Search Results

Search found 1208 results on 49 pages for 'proxied authorization'.

Page 8/49 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • X11 for apache user

    - by fuenfundachtzig
    We are using inkscape to convert SVG images uploaded to our server via a web form. For this inkscape offers a batch mode via the -z option, but this batch mode has a flaw: When inkscape is run by the apache user, it breaks saying $ inkscape -z -W drawing.svg X11 connection rejected because of wrong authentication. The application 'inkscape' lost its connection to the display localhost:11.0; most likely the X server was shut down or you killed/destroyed the application. If you do the same as a normal user you also get errors: Xlib: connection to "localhost:11.0" refused by server Xlib: PuTTY X11 proxy: MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 data did not match (inkscape:24050): Gdk-CRITICAL **: gdk_display_list_devices: assertion `GDK_IS_DISPLAY (display)' failed 301.27942 But at least inkscape gives the correct answer (here the number stating the width of the image). Does somebody know how to make this also work for the apache user? Does it make sense to authorize apache to use X (if so how)? In any case it doesn't feel like the right solution...

    Read the article

  • LDAP RBAC model

    - by typo
    Hi does anybody can tell me about best practice to model RBAC on LDAP ? I'm very confused, not sure if I should think about LDAP groups as role, or just user in some custom OU. Any real-life examples with tasks-operations\roles\user scheme (one user, multiple roles per user, multiple operations-tasks per role) ? BTW:Target systems are .net, java and iSeries

    Read the article

  • Why does Facebook Chat through XMPP protocol on Pidgin Portable not authorize?

    - by Sara Neff
    I heard you can use facebook chat on desktops now. Thats awsome! What i didn't hear is that it is a pain in the butt! Not awsome! I've followed six nearly identical sets of instructions from six different websides, including the one that facebook generates for you, to get facebook chat connected through Pidgin. Its the latest portable version, so from what i hear the plugin is out of the question. Whenever I go to try and connect i get a message saying "Not Authorized" and buttons to either modify the account info, or retry. NOTHING i have done has fixed this, and I can't find anything remotely usefull anywhere. I am running windows xp, and running pidgin (portable) off of a flash drive. Someone please tell me what i have to do. I read about authorizing the chat on my actual facebook page. I'd have tried that if i could find out how to do it, but if its there they hid it good. HELP?!

    Read the article

  • Access Denied on LAN IIS Access via Integrated Authentication

    - by Pharao2k
    I have an IIS 7.5 (Win2k8R2) Webserver, which publishes an UNC Share (on a Fileserver) with restricted access. The AppPool Identity is a Domain User-Account with read access to mentioned UNC path. Authentication modes are set to Anonymous and Integration Authentication. When I access the path via localhost from the Webserver itself, it works, but if I try the Hostname or IP from either the Webserver or a Client, I get three authentication prompts (does not accept my credentials) and a 401.3 Unauthorized error message (but it states that I am logged in as my normal credentials which definitely have access rights to the UNC path and its files). Security Zone is set to Local Intranet. Sysiniternals Process Monitor lists CreateFile operations on the UNC path (and other existing files in it) with Access Denied and Impersonating on the correct credentials. I don't understand why it is not working, it seems to use the correct credentials on every step on the way but fails with is operations.

    Read the article

  • IIS 6 Denies access to the default document

    - by Jim
    I've got Windows Server 2k3 with IIS6 hosting a couple ASP.NET MVC 2 applications (.NET 4), all in the Default Web Site. Most of them simply use Integrated authentication, but a couple use forms as well. All the applications work properly and are correctly accessible. The problem I'm trying to resolve is access to the default document. It is currently specified as index.htm. Both index.htm and the Default Web Site are configured to allow anonymous access (with none of the authenticated acces boxes checked). However, access is denied to the file. Accessing via server.domain.tld/ and server.domain.tld/index.htm both yield 401 errors. However, server.domain.tld/default.htm (file does not exist) properly returns a 404. If I alter the file security on index.htm to allow integrated authentication, then requesting /index.htm directly works properly for users with domain accounts, but anonymous users get a login prompt/401. How can I configure IIS to allow all users to view index.htm via server.domain.tld/?

    Read the article

  • Simple, centralized user management on a small LAN - NIS or LDAP?

    - by einpoklum
    I'm setting up a small LAN for my team. It will, for all intents and purposes, not be connected to any external networks. I would it to have centralized control of user accounts (at least, I think I'd like that; I'm also considering using puppet, so theoretically I could just push /etc/passwd changes, or something). The number of machines is fixed, but not very small. Mostly they're 'attached' to a single user, but sometimes people work remotely on someone else's box; and there are a couple of servers. I've read this question, but my scenario is much simpler (even simpler than in this question) and I'd like to do something (relatively) quick, with not much hassle, but not a dirty totally-insecure hack. Is NIS relevant for my scenario? If not, what's the most hassle-free way to set up LDAP (or LDAP+Kerberos) to achieve the same? Notes: I have no experience with setting up either NIS or LDAP. We use Debian-flavored Linux distributions, mainly Kubuntu 12.04 (not my choice, but that's the way it is).

    Read the article

  • The authenticity of host “host” can't be established

    - by Candroid
    I'm running a web app on a Linux server which connects to other servers. When I run the project on my Play framework on loclhost it runs fluently. When I run it on my Linux server I get the above message 3 times, one for each server. I read a post about it where it says that it is a man in the middle warning and if I write yes it should work. But though a write yes, nothing happens and the app doesn't run, and the error message keeps popping up. I tried creating private and public keys and add them to the authorized_keys file, but it didn't work either. What should I so to run my app?

    Read the article

  • How to tell httpd to preserve the proxied error message?

    - by ZNK - M
    I have an httpd server proxying the requests to 2 different tomcat servers. One of my server handles the authentication and returns a specific http error code 521 when the user already have a running session. My issue is httpd automatically maps this 521 error code to a 500 (internal server error) and then my client can not handle it properly. I have tried to disable ProxyErrorOverride, to remove the /error/HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.html.var but it does not changes anything. How can I ask httpd to not change anything to the proxied message? <IfModule proxy_module> ProxyPass /context1 http://127.0.0.1:8001/context1 ProxyPass /context2 http://127.0.0.1:8002/context2 ProxyPreserveHost Off ProxyErrorOverride Off </IfModule> Thanks in advance httpd 2.2.22 (Win32) mod_ssl tomcat 7.25 windows 7 64-bits

    Read the article

  • Access Control Lists basics

    - by vtortola
    Hi, I'm gonna add authorization, user and groups management to my application, basically... you will can define a set of permissions for a concrete user or group. For example, you could specify whom can use a concrete resource. So I want to ensure that my assumptions about ACLs are right: A basic rule could be "Grant", "Deny", "NoSet". User permissions have priority over group permissions. "Deny" statement has priority over "Grant". For example, user "u1" belongs to group "A", the resource "X" has this ACL "u1:grant,A:deny" user "u1" should be able to access the resource, shouldn't it? If a resource has no ACL set... does it means that anyone can access it? should I provide a default ACL? Any document about ACL in a general way? Cheers.

    Read the article

  • "Authorize" attribute and 403 error page

    - by zerkms
    [Authorize] property is nice and handy MS invention, and I hope it can solve the issues I have now To be more specific: When current client isn't authenticated - [Authorize] redirects from secured action to logon page and after logon was successfull - brings user back, this is good. But when current cilent already authenticated but not authorized to run specific action - all I need is to just display my general 403 page. Is it possible without moving authorization logic within controller's body? UPD: The behavior I need in should be semantically equals to this sketch: public ActionResult DoWork() { if (!NotAuthorized()) { return RedirectToAction("403"); } return View(); } so - there should no any redirect and url should be stay the same, but contents of the page should be replaced with 403-page

    Read the article

  • Database independent row level security solution

    - by Filip
    Hi, does anybody knows about Java/C# database independent authorization library. This library should support read, write, delete, insert actions across company organizational structure. Something like this: - user can see all documents - user can enter new document assigned to his unit - user can change all documents assigned to his unit and all subordinate units. - user can delete documents that are assigned to him I should also be able to create custom actions (besides read, write,...) connect them to certain class and assign that "security token" to user (e.g. document.expire). If there aren't any either free or commercial libraries, is there a book that could be useful in implementing this functionality? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Interfacing my application with existing authentication systems

    - by Karan Bhangui
    I'm writing a web based application that will have its own authorization/authentication mechanism (traditional cookie/session based user/pass). However, depending on the organization that licenses the software, I want them to be able to plug in their own existing internal authentication system as a way to replace mine. Ideally, they'd have to run as little code as possible on their end; I'm trying to make this a mostly hosted service. I'm aware of the existence of OAuth, but don't entirely understand how I would go about implementing the system at a higher level. Any tips would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Active Directory: User UPN or DN for NTLM name, using pure LDAP?

    - by Bernd Haug
    I have a Java app that can authenticate to LDAP by logging users into the AD LDAP server with the NTLM name (which they are used to - this is a requirement). I now also need to do authorization, and hence need to find a forest-unique identifier for the user (DN or UPN should work), from which I can further query the directory. The method needs to be absolutely portable, even if the AD is structured in an unusual fashion, otherwise I could just do a string replacement and search for a UPN of "${ntlm-user}@${ntlm-domain}.${configured-trailing-domain}" How can I do this, using pure LDAP? Currently, I'm using the java.naming.directory package, which I'd like to keep using, since it doesn't throw up problems when not binding with a DN but logging in with an NTLM name?

    Read the article

  • IIS7 integrated mode closing token between requests

    - by user607287
    We are migrating to IIS7 integrated mode and have come across an issue. We authenticate using WindowsAuthentication but then store a reference to the WindowsPrincipal so that on future requests we can authorize as needed against AD. In IIS 7 Integrated mode, the token is being closed (between requests) so that when we try to run IsInRole it generates a disposed exception. Is there a way to cache this token or change our use of WindowsPrincipal so that we don't need to make successive AD requests to get it for each authorization request? Here is the exception being thrown from WindowsPrincipal.IsInRole("") - System.ObjectDisposedException: {"Safe handle has been closed"} Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Apache Shiro, INI-Configuration, Perms per URL: How to get URL params?

    - by Marcus Schultö
    I want to use Apache Shiro[1] in my JSF-Application to perform URL-based authorization checks, configuration done in shiro.ini As I see in the Shiro-documentation[2] there is a way to use a "perms"-filter /remoting/rpc/** = authc, perms["remote:invoke"] In my scenario I want this functionality, but on entity-level[3], where the entity-Id is in the http-request # "Open settings for user with id=123": # /user/settings.xhtml?user_id=123 /user/settings.xhtml = perms["user:update:XXX"] So, how do I do this with Shiro? How to I tell the perms-filter to check for http-params? Or is this supposed to be done in my Realm-Implemenation, concrete by calling FacesContext? [1] https://shiro.apache.org [2] https://shiro.apache.org/web.html#Web-webini [3] This can be done at least programmatically: SecurityUtils.getSubject().isPermitted("printer:query:lp7200") https://shiro.apache.org/permissions.html

    Read the article

  • ASP MVC: Keeping track of logged in users.

    - by user323395
    I'm creating a ASP MVC application. And because of the complex authorization i'm trying to build my own login system. (So i'm not using asp membership providers, and related classes). Now i'm able to create new accounts in the database with hashed passwords. But how do i keep track that a user is logged in. Is generating a long random number and putting this with the userID in the database and cookie enough? Sorry for my rather bad english! Ty in advance :)

    Read the article

  • Rails + simple role system through associative table

    - by user202411
    So I have the Ninja model which has many Hovercrafts through ninja_hovercrafts (which stores the ninja_id and the hovercraft_id). It is of my understanding that this kind of arrangement should be set in a way that the associative table stores only enough information to bind two different classes. But I'd like to use the associative table to work as a very streamlined authorization hub on my application. So i'd also like this table to inform my system if this binding makes the ninja the pilot or co-pilot of a given hovercraft, through a "role" field in the table. My questions are: Is this ugly? Is this normal? Are there methods built into rails that would help me to automagically create Ninjas and Hovercrafts associations WITH the role? For exemple, could I have a nested form to create both ninjas and hcs in a way that the role field in ninjas_hovercrafts would be also filled? If managing my application roles this way isn't a good idea, whats the non-resource heavy alternative (my app is being designed trying to avoid scalability problems such as excessive joins, includes, etc) thank you

    Read the article

  • How to handle authenticated user access to resources in document oriented system?

    - by Jeremy Raymond
    I'm developing a document oriented application and need to manage user access to the documents. I have a module that handles user authentication, and another module that handles document CRUD operations on the data store. Once a user is authenticated I need to enforce what operations the user can and cannot perform to documents based upon the user's permissions. The best option I could think of to integrate these two pieces together would be to create another module that duplicates the data API but that also takes the authenticated user as a parameter. The module would delegate the authorization check to the auth module and delegate the document operation to the data access module. Something like: -module(auth_data_access). % User is authenticated (logged into the system) % save_doc validates if user is allowed to save the given document and if so % saves it returning ok, else returns {error, permission_denied} save_doc(Doc, User) -> case auth:save_allowed(Doc, User) of ok -> data_access:save_doc(Doc); denied -> {error, permission_denied} end end. Is there a better way I can handle this?

    Read the article

  • how to allow unamed user in svn authz file?

    - by dtrosset
    I have a subversion server running with apache. It authenticates users using LDAP in apache configuration and uses SVN authorizations to limit user access to certain repositories. This works perfectly. Apache DAV svn SVNParentPath /srv/svn SVNListParentPath Off SVNPathAuthz Off AuthType Basic AuthName "Subversion Repository" AuthBasicProvider ldap AuthLDAPBindDN # private stuff AuthLDAPBindPassword # private stuff AuthLDAPURL # private stuff Require valid-user AuthzSVNAccessFile /etc/apache2/dav_svn.authz Subversion [groups] soft = me, and, all, other, developpers Adding anonymous access from one machine Now, I have a service I want to setup (rietveld, for code reviews) that needs to have an anonymous access to the repository. As this is a web service, accesses are always done from the same server. Thus I added apache configuration to allow all accesses from this machine. This did not work until I add an additional line in the authorization file to allow read access to user -. Apache <Limit GET PROPFIND OPTIONS REPORT> Order allow,deny Allow from # private IP address Satisfy Any </Limit> Subversion [Software:/] @soft = rw - = r # <-- This is the added line For instance, before I add this, all users were authenticated, and thus had a name. Now, some accesses are done without a user name! I found this - user name in the apache log files. But does this line equals to * = r that I absolutely do not want to enable, or does it only allows the anonymous unnamed user (that is allowed access only from the rietveld server)?

    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

  • Trying to read FormsAuthentication tickets to read in other areas of site

    - by Pasha Aryana
    Hi, NOTE: I have included 3 links in here to my localhost areas but could not submit the post so I seperetaed them with a space character so it would post on stackoverflow. I currently have 2 ASP.NET MVC apps in my solution. First I run the first one by setting it to be startup project. It goes to the login page, from there once the data has been entered I execute the following code: var authTicket = new FormsAuthenticationTicket(1, login.LoginDataContract.MSISDN, DateTime.Now, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(Convert.ToDouble("30")), true, ""); string cookieContents = FormsAuthentication.Encrypt(authTicket); var cookie = new HttpCookie(FormsAuthentication.FormsCookieName, cookieContents) { Expires = authTicket.Expiration, //Path = FormsAuthentication.FormsCookiePath //Path = "http://localhost" Domain = "" }; if (System.Web.HttpContext.Current != null) { System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Response.Cookies.Add(cookie); } As you can see I have set the Domain = "", so theoretically speaking it should work on any thing under my http: //localhost. Then I have set the persist security of the cookie to true so I can access it from any where under localhost. The cookie writes fine and I get logged in and all godd for now. BTW the url for this login page is: http //localhost/MyAccount/Login Now then I stop the solution and set the other MVC apps to be the startup. Then I run it. The URL for the second site is: http: //localhost/WebActivations/ Here is the code in the other apps start controller: public class HomeController : Controller { public ActionResult Index() { ViewData["Message"] = "Welcome to ASP.NET MVC!"; // PASHA: Added code to read the authorization cookie set at // login in MyAccount *.sln for (int i = 0; i < System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.Cookies.Count;i++) { Response.Write(System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.Cookies[i].Name + " " + System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.Cookies[i].Value); } HttpCookie authorizationCookie = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.Cookies[FormsAuthentication.FormsCookieName.ToString()]; // decrypt. FormsAuthenticationTicket authorizationForm = FormsAuthentication.Decrypt(authorizationCookie.Value); ViewData["Message"] = authorizationForm.UserData[0].ToString(); return View(); } public ActionResult About() { return View(); } The problem is in this Home controller when I run the solution it cannot read the authentication cookie, you see the loop there it does not find the .ASPXAUTH cookie. But once it crashes in Firefox I have a look in the Page Info and then security and Cookies and its there and its the same cookie. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to intercept 401 from Forms Authentication in ASP.NET MVC?

    - by Jiho Han
    I would like to generate a 401 page if the user does not have the right permission. The user requests a url and is redirected to the login page (I have deny all anonymous in web.config). The user logs in successfully and is redirected to the original url. However, upon permission check, it is determined that the user does not have the required permission, so I would like to generate a 401. But Forms Authentication always handles 401 and redirects the user to the login page. To me, this isn't correct. The user has already authenticated, the user just does not have the proper authorization. In other scenarios, such as in ajax or REST service scenario, I definitely do not want the login page - I need the proper 401 page. So far, I've tried custom Authorize filter to return ViewResult with 401 but didn't work. I then tried a normal Action Filter, overriding OnActionExecuting, which did not work either. What I was able to do is handle an event in global.asax, PostRequestHandlerExecute, and check for the permission then write out directly to response: if (permissionDenied) { Context.Response.StatusCode = 401; Context.Response.Clear(); Context.Response.Write("Permission Denied"); Context.Response.Flush(); Context.Response.Close(); return; } That works but it's not really what I want. First of all, I'm not even sure if that is the right event or the place in the pipeline to do that. Second, I want the 401 page to have a little more content. Preferably, it should be an aspx page with possibly the same master page as the rest of the site. That way, anyone browsing the site can see that the permission is denied but with the same look and feel, etc. but the ajax or service user will get the proper status code to act on. Any idea how this can be achieved? I've seen other posts with similar requests but didn't see a solution that I can use. And no, I do not want a 403.

    Read the article

  • What are the complications involved in this startup:Payments through authorization of fingerprints?

    - by jim859
    I want to make a mobile application where by people can send payments by authorization of finger prints. An email id will be registered and their finger print(unique for everyone) will be stored on our server.Person A and Person B are already registered and have installed the app.A and B deposit some money through our app from their credit card. When a person(Person A) want to send money to other people(person B), person B will ask person A to authorize his/her finger print on person B's mobile.The finger print will be retrieved from our servers and the payment will be made to person B. Person A will open the app (later or at that time) and confirm that yes he/she has authorized his/her finger print for the transaction.If person A has actually done the transaction,no problem.If person A has unknowingly or forcibly and opts that he/she has not authorized his/her finger print,money will be deducted from person B's account. What are the problems/vulnerabilities here,how can it be solved. Any other ways you can suggest to facilitate the transaction

    Read the article

  • How do I grant anonymous access to a url using FormsAuthentication?

    - by Brian Bolton
    For the most part, my webapp requires authentication to do anything. There are a few pages, namely the homepage, that I'd like people to be able to access without authenticating. Specifically, I'd like to allow anonymous access to these urls: /home /default.aspx I'm using asp.net MVC and FormsAuthentication. Both urls point to the same view: /home/index.aspx Here is my current configuration in web.config. <authentication mode="Forms"> <forms loginUrl="~/Account/LogOn" timeout="2880" /> </authentication> <authorization> <deny users="?" /> </authorization> Reading the documentation for the authorization tag, it says "Configures the authorization for a Web application, controlling client access to URL resources." It seems like I should be able to use the authorization tag to specify a url and allow access. Something like: <authentication mode="Forms"> <forms loginUrl="~/Account/LogOn" timeout="2880" /> </authentication> <authorization> <deny users="?" /> </authorization> <authorization url="/default.aspx"> <allow users="?" /> </authorization> <authorization url="/home"> <allow users="?" /> </authorization>

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >