Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 7/387 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Authentication in Apache2 with mod_dav_svn

    - by Poita_
    I'm having some trouble setting up authentication in Apache2 for a SVN repository that's being served using mod_dav_svn. Here is my Apache config for the directory: <Location /svn> DAV svn SVNParentPath /var/svn/repos AuthType Basic AuthName "Subversion Repository" AuthUserFile /etc/apache2/dev.passwd Require valid-user </Location> I can use svn with the projects under /var/svn/repos, so I know that the DAV is working, but when I do svn updates or commits (or anything), Apache doesn't ask for any authentication... It does the exact same thing whether the Auth directives are there or not. The permissions on the repository directory (and all subdirectories/files) only give permission to www-data (the Apache2 user/group). I have also ensured that all relevant modules are enabled (in particular mod_auth is enabled, as are all mod_dav* modules). Any ideas why svn commands aren't authenticating? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Authentication settings in IIS Manager versus web.config versus system.serviceModel

    - by Joe
    I'm new to ASP.NET :) I have a WCF web service, and I want to use Basic authentication. I am getting lost in the authentication options: In IIS 6 Manager, I can go in to the properties of the web site and set authentication options. In the web site's web.config file, under system.web, there is an <authentication mode="Windows"/> tag In the web site's web.config file, under system.serviceModel, I can configure: <wsHttpBinding <binding name="MyBinding" <security mode="Transport" <transport clientCredentialType="Basic"/ </security </binding </wsHttpBinding What is the difference between these three? How should each be configured? Some context: I have a simple web site project that contains a single .svc web service, and I want it to use Basic authentication over SSL. (Also, I want it to not use Windows accounts, but maybe that is another question.)

    Read the article

  • Android WebView Authentication

    - by bobthemac
    I am having issues with authentication for my webview I have a https address that requires authentication but it isn't basic authentication. When I access chrome on my phone and go to this site I get a dialogue box that asks me for a username and password I want to do something similar but all the attempts at authentication I have made have failed using the what I have found as they all seem to be for basic authentication and I don't think this is what it is. any help is appreciated, sorry if this is duplicate but I have looked and found nothing similar .

    Read the article

  • Spring-Security http-basic auth in addition to other authentication types

    - by Keith
    I have a pretty standard existing webapp using spring security that requires a database-backed form login for user-specific paths (such as /user/**), and some completely open and public paths (such as /index.html). However, as this webapp is still under development, I'd like to add a http-basic popup across all paths (/**) to add some privacy. Therefore, I'm trying to add a http-basic popup that asks for a universal user/pass combo (ex admin/foo) that would be required to view any path, but then still keep intact all of the other underlying authentication mechanisms. I can't really do anything with the <http> tag, since that will confuse the "keep out the nosy crawlers" authentication with the "user login" authentication, and I'm not seeing any way to associate different paths with different authentication mechanisms. Is there some way to do this with spring security? Alternatively, is there some kind of a dead simple filter that I can apply independently of spring-security's authentication mechanisms?

    Read the article

  • How should clients handle HTTP 401 with unknown authentication schemes?

    - by user113215
    What is the proper behavior for an HTTP client receiving a 401 Unauthorized response that specifies only unrecognized authentication schemes? My server supports Kerberos authentication using WWW-Authenticate: Negotiate. On the first request, the server sends a 401 Unauthorized response with a body containing an HTML document. The behavior that I expect is for clients that support Kerberos to perform that authentication and for other clients to simply display the HTML document (a login form). It seems that most of the "other clients" I've encountered do work this way, but a few do not. I haven't found anything that mandates any particular behavior in this situation. There's a brief mention in RFC 2617: HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication, but is there anything more concrete? It is possible that a server may want to require Digest as its authentication method, even if the server does not know that the client supports it. A client is encouraged to fail gracefully if the server specifies only authentication schemes it cannot handle.

    Read the article

  • Gnome keyring doesn't unlock after loging in using Pam-face-authentication.

    - by Gaurav Butola
    I am using http://pam-face-authentication.org/ to log into my system using face detection and it is working just great except for one thing,The authentication runs out of the box, but it doesn't unlock my keyring. So after loging into my system, I see my desktop and everything normally but then a password prompt pops-up asking for Gnome-keyring, I think if it can log me into the system just fine then it should also be able to unlock the gnome-kerying. This guy also have the same issue -- https://bugs.launchpad.net/gdm/+bug/479881/comments/4

    Read the article

  • silverlight security with WCF service, Forms Authentication and Custom Form Ticket

    - by user74825
    I have a silverlight application with login on the silverlight page. It uses Forms Authentication with WCF authentication service and customer Membership Provider. Something like : http://blogs.msdn.com/phaniraj/archive/2009/09/10/using-the-ado-net-data-services-silverlight-client-library-in-x-domain-and-out-of-browser-scenarios-ii-forms-authentication.aspx So, SL page login page calls the WCF service authentication service, it validates using DB - brings back username and password. Now, in each subsequent calls (in Global.asax in Authenticate_Request, I get HttpContext.User.IsAuthenticated and HttpContext.User.UserName). I have all this working properly. But, I just don't want the username, but more information surrounding the user, like UserId, UserAddress, UserAssociateCustomer etc. I tried couple of different approaches. 1) Use HttpContext.Cache as a dictionary to save the item and get it off based on httpcontext.user.name, problem is cache can be erased if there memory is being used heavily. 2) Tried CustomFormsAuth Ticket, when forms authentication writes a ticket, I intercept CreatingCookie method and write additional info in formauthentication ticket, so that I can read it in subsequent requests, I am having problems with this approach, I don't find the ticket in subsequent requests. I read about how we should use REsponse.Redirect, but where do I redirect user from WCF call. How do you guys implement the above scenario? Any best practices.? Any issues you see with going on HTTPS? All examples (or most of them) just explains simple forms authentication with "I am logged in message".. Any suggestions ?

    Read the article

  • Forms authentication: disable redirect to the login page

    - by codeka
    I have an application that uses ASP.NET Forms Authentication. For the most part, it's working great, but I'm trying to add support for a simple API via an .ashx file. I want the ashx file to have optional authentication (i.e. if you don't supply an Authentication header, then it just works anonymously). But, depending on what you do, I want to require authentication under certain conditions. I thought it would be a simple matter of responding with status code 401 if the required authentication was not supplied, but it seems like the Forms Authentcation module is intercepting that and responding with a redirect to the login page instead. What I mean is, if my ProcessRequest method looks like this: public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { Response.StatusCode = 401; Response.StatusDescription = "Authentication required"; } Then instead of getting a 401 error code on the client, like I expect, I'm actually getting a 302 redirect to the login page. For nornal HTTP traffic, I can see how that would be useful, but for my API page, I want the 401 to go through unmodified so that the client-side caller can respond to it programmatically instead. Is there any way to do that?

    Read the article

  • Legacy Java code use of com.sun.net.ssl.internal.ssl.Provider()

    - by Dan
    I am working with some code from back in 2003. There is a reference to the following class: new com.sun.net.ssl.internal.ssl.Provider() It is causing an error: Access restriction: The type Provider is not accessible due to restriction on required library /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/1.7.0.jdk/Contents/Home/jre/lib/jsse.jar Does anyone have any suggestions for a suitable alternative to using this class?

    Read the article

  • WMS authentication plugin

    - by roul
    Hi, I'm trying to create a custom authentication plugin for WMS 2009 in C#. I managed to implement something that for some reason blocks all requests... [ComVisible(true)] [Guid("C0A0B38C-C4FE-43B5-BE9E-C100A83BBCEE")] public class AuthenticationPlugin : IWMSBasicPlugin, IWMSAuthenticationPlugin, IWMSAuthenticationContext private const string SubKey = "SOFTWARE\\Microsoft\\Windows Media\\Server\\RegisteredPlugins\\Authentication\\{C0A0B38C-C4FE-43B5-BE9E-C100A83BBCEE}"; [ComRegisterFunction] public static void RegisterFunction(Type t) { try { RegistryKey regHKLM = Registry.LocalMachine; regHKLM = regHKLM.CreateSubKey(SubKey); regHKLM.SetValue(null, "UC WMS Authentication plugin"); RegistryKey regHKCR = Registry.ClassesRoot; regHKCR = regHKCR.CreateSubKey("CLSID\\{C0A0B38C-C4FE-43B5-BE9E-C100A83BBCEE}\\Properties"); regHKCR.SetValue("Name", CustomC WMS Authentication plugin"); regHKCR.SetValue("Author", "Me"); regHKCR.SetValue("CopyRight", "Copyright 2009. All rights reserved"); regHKCR.SetValue("Description", "Enables custom WMS authentication"); } catch (Exception error) { Console.WriteLine(error.Message, "Inside RegisterFunction(). Cannot Register."); } } [ComUnregisterFunction] public static void UnRegisterFunction(Type t) { try { RegistryKey regHKLM = Registry.LocalMachine; regHKLM.DeleteSubKey(SubKey); RegistryKey regHKCR = Registry.ClassesRoot; regHKCR.DeleteSubKeyTree("CLSID\\{C0A0B38C-C4FE-43B5-BE9E-C100A83BBCEE}"); regHKCR.DeleteSubKeyTree("CSEventTest.CSEventPlugin"); } catch (Exception error) { Console.WriteLine(error.Message, "Cannot delete a subkey."); } } #region IWMSBasicPlugin Members public void InitializePlugin(IWMSContext serverContext, WMSNamedValues namedValues, IWMSClassObject classFactory) { } public void ShutdownPlugin() { } public void EnablePlugin(ref int flags, ref int heartbeatPeriod) { } public void DisablePlugin() { } public object GetCustomAdminInterface() { return null; } public void OnHeartbeat() { } #endregion #region IWMSAuthenticationPlugin Members public IWMSAuthenticationContext CreateAuthenticationContext() { return (IWMSAuthenticationContext)this; } public int GetFlags() { return Convert.ToInt32(WMS_AUTHENTICATION_FLAGS.WMS_AUTHENTICATION_ANONYMOUS, CultureInfo.InvariantCulture); } public string GetPackageName() { return "Custom WMS Authentication"; } public string GetProtocolName() { return "Basic"; } #endregion #region IWMSAuthenticationContext Members public void Authenticate(object responseBlob, IWMSContext userContext, IWMSContext presentationContext, IWMSCommandContext commandContext, IWMSAuthenticationCallback callBack, object context) { callBack.OnAuthenticateComplete(WMS_AUTHENTICATION_RESULT.WMS_AUTHENTICATION_SUCCESS, null, context); } public IWMSAuthenticationPlugin GetAuthenticationPlugin() { return (IWMSAuthenticationPlugin)this; } public string GetImpersonationAccountName() { return String.Empty; } public int GetImpersonationToken() { return 0; } public string GetLogicalUserID() { return this.GetImpersonationAccountName(); } #endregion } Can anyone spot why this is happening? Also, is there any way I could have a look at the code for the standard Anonymous Authentication plugin already installed on the server? Is it in an assembly somewhere? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • NPS EAP authentication failing after Windows Update

    - by sqlreader
    I have a Windows 2008 Std server running NPS. After applying the latest round of updates (including Root Certificates for April 2012 KB931125 (See:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933430/)), EAP authentication is failing due to being malformed. Sample error (Security/Event ID 6273), truncated for brevity: Authentication Details: Proxy Policy Name: Use Windows authentication for all users Network Policy Name: Wireless Access Authentication Provider: Windows Authentication Server: nps-host.corp.contoso.com Authentication Type: PEAP EAP Type: - Account Session Identifier: - Reason Code: 266 Reason: The message received was unexpected or badly formatted. The NPS policy (Wireless Access) is configured accordingly (for Constraints/Authentication methods) EAP Types: Microsoft: Protected EAP (PEAP) - with a valid certificate from ADCS Microsoft: Secured password (EAP-MSCHAP v2) Less secure authentication methods: Microsoft Encrypted Authentication version 2 (MS-CHAP-v2) User can change password after it has expired Microsoft Encrypted Authentication (MS-CHAP) User can change password after it has expired We've tested a different RADIUS server without the aforementioned patch, and removed EAP as an authentication type and experienced success. Has anyone else experienced this issue?

    Read the article

  • Freeradius authentication failed for unknown reason

    - by Moein7tl
    I followed this instruction to force freeradius to use mysql database. and run freeradius in debug mod. but it rejects all authentication. mysql database : mysql select * from radcheck; +----+----------+-----------+----+---------+ | id | username | attribute | op | value | +----+----------+-----------+----+---------+ | 1 | test | Password | == | test123 | | 2 | test | Auth-Type | == | Local | +----+----------+-----------+----+---------+ 2 rows in set (0.02 sec) radtest command : # radtest test test123 localhost 0 testing123 Sending Access-Request of id 235 to 127.0.0.1 port 1812 User-Name = "test" User-Password = "test123" NAS-IP-Address = 127.0.0.1 NAS-Port = 0 Message-Authenticator = 0x00000000000000000000000000000000 rad_recv: Access-Reject packet from host 127.0.0.1 port 1812, id=235, length=20 radiusd debug mod log: rad_recv: Access-Request packet from host 127.0.0.1 port 51034, id=235, length=74 User-Name = "test" User-Password = "test123" NAS-IP-Address = 127.0.0.1 NAS-Port = 0 Message-Authenticator = 0xbf111cbbae24fb0f0a558bfa26f53476 # Executing section authorize from file /usr/local/etc/raddb/sites-enabled/default +- entering group authorize {...} ++[preprocess] returns ok ++[chap] returns noop ++[mschap] returns noop ++[digest] returns noop [suffix] No '@' in User-Name = "test", looking up realm NULL [suffix] No such realm "NULL" ++[suffix] returns noop [eap] No EAP-Message, not doing EAP ++[eap] returns noop ++[files] returns noop ++[expiration] returns noop ++[logintime] returns noop [pap] WARNING! No "known good" password found for the user. Authentication may fail because of this. ++[pap] returns noop ERROR: No authenticate method (Auth-Type) found for the request: Rejecting the user Failed to authenticate the user. Using Post-Auth-Type Reject # Executing group from file /usr/local/etc/raddb/sites-enabled/default +- entering group REJECT {...} [attr_filter.access_reject] expand: %{User-Name} - test attr_filter: Matched entry DEFAULT at line 11 ++[attr_filter.access_reject] returns updated Delaying reject of request 20 for 1 seconds Going to the next request Waking up in 0.9 seconds. Sending delayed reject for request 20 Sending Access-Reject of id 235 to 127.0.0.1 port 51034 Waking up in 4.9 seconds. Cleaning up request 20 ID 235 with timestamp +4325 Ready to process requests. where is the problem and how should I solve it?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Windows-only Authentication Strategy problem

    - by Mike Thien
    I would like to use Windows-only Authentication in SQL Server for our web applications. In the past we've always created the all powerful 1 SQL Login for the web application. After doing some initial testing we've decided to create Windows Active Directory groups that mimic the security roles of the application (i.e. Administrators, Managers, Users/Operators, etc...) We've created mapped logins in SQL Server to these groups and given them access to the database for the application. In addition, we've created SQL Server database roles and assigned each group the appropriate role. This is working great. My issue revolves around that for most of the applications, everyone in the company should have read access to the reports (and hence the data). As far as I can tell, I have 2 options: 1) Create a read-only/viewer AD group and put everyone in it. 2) Use the "domain\domain users" group(s) and assign them the correct roles in SQL. What is the best and/or easiest way to allow everyone read access to specific database objects using a Windows-only Authentication method?

    Read the article

  • Nginx ignores HTTP Authentication for WordPress login directory

    - by MrNerdy
    I am running WordPress in a subfolder of my domain for testing and development purposes on a VPS LEMP-stack. In order to password-protect the wp-login.php with an etxra layer, I used HTTP authentication for the wp-admin folder. The problem is that the http authentication is ignored. When the wp-login.php or wp-admin-folder is called, it goes directly to the normal WordPress-login. I installed everything from the command line in the following way: sudo apt-get install apache2-utils sudo htpasswd -c /var/www/bitmall/wp-admin/.htpasswd exampleuser New password: Re-type new password: Adding password for user exampleuser My Nginx configuration file looks like this: server { listen 80; root /var/www; index index.php index.html index.htm; server_name example.com; location / { try_files $uri $uri/ /index.html; } location /bitmall/wp-admin/ { auth_basic "Restricted Section"; auth_basic_user_file /var/www/bitmall/wp-admin/.htpasswd; } location ~ /\.ht { deny all; } error_page 404 /404.html; error_page 500 502 503 504 /50x.html; location = /50x.html { root /var/www; } # pass the PHP scripts to FastCGI server listening on 127.0.0.1:9000 location ~ \.php$ { try_files $uri =404; fastcgi_pass unix:/var/run/php5-fpm.sock; fastcgi_index index.php; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name; include fastcgi_params; } } I would appreciate your advive on this.

    Read the article

  • Apache mod_auth_kerb asking 2 authentication

    - by Rianto Wahyudi
    I've configured Apache to use mod_auth_kerberos. So far everything is working nicely for client thats connected to Active Directory and have their browser to ntlm enabled. When clients are not in the domain or the browser configurerd not to authenticate automatically, they are being prompted by 2 login prompt. The first login prompt is blank and the second one is the oen that we configured First Login prompt: http://www.screencast.com/t/ZGNlZTQwZm Second Login prompt : http://www.screencast.com/t/MDA2N2Fl From the log ( first authentication) : [Wed Jan 06 15:47:29 2010] [debug] src/mod_auth_kerb.c(1684): [client x.x.x.x] [pid 2562] kerb_authenticate_user entered with user (NULL) and auth_type Kerberos In the first loging prompt , I can put any text for username and password. Once the first login form submited, it will ask for the 2nd login prompt. Apache have following config : <Directory /web/apache2/htdocs> AllowOverride All AuthType Kerberos AuthName "Staff Access ONLY Kerb-Auth" KrbAuthRealms EXAMPLE.COM Krb5Keytab /etc/httpd/conf.d/example.ktab Allow from localhost Require valid-user <Directory> What could be the cause of the first authentication and how can I get rid of them ?

    Read the article

  • apache authentication

    - by veilig
    I'm trying to set up a local webserver on my network. I want to be able to be able to access the webserver from any machine inside my network w/out authenticating. and two extra domains need access to it w/out authenticating. Everyone else I would like to authenticate in. so far, I can get to it from inside my network. and the two extra domains can access my webserver, but everyone else is just hanging. They don't get an authentication or anything. can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong here? This is part of my apache's site-available file so far: <Directory /path/to/server/> Options Indexes FollowSymLinks -Multiviews Order Deny,Allow Deny from All Allow from 192.168 Allow from localhost Allow from domain1 Allow from domain2 AuthType Basic AuthName "my authentication" AuthUserFile /path/to/file Require valid-user Satisfy Any AllowOverride All <Files .htaccess> Order Allow,Deny Allow from All </Files> </Directory>

    Read the article

  • Central Authentication For Windows, Linux, Network Devices

    - by mojah
    I'm trying to find a way to centralize user management & authentication for a large collection of Windows & Linux Servers, including network devices (Cisco, HP, Juniper). Options include RADIUS/LDAP/TACACS/... Idea is to keep track with staff changes, and access towards these devices. Preferably a system that is compatible with both Linux, Windows & those network devices. Seems like Windows is the most stubborn of them all, for Linux & Network equipment it's easier to implement a solution (using PAM.D for instance). Should we look for an Active Directory/Domain Controller solution for Windows? Fun sidenote; we also manage client systems, that are often already in a domain. Trust-relationships between Domain Controllers isn't always an option for us (due to client security restrictions). I'd love to hear fresh ideas on how to implement such a centralized authentication "portal" for those systems.

    Read the article

  • The Story of secure user-authentication in squid

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry if the story is boring and messy, but most of it is real! =) /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • secure user-authentication in squid

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • secure user-authentication in squid: The Story

    - by Isaac
    once upon a time, there was a beautiful warm virtual-jungle in south america, and a squid server lived there. here is an perceptual image of the network: <the Internet> | | A | B Users <---------> [squid-Server] <---> [LDAP-Server] When the Users request access to the Internet, squid ask their name and passport, authenticate them by LDAP and if ldap approved them, then he granted them. Everyone was happy until some sniffers stole passport in path between users and squid [path A]. This disaster happened because squid used Basic-Authentication method. The people of jungle gathered to solve the problem. Some bunnies offered using NTLM of method. Snakes prefered Digest-Authentication while Kerberos recommended by trees. After all, many solution offered by people of jungle and all was confused! The Lion decided to end the situation. He shouted the rules for solutions: Shall the solution be secure! Shall the solution work for most of browsers and softwares (e.g. download softwares) Shall the solution be simple and do not need other huge subsystem (like Samba server) Shall not the method depend on special domain. (e.g. Active Directory) Then, a very resonable-comprehensive-clever solution offered by a monkey, making him the new king of the jungle! can you guess what was the solution? Tip: The path between squid and LDAP is protected by the lion, so the solution have not to secure it. Note: sorry for this boring and messy story! /~\/~\/~\ /\~/~\/~\/~\/~\ ((/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\)) (/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\/~\) (//// ~ ~ \\\\) (\\\\( (0) (0) )////) (\\\\( __\-/__ )////) (\\\( /-\ )///) (\\\( (""""") )///) (\\\( \^^^/ )///) (\\\( )///) (\/~\/~\/~\/) ** (\/~\/~\/) *####* | | **** /| | | |\ \\ _/ | | | | \_ _________// Thanks! (,,)(,,)_(,,)(,,)--------'

    Read the article

  • simple Java "service provider frameworks"?

    - by Jason S
    I refer to "service provider framework" as discussed in Chapter 2 of Effective Java, which seems like exactly the right way to handle a problem I am having, where I need to instantiate one of several classes at runtime, based on a String to select which service, and an Configuration object (essentially an XML snippet): But how do I get the individual service providers (e.g. a bunch of default providers + some custom providers) to register themselves? interface FooAlgorithm { /* methods particular to this class of algorithms */ } interface FooAlgorithmProvider { public FooAlgorithm getAlgorithm(Configuration c); } class FooAlgorithmRegistry { private FooAlgorithmRegistry() {} static private final Map<String, FooAlgorithmProvider> directory = new HashMap<String, FooAlgorithmProvider>(); static public FooAlgorithmProvider getProvider(String name) { return directory.get(serviceName); } static public boolean registerProvider(String name, FooAlgorithmProvider provider) { if (directory.containsKey(name)) return false; directory.put(name, provider); return true; } } e.g. if I write custom classes MyFooAlgorithm and MyFooAlgorithmProvider to implement FooAlgorithm, and I distribute them in a jar, is there any way to get registerProvider to be called automatically, or will my client programs that use the algorithm have to explicitly call FooAlgorithmRegistry.registerProvider() for each class they want to use?

    Read the article

  • Certificate Authentication

    - by steve.mccall1
    Hi, I am currently working on deploying a website for staff to use remotely and would like to make sure it is secure. I was thinking would it be possible to set up some kind of certificate authentication where I would generate a certificate and install it on their laptop so they could access the website? I don't really want them to generate the certificates themselves though as that could easily go wrong. How easy / possible is this and how do I go about doing it? Thanks, Steve

    Read the article

  • basic http authentication

    - by user881480
    I am using apache's basic http authentication to control access, however, I only want to control one level of directory access, meaning, I only want directory a to be authenticated, but not a's children(eg. a/b), is this possible? <Location /a/> Options -Indexes Order Deny,Allow Allow from all AuthType Basic AuthName "Members Only" AuthUserFile /home/xxxx/.htpasswd require valid-user </Location>

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >