Search Results

Search found 6525 results on 261 pages for 'restful authentication'.

Page 8/261 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• SSH: Two Factor Authentication

  - by Pierre

  I currently have a Ubuntu Server 12.04 running OpenSSH along with Samba and a few other services. At the current time I have public key authentication set up, and I'm wondering if it's possible to set up two factor authentication? I've been looking at Google Authenticator which I currently use with my Gmail account. I've found a PAM module that looks like it will be compatible however it seems that you are forced to use a password and the code generated. I'm wondering if there is a way to use the Google Authenticator Application (or something similar) along with my public key to authenticate into my SSH server?

  Read the article

• Teamcity nuget feed http authentication

  - by Mihalis Bagos

  Nuget feed by team city is working perfectly but there is a strange problem. Local IP (http://192.168.xx.xx:9999/feed/../): Listing through browser works Accessing packages through Visual studio 11 nuget works VPN IP (http://55.xx.xx.xx:9999/feed/../): Listing packages through browser works Accessing packages through Visual studio 11 nuget PROBLEM GUEST Account: Everything works fine, both on VPN and local IP (so its purely an authentication problem) The problem is, we can't get the user to authenticate. Using the same credentials, no matter what we try we get 401. The server VPN ip is whitelisted in internet explorer intranet settings. Any ideas? Basically HTTP authentication is failing for the VPN although it shouldn't, since the browser works fine!

  Read the article

• Firewall Authentication - logon failed

  - by RoseofPurple

  I am attempting to use a Watchguard firebox 550e with Fireware XTM 11 to authenticate incoming traffic for RDP access. I have configured the firewall to use my domain controller for Active directory authentication with a Windows 2000 server farm and added a couple of user accounts to the users list in the firewall, but when I attempt to log onto the authentication page for the firewall, I get Logon failed. I know that the user names work and that the passwords are correct. I am also certain that I have told it to log on using Active Directory instead of the FireboxDB. I have tried using the username alone, the domain\username, and the email address. I believe that the Search base is correct (DC=mydomainname,DC=com), and I did not change any defaults for sAMAccountName (and I do not recall making any changes to those items when configuring the domain structure). Any assistance would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Does Hotmail really offer two-factor authentication? [closed]

  - by Brian Koser

  I've read multiple news articles that claim Hotmail offers two-factor authentication. One of the articles describes Hotmail's system, saying ...whenever you go to Hotmail...you can choose to get a single-use code–a string of numbers that will be sent via text message to your phone–to use instead of your password. Is this an accurate description of Hotmail's system? If so, does Hotmail really offer two-factor authentication? If you can use either your password or a single-use code, it seems to me that it does not. Is this system really more secure than just having a password? Doesn't this just make an additional "key" available to a hacker? (I must be wrong here, I know the folks at Microsoft are much smarter than I am).

  Read the article

• Industry Standard DNS & Authentication?

  - by James Murphy

  I'm just curious as to what is considered industry standard when it comes to doing DNS and authentication on an environment with mainly linux machines? Do people use Windows DNS & Windows AD to do it all if they have at least one windows server (well - alot might, but should they)? Does ANYONE use hosts files or local only user accounts on each server? What would people like Facebook/Google use for their DNS and authentication on their servers? We have an environment where we have about 10-15 linux servers and 1-2 windows servers. We are currently using Windows AD and Windows DNS but it doesn't seem like it's the most secure/stable/scalable way to do it for a mainly linux environment? We use RHEL as our linux environment.

  Read the article

• 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

• 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

• Logs being flooded from Squid for having intercepted and authentication enabled together

  - by Horace

  I have done some hefty Google'ing and I can't seem to find a single solution to this issue that I cam currently experiencing. Here is a sample configuration from squid that I have: # # DIGEST Auth # auth_param digest program /usr/sbin/digest_file_auth /etc/squid/digpass auth_param digest children 8 auth_param digest realm LHPROJECTS.LAN Network Proxy auth_param digest nonce_garbage_interval 10 minutes auth_param digest nonce_max_duration 45 minutes auth_param digest nonce_max_count 100 auth_param digest nonce_strictness on # Squid normally listens to port 3128 # Squid normally listens to port 3128 http_port 192.168.10.2:3128 transparent https_port 192.168.10.2:3128 intercept http_port 192.168.10.2:3130 As noted above, I have three ports defined, 2 of them are transparent/intercept and one is a regular http port (which I use for authentication). Which works rather well in this configuration however my logs are getting flooded of this entry authentication not applicable on intercepted requests whenever a transparent connection is made. So far, I can't seem to find any documentation that would describe how to suppress these messages ?

  Read the article

• How to disabled password authentication for specific users in SSHD

  - by Nick

  I have read several posts regarding restricting ALL users to Key authentication ONLY, however I want to force only a single user (svn) onto Key auth only, the rest can be key or password. I read How to disable password authentication for every users except several, however it seems the "match user" part of sshd_config is part of openssh-5.1. I am running CentOS 5.6 and only have OpenSSH 4.3. I have the following repos available at the moment. $ yum repolist Loaded plugins: fastestmirror repo id repo name status base CentOS-5 - Base enabled: 3,535 epel Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 5 - x86_64 enabled: 6,510 extras CentOS-5 - Extras enabled: 299 ius IUS Community Packages for Enterprise Linux 5 - x86_64 enabled: 218 rpmforge RHEL 5 - RPMforge.net - dag enabled: 10,636 updates CentOS-5 - Updates enabled: 720 repolist: 21,918 I mainly use epel, rpmforge is used to the latest version (1.6) of subversion. Is there any way to achieve this with my current setup? I don't want to restrict the server to keys only because if I lose my key I lose my server ;-)

  Read the article

• Kerberos authentication between 2 applications

  - by Spivi

  We work on a server 2003 and server 2008 R2 enviroment. I'm familiar with the basic usage of the Kerberos protocol where the protocol authenticates a client when he tries to use a shared resource (server, folder, printer, etc.). We have three distinct and independent .NET applications that we develop inhouse (app A, app B & app C) but they need to communicate for a given reason (A recieves messages only from B and C and C recieves messages only from B). Is it possible to configure the Kerberos services to authenticate messages/request between two .NET apps ? (Instead of a user-server authentication, we will have an application-application authentication)

  Read the article

• 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

• Tellago releases a RESTful API for BizTalk Server business rules

  - by Charles Young

  Jesus Rodriguez has blogged recently on Tellago Devlabs' release of an open source RESTful API for BizTalk Server Business Rules.   This is an excellent addition to the BizTalk ecosystem and I congratulate Tellago on their work.   See http://weblogs.asp.net/gsusx/archive/2011/02/08/tellago-devlabs-a-restful-api-for-biztalk-server-business-rules.aspx   The Microsoft BRE was originally designed to be used as an embedded library in .NET applications. This is reflected in the implementation of the Rules Engine Update (REU) Service which is a TCP/IP service that is hosted by a Windows service running locally on each BizTalk box. The job of the REU is to distribute rules, managed and held in a central database repository, across the various servers in a BizTalk group.   The engine is therefore distributed on each box, rather than exploited behind a central rules service.   This model is all very well, but proves quite restrictive in enterprise environments. The problem is that the BRE can only run legally on licensed BizTalk boxes. Increasingly we need to deliver rules capabilities across a more widely distributed environment. For example, in the project I am working on currently, we need to surface decisioning capabilities for use within WF workflow services running under AppFabric on non-BTS boxes. The BRE does not, currently, offer any centralised rule service facilities out of the box, and hence you have to roll your own (and then run your rules services on BTS boxes which has raised a few eyebrows on my current project, as all other WCF services run on a dedicated server farm ).   Tellago's API addresses this by providing a RESTful API for querying the rules repository and executing rule sets against XML passed in the request payload. As Jesus points out in his post, using a RESTful approach hugely increases the reach of BRE-based decisioning, allowing simple invocation from code written in dynamic languages, mobile devices, etc.   We developed our own SOAP-based general-purpose rules service to handle scenarios such as the one we face on my current project. SOAP is arguably better suited to enterprise service bus environments (please don't 'flame' me - I refuse to engage in the RESTFul vs. SOAP war). For example, on my current project we use claims based authorisation across the entire service bus and use WIF and WS-Federation for this purpose.   We have extended this to the rules service. I can't release the code for commercial reasons :-( but this approach allows us to legally extend the reach of BRE far beyond the confines of the BizTalk boxes on which it runs and to provide general purpose decisioning capabilities on the bus.   So, well done Tellago.   I haven't had a chance to play with the API yet, but am looking forward to doing so.

  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

• Allow website access from specific subnet, otherwise ask for credentials

  - by joschi

  How can I configure IIS 6 to allow access to a sub folder from our intranet without any authentication (well, the IP address needs to be checked but that's already working) from the internet only after authentication via Basic Auth? Basically I'm looking for something like the Satisfy directive in Apache httpd.

  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

• RESTful WCF Data Service Authentication

  - by Adrian Grigore

  Hi, I'd like to implement a REST api to an existing ASP.NET MVC website. I've managed to set up WCF Data services so that I can browse my data, but now the question is how to handle authentication. Right now the data service is secured via the site's built in forms authentication, and that's ok when accessing the service from AJAX forms. However, It's not ideal for a RESTful api. What I would like as an alternative to forms authentication is for the users to simply embed the user name and password into the url to the web service or as request parameters. For example, if my web service is usually accessible as http://localhost:1234/api.svc I'd like to be able to access it using the url http://localhost:1234/api.svc/{login}/{password} So, my questions are as follows: Is this a sane approach? If yes, how can I implement this? It seems trivial redirecting GET requests so that the login and password are attached as GET parameters. I also know how to inspect the http context and use those parameters to filter the results. But I am not sure if / how the same approach could be applied to POST, PUT and DELETE requests. Thanks, Adrian

  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

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