administrator... <Limit Create-Job Print-Job Print-URI Validate-Job> Order deny,allow </Limit> <Limit Send-Document Send-URI Hold-Job Release-Job Restart-Job Purge-Jobs Set-Job-Attributes Create-Job-Subscription Renew-Subscription Cancel-Subscription Get-Notifications Reprocess-Job Cancel-Current-Job Suspend-Current-Job Resume-Job Cancel-My-Jobs Close-Job CUPS-Move-Job CUPS-Get-Document> Require user @OWNER @SYSTEM Order deny,allow </Limit> # All administration operations require an administrator to authenticate... <Limit CUPS-Add-Modify-Printer CUPS-Delete-Printer CUPS-Add-Modify-Class CUPS-Delete-Class CUPS-Set-Default CUPS-Get-Devices> AuthType Default Require user @SYSTEM Order deny,allow </Limit> # All printer operations require a printer operator to authenticate... <Limit Pause-Printer Resume-Printer Enable-Printer Disable-Printer Pause-Printer-After-Current-Job Hold-New-Jobs Release-Held-New-Jobs Deactivate-Printer Activate-Printer Restart-Printer Shutdown-Printer Startup-Printer Promote-Job Schedule-Job-After Cancel-Jobs CUPS-Accept-Jobs CUPS-Reject-Jobs> AuthType Default Require user @SYSTEM Order deny,allow </Limit> # Only the owner or an administrator can cancel or authenticate a job... <Limit Cancel-Job CUPS-Authenticate-Job> Require user @OWNER @SYSTEM Order deny,allow </Limit> <Limit All> Order deny,allow </Limit> </Policy> # Set the authenticated printer/job policies... <Policy authenticated> # Job/subscription privacy... JobPrivateAccess default JobPrivateValues default SubscriptionPrivateAccess default SubscriptionPrivateValues default # Job-related operations must be done by the owner or an administrator... <Limit Create-Job Print-Job Print-URI Validate-Job> AuthType Default Order deny,allow </Limit> <Limit Send-Document Send-URI Hold-Job Release-Job Restart-Job Purge-Jobs Set-Job-Attributes Create-Job-Subscription Renew-Subscription Cancel-Subscription Get-Notifications Reprocess-Job Cancel-Current-Job Suspend-Current-Job Resume-Job Cancel-My-Jobs Close-Job CUPS-Move-Job CUPS-Get-Document> AuthType Default Require user @OWNER @SYSTEM Order deny,allow </Limit> # All administration operations require an administrator to authenticate... <Limit CUPS-Add-Modify-Printer CUPS-Delete-Printer CUPS-Add-Modify-Class CUPS-Delete-Class CUPS-Set-Default> AuthType Default Require user @SYSTEM Order deny,allow </Limit> # All printer operations require a printer operator to authenticate... <Limit Pause-Printer Resume-Printer Enable-Printer Disable-Printer Pause-Printer-After-Current-Job Hold-New-Jobs Release-Held-New-Jobs Deactivate-Printer Activate-Printer Restart-Printer Shutdown-Printer Startup-Printer Promote-Job Schedule-Job-After Cancel-Jobs CUPS-Accept-Jobs CUPS-Reject-Jobs> AuthType Default Require user @SYSTEM Order deny,allow </Limit> # Only the owner or an administrator can cancel or authenticate a job... <Limit Cancel-Job CUPS-Authenticate-Job> AuthType Default Require user @OWNER @SYSTEM Order deny,allow </Limit> <Limit All> Order deny,allow </Limit> </Policy>

    Read the article

  • What I like about WIF&rsquo;s Claims-based Authorization

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    In “traditional” .NET with its IPrincipal interface and IsInRole method, developers were encouraged to write code like this: public void AddCustomer(Customer customer) {     if (Thread.CurrentPrincipal.IsInRole("Sales"))     {         // add customer     } } In code reviews I’ve seen tons of code like this. What I don’t like about this is, that two concerns in your application get tightly coupled: business and security logic. But what happens when the security requirements change – and they will (e.g. members of the sales role and some other people from different roles need to create customers)? Well – since your security logic is sprinkled across your project you need to change the security checks in all relevant places (and make sure you don’t forget one) and you need to re-test, re-stage and re-deploy the complete app. This is clearly not what we want. WIF’s claims-based authorization encourages developers to separate business code and authorization policy evaluation. This is a good thing. So the same security check with WIF’s out-of-the box APIs would look like this: public void AddCustomer(Customer customer) {     try     {         ClaimsPrincipalPermission.CheckAccess("Customer", "Add");           // add customer     }     catch (SecurityException ex)     {         // access denied     } } You notice the fundamental difference? The security check only describes what the code is doing (represented by a resource/action pair) – and does not state who is allowed to invoke the code. As I mentioned earlier – the who is most probably changing over time – the what most probably not. The call to ClaimsPrincipalPermission hands off to another class called the ClaimsAuthorizationManager. This class handles the evaluation of your security policy and is ideally in a separate assembly to allow updating the security logic independently from the application logic (and vice versa). The claims authorization manager features a method called CheckAccess that retrieves three values (wrapped inside an AuthorizationContext instance) – action (“add”), resource (“customer”) and the principal (including its claims) in question. CheckAccess then evaluates those three values and returns true/false. I really like the separation of concerns part here. Unfortunately there is not much support from Microsoft beyond that point. And without further tooling and abstractions the CheckAccess method quickly becomes *very* complex. But still I think that is the way to go. In the next post I will tell you what I don’t like about it (and how to fix it).

    Read the article

  • What kind of authorization I should use for my facebook application

    - by JSmith
    I am building a social reader Facebook application using Django where I am using Google Data API (Blogger API). But I am unable to deal with the authorization step to use the API (currently using ClientLogin under development). I tried to read the OAuth documentation but couldn't figure out how to proceed. I don't want my users to provide any login credentials for google.. which makes the app completely absurd. So, can anyone help me on my project and tell me what kind of authorization I should actually use and how ? (I am using gdata lib)

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 4 enables Authorization header modification

    A little bit of hidden gem in the Silverlight 4 release is the ability to modify the Authorization header in network calls. For most, the sheer ability to leverage network credentials in the networking stack will be enough. But there are times when you may be working with an API that requires something other than basic authentication, but uses the Authorization HTTP header. The Details Basically you just set the header value. Hows that for details :-). Seriously though, heres a snippet of code:...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Use of WebDAV to access OWA (exchange 2003) mails with Basic authentication and SSL

    - by Mayuresh
    I have got a working C# code for accessing OWA mails using WebDAV against a FBA enabled exchange 2003 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/891748/en-us/) But my client's OWA (exchange 2003) has Basic authentication and SSL (i-e when I try to access the web mail link through browser I get a grey login box instead of a web page I can log into the mail box once I enter the correct details) But my same fails with a 401 error against this mailbox. I got the simple request working for the Basic authentication using – String usernamePassword = strUserName + ":" + strPassword; WebReq.Headers.Add("Authorization", "Basic " + Convert.ToBase64String(new ASCIIEncoding().GetBytes(usernamePassword))); But the subsequent WebDAV SEARCH request fails with 404 (resource not found) error. Can we use WebDAV against an exchange 2k3 with SSL and Basic authentication?

    Read the article

  • Visual Basic and C++

    - by Hamdy Elgammal
    Hello there, I was reading a little into Visual Basic and it seemed a rather simple way to implement some GUI...So I was looking for a way to interface my C++ code to a Visual Basic snippet of code. For example, receive input from a Visual Basic app and send it over to C++ code to continue the logic of the program based on the input of that event.

    Read the article

  • Nginx PHP-FPM Basic Auth

    - by Lari13
    I have nginx with php-fpm installed on Debian Squeeze. Directory tree is: /var/www/mysite index.php secret_folder_1 admin.php static.html secret_folder_2 admin.php static.html pictures img01.jpg I need to close secret_folder_1 and secret_folder_2 with basic_auth. Now config looks like: location ~ /secret_folder_1/.+\.php$ { root /var/www/mysite/; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME /var/www/mysite$fastcgi_script_name; include fastcgi_params; auth_basic "Restricted Access"; auth_basic_user_file /path/to/.passwd; } location ~ /secret_folder_1/.* { root /var/www/mysite/; auth_basic "Restricted Access"; auth_basic_user_file /path/to/.passwd; } Same config for secret_folder_2. Is it normal? I mean, first location for serving php files in restricted folder, and second location for serving static files. Can it be simplified?

    Read the article

  • How and where to implement basic authentication in Kibana 3

    - by Jabb
    I have put my elasticsearch server behind a Apache reverse proxy that provides basic authentication. Authenticating to Apache directly from the browser works fine. However, when I use Kibana 3 to access the server, I receive authentication errors. Obviously because no auth headers are sent along with Kibana's Ajax calls. I added the below to elastic-angular-client.js in the Kibana vendor directory to implement authentication quick and dirty. But for some reason it does not work. $http.defaults.headers.common.Authorization = 'Basic ' + Base64Encode('user:Password'); What is the best approach and place to implement basic authentication in Kibana? /*! elastic.js - v1.1.1 - 2013-05-24 * https://github.com/fullscale/elastic.js * Copyright (c) 2013 FullScale Labs, LLC; Licensed MIT */ /*jshint browser:true */ /*global angular:true */ 'use strict'; /* Angular.js service wrapping the elastic.js API. This module can simply be injected into your angular controllers. */ angular.module('elasticjs.service', []) .factory('ejsResource', ['$http', function ($http) { return function (config) { var // use existing ejs object if it exists ejs = window.ejs || {}, /* results are returned as a promise */ promiseThen = function (httpPromise, successcb, errorcb) { return httpPromise.then(function (response) { (successcb || angular.noop)(response.data); return response.data; }, function (response) { (errorcb || angular.noop)(response.data); return response.data; }); }; // check if we have a config object // if not, we have the server url so // we convert it to a config object if (config !== Object(config)) { config = {server: config}; } // set url to empty string if it was not specified if (config.server == null) { config.server = ''; } /* implement the elastic.js client interface for angular */ ejs.client = { server: function (s) { if (s == null) { return config.server; } config.server = s; return this; }, post: function (path, data, successcb, errorcb) { $http.defaults.headers.common.Authorization = 'Basic ' + Base64Encode('user:Password'); console.log($http.defaults.headers); path = config.server + path; var reqConfig = {url: path, data: data, method: 'POST'}; return promiseThen($http(angular.extend(reqConfig, config)), successcb, errorcb); }, get: function (path, data, successcb, errorcb) { $http.defaults.headers.common.Authorization = 'Basic ' + Base64Encode('user:Password'); path = config.server + path; // no body on get request, data will be request params var reqConfig = {url: path, params: data, method: 'GET'}; return promiseThen($http(angular.extend(reqConfig, config)), successcb, errorcb); }, put: function (path, data, successcb, errorcb) { $http.defaults.headers.common.Authorization = 'Basic ' + Base64Encode('user:Password'); path = config.server + path; var reqConfig = {url: path, data: data, method: 'PUT'}; return promiseThen($http(angular.extend(reqConfig, config)), successcb, errorcb); }, del: function (path, data, successcb, errorcb) { $http.defaults.headers.common.Authorization = 'Basic ' + Base64Encode('user:Password'); path = config.server + path; var reqConfig = {url: path, data: data, method: 'DELETE'}; return promiseThen($http(angular.extend(reqConfig, config)), successcb, errorcb); }, head: function (path, data, successcb, errorcb) { $http.defaults.headers.common.Authorization = 'Basic ' + Base64Encode('user:Password'); path = config.server + path; // no body on HEAD request, data will be request params var reqConfig = {url: path, params: data, method: 'HEAD'}; return $http(angular.extend(reqConfig, config)) .then(function (response) { (successcb || angular.noop)(response.headers()); return response.headers(); }, function (response) { (errorcb || angular.noop)(undefined); return undefined; }); } }; return ejs; }; }]); UPDATE 1: I implemented Matts suggestion. However, the server returns a weird response. It seems that the authorization header is not working. Could it have to do with the fact, that I am running Kibana on port 81 and elasticsearch on 8181? OPTIONS /solar_vendor/_search HTTP/1.1 Host: 46.252.46.173:8181 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: de-de,de;q=0.8,en-us;q=0.5,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Origin: http://46.252.46.173:81 Access-Control-Request-Method: POST Access-Control-Request-Headers: authorization,content-type Connection: keep-alive Pragma: no-cache Cache-Control: no-cache This is the response HTTP/1.1 401 Authorization Required Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:47:02 GMT WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="Username/Password" Vary: Accept-Encoding Content-Encoding: gzip Content-Length: 346 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 UPDATE 2: Updated all instances with the modified headers in these Kibana files root@localhost:/var/www/kibana# grep -r 'ejsResource(' . ./src/app/controllers/dash.js: $scope.ejs = ejsResource({server: config.elasticsearch, headers: {'Access-Control-Request-Headers': 'Accept, Origin, Authorization', 'Authorization': 'Basic XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=='}}); ./src/app/services/querySrv.js: var ejs = ejsResource({server: config.elasticsearch, headers: {'Access-Control-Request-Headers': 'Accept, Origin, Authorization', 'Authorization': 'Basic XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=='}}); ./src/app/services/filterSrv.js: var ejs = ejsResource({server: config.elasticsearch, headers: {'Access-Control-Request-Headers': 'Accept, Origin, Authorization', 'Authorization': 'Basic XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=='}}); ./src/app/services/dashboard.js: var ejs = ejsResource({server: config.elasticsearch, headers: {'Access-Control-Request-Headers': 'Accept, Origin, Authorization', 'Authorization': 'Basic XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX=='}}); And modified my vhost conf for the reverse proxy like this <VirtualHost *:8181> ProxyRequests Off ProxyPass / http://127.0.0.1:9200/ ProxyPassReverse / https://127.0.0.1:9200/ <Location /> Order deny,allow Allow from all AuthType Basic AuthName “Username/Password” AuthUserFile /var/www/cake2.2.4/.htpasswd Require valid-user Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Methods "GET, POST, DELETE, OPTIONS, PUT" Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Headers "Content-Type, X-Requested-With, X-HTTP-Method-Override, Origin, Accept, Authorization" Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Credentials "true" Header always set Cache-Control "max-age=0" Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Origin * </Location> ErrorLog ${APACHE_LOG_DIR}/error.log </VirtualHost> Apache sends back the new response headers but the request header still seems to be wrong somewhere. Authentication just doesn't work. Request Headers OPTIONS /solar_vendor/_search HTTP/1.1 Host: 46.252.26.173:8181 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:25.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/25.0 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: de-de,de;q=0.8,en-us;q=0.5,en;q=0.3 Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate Origin: http://46.252.26.173:81 Access-Control-Request-Method: POST Access-Control-Request-Headers: authorization,content-type Connection: keep-alive Pragma: no-cache Cache-Control: no-cache Response Headers HTTP/1.1 401 Authorization Required Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:48:48 GMT Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET, POST, DELETE, OPTIONS, PUT Access-Control-Allow-Headers: Content-Type, X-Requested-With, X-HTTP-Method-Override, Origin, Accept, Authorization Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true Cache-Control: max-age=0 Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="Username/Password" Vary: Accept-Encoding Content-Encoding: gzip Content-Length: 346 Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 SOLUTION: After doing some more research, I found out that this is definitely a configuration issue with regard to CORS. There are quite a few posts available regarding that topic but it appears that in order to solve my problem, it would be necessary to to make some very granular configurations on apache and also make sure that the right stuff is sent from the browser. So I reconsidered the strategy and found a much simpler solution. Just modify the vhost reverse proxy config to move the elastisearch server AND kibana on the same http port. This also adds even better security to Kibana. This is what I did: <VirtualHost *:8181> ProxyRequests Off ProxyPass /bigdatadesk/ http://127.0.0.1:81/bigdatadesk/src/ ProxyPassReverse /bigdatadesk/ http://127.0.0.1:81/bigdatadesk/src/ ProxyPass / http://127.0.0.1:9200/ ProxyPassReverse / https://127.0.0.1:9200/ <Location /> Order deny,allow Allow from all AuthType Basic AuthName “Username/Password” AuthUserFile /var/www/.htpasswd Require valid-user </Location> ErrorLog ${APACHE_LOG_DIR}/error.log </VirtualHost>

    Read the article

  • WCF - Windows authentication - Security settings require Anonymous...

    - by Rashack
    Hi, I am struggling hard with getting WCF service running on IIS on our server. After deployment I end up with an error message: Security settings for this service require 'Anonymous' Authentication but it is not enabled for the IIS application that hosts this service. I want to use Windows authentication and thus I have Anonymous access disabled. Also note that there is aspNetCompatibilityEnabled (if that makes any difference). Here's my web.config: <system.serviceModel> <serviceHostingEnvironment aspNetCompatibilityEnabled="true" /> <bindings> <webHttpBinding> <binding name="default"> <security mode="TransportCredentialOnly"> <transport clientCredentialType="Windows" proxyCredentialType="Windows"/> </security> </binding> </webHttpBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="AspNetAjaxBehavior"> <enableWebScript /> <webHttp /> </behavior> </endpointBehaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="defaultServiceBehavior"> <serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" httpsGetEnabled="false" /> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true" /> <serviceAuthorization principalPermissionMode="UseWindowsGroups" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> <services> <service name="xxx.Web.Services.RequestService" behaviorConfiguration="defaultServiceBehavior"> <endpoint behaviorConfiguration="AspNetAjaxBehavior" binding="webHttpBinding" contract="xxx.Web.Services.IRequestService" bindingConfiguration="default"> </endpoint> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpBinding" name="mex" contract="IMetadataExchange"></endpoint> </service> </services> </system.serviceModel> I have searched all over the internet with no luck. Any clues are greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • WCF client using basic HTTP authentication

    - by AZ
    I'm trying to connect to a service that uses basic HTTP authentication. I've configured my binding like this <bindings> <basicHttpBinding> <binding name ="binding"> <security mode="TransportCredentialOnly"> <transport clientCredentialType="Basic"/> </security> </binding> </basicHttpBinding> </bindings> and i'm setting the credentials like this: client.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = Settings.UserName; client.ClientCredentials.UserName.Password = Settings.Password; Sill when i make a request i get a "The HTTP request is unauthorized with client authentication scheme 'Basic'" fault back. What am i doing wrong? (i don't have control over the service so all solutions must relate to the client configuration)

    Read the article

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