Search Results

Search found 3983 results on 160 pages for 'partial trust'.

Page 1/160 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • What is New in ASP.NET 4.0 Code Access Security

    - by Xiaohong
    ASP.NET Code Access Security (CAS) is a feature that helps protect server applications on hosting multiple Web sites, ASP.NET lets you assign a configurable trust level that corresponds to a predefined set of permissions. ASP.NET has predefined ASP.NET Trust Levels and Policy Files that you can assign to applications, you also can assign custom trust level and policy files. Most web hosting companies run ASP.NET applications in Medium Trust to prevent that one website affect or harm another site etc. As .NET Framework's Code Access Security model has evolved, ASP.NET 4.0 Code Access Security also has introduced several changes and improvements. The main change in ASP.NET 4.0 CAS In ASP.NET v4.0 partial trust applications, application domain can have a default partial trust permission set as opposed to being full-trust, the permission set name is defined in the <trust /> new attribute permissionSetName that is used to initialize the application domain . By default, the PermissionSetName attribute value is "ASP.Net" which is the name of the permission set you can find in all predefined partial trust configuration files. <trust level="Something" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" /> This is ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model. For compatibility ASP.NET 4.0 also support legacy CAS model where application domain still has full trust permission set. You can specify new legacyCasModel attribute on the <trust /> element to indicate whether the legacy CAS model is enabled. By default legacyCasModel is false which means that new 4.0 CAS model is the default. <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="true|false" /> In .Net FX 4.0 Config directory, there are two set of predefined partial trust config files for each new CAS model and legacy CAS model, trust config files with name legacy.XYZ.config are for legacy CAS model: New CAS model: Legacy CAS model: web_hightrust.config legacy.web_hightrust.config web_mediumtrust.config legacy.web_mediumtrust.config web_lowtrust.config legacy.web_lowtrust.config web_minimaltrust.config legacy.web_minimaltrust.config   The figure below shows in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model what permission set to grant to code for partial trust application using predefined partial trust levels and policy files:    There also some benefits that comes with the new CAS model: You can lock down a machine by making all managed code no-execute by default (e.g. setting the MyComputer zone to have no managed execution code permissions), it should still be possible to configure ASP.NET web applications to run as either full-trust or partial trust. UNC share doesn’t require full trust with CASPOL at machine-level CAS policy. Side effect that comes with the new CAS model: processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is deprecated  in new CAS model since application domain always has partial trust permission set in new CAS model.   In ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model or ASP.NET 2.0 CAS model, even though you assign partial trust level to a application but the application domain still has full trust permission set. The figure below shows in ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model (or ASP.NET 2.0 CAS model) what permission set to grant to code for partial trust application using predefined partial trust levels and policy files:     What $AppDirUrl$, $CodeGen$, $Gac$ represents: $AppDirUrl$ The application's virtual root directory. This allows permissions to be applied to code that is located in the application's bin directory. For example, if a virtual directory is mapped to C:\YourWebApp, then $AppDirUrl$ would equate to C:\YourWebApp. $CodeGen$ The directory that contains dynamically generated assemblies (for example, the result of .aspx page compiles). This can be configured on a per application basis and defaults to %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\{version}\Temporary ASP.NET Files. $CodeGen$ allows permissions to be applied to dynamically generated assemblies. $Gac$ Any assembly that is installed in the computer's global assembly cache (GAC). This allows permissions to be granted to strong named assemblies loaded from the GAC by the Web application.   The new customization of CAS Policy in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model 1. Define which named permission set in partial trust configuration files By default the permission set that will be assigned at application domain initialization time is the named "ASP.Net" permission set found in all predefined partial trust configuration files. However ASP.NET 4.0 allows you set PermissionSetName attribute to define which named permission set in a partial trust configuration file should be the one used to initialize an application domain. Example: add "ASP.Net_2" named permission set in partial trust configuration file: <PermissionSet class="NamedPermissionSet" version="1" Name="ASP.Net_2"> <IPermission class="FileIOPermission" version="1" Read="$AppDir$" PathDiscovery="$AppDir$" /> <IPermission class="ReflectionPermission" version="1" Flags ="RestrictedMemberAccess" /> <IPermission class="SecurityPermission " version="1" Flags ="Execution, ControlThread, ControlPrincipal, RemotingConfiguration" /></PermissionSet> Then you can use "ASP.Net_2" named permission set for the application domain permission set: <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="false" permissionSetName="ASP.Net_2" /> 2. Define a custom set of Full Trust Assemblies for an application By using the new fullTrustAssemblies element to configure a set of Full Trust Assemblies for an application, you can modify set of partial trust assemblies to full trust at the machine, site or application level. The configuration definition is shown below: <fullTrustAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" version="1.1.2.3" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></fullTrustAssemblies> 3. Define <CodeGroup /> policy in partial trust configuration files ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model will retain the ability for developers to optionally define <CodeGroup />with membership conditions and assigned permission sets. The specific restriction in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model though will be that the results of evaluating custom policies can only result in one of two outcomes: either an assembly is granted full trust, or an assembly is granted the partial trust permission set currently associated with the running application domain. It will not be possible to use custom policies to create additional custom partial trust permission sets. When parsing the partial trust configuration file: Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with "PermissionSet='FullTrust'" will run at full trust. Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with "PermissionSet='Nothing'" will result in a PolicyError being thrown from the CLR. This is acceptable since it provides administrators with a way to do a blanket-deny of managed code followed by selectively defining policy in a <CodeGroup /> that re-adds assemblies that would be allowed to run. Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with other permissions sets will be interpreted to mean the assembly should run at the permission set of the appdomain. This means that even though syntactically a developer could define additional "flavors" of partial trust in an ASP.NET partial trust configuration file, those "flavors" will always be ignored. Example: defines full trust in <CodeGroup /> for my strong named assemblies in partial trust config files: <CodeGroup class="FirstMatchCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="Nothing"> <IMembershipCondition    class="AllMembershipCondition"    version="1" /> <CodeGroup    class="UnionCodeGroup"    version="1"    PermissionSetName="FullTrust"    Name="My_Strong_Name"    Description="This code group grants code signed full trust. "> <IMembershipCondition      class="StrongNameMembershipCondition" version="1"       PublicKeyBlob="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /> </CodeGroup> <CodeGroup   class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="ASP.Net">   <IMembershipCondition class="UrlMembershipCondition" version="1" Url="$AppDirUrl$/*" /> </CodeGroup> <CodeGroup class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="ASP.Net">   <IMembershipCondition class="UrlMembershipCondition" version="1" Url="$CodeGen$/*"   /> </CodeGroup></CodeGroup>   4. Customize CAS policy at runtime in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model allows to customize CAS policy at runtime by using custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver that overrides the ASP.NET code access security policy. Example: use custom host security policy resolver to resolve partial trust web application bin folder MyTrustedAssembly.dll to full trust at runtime: You can create a custom host security policy resolver and compile it to assembly MyCustomResolver.dll with strong name enabled and deploy in GAC: public class MyCustomResolver : HostSecurityPolicyResolver{ public override HostSecurityPolicyResults ResolvePolicy(Evidence evidence) { IEnumerator hostEvidence = evidence.GetHostEnumerator(); while (hostEvidence.MoveNext()) { object hostEvidenceObject = hostEvidence.Current; if (hostEvidenceObject is System.Security.Policy.Url) { string assemblyName = hostEvidenceObject.ToString(); if (assemblyName.Contains(“MyTrustedAssembly.dll”) return HostSecurityPolicyResult.FullTrust; } } //default fall-through return HostSecurityPolicyResult.DefaultPolicy; }} Because ASP.NET accesses the custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver during application domain initialization, and a custom policy resolver requires full trust, you also can add a custom policy resolver in <fullTrustAssemblies /> , or deploy in the GAC. You also need configure a custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver instance by adding the HostSecurityPolicyResolverType attribute in the <trust /> element: <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="false" hostSecurityPolicyResolverType="MyCustomResolver, MyCustomResolver" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" />   Note: If an assembly policy define in <CodeGroup/> and also in hostSecurityPolicyResolverType, hostSecurityPolicyResolverType will win. If an assembly added in <fullTrustAssemblies/> then the assembly has full trust no matter what policy in <CodeGroup/> or in hostSecurityPolicyResolverType.   Other changes in ASP.NET 4.0 CAS Use the new transparency model introduced in .Net Framework 4.0 Change in dynamically compiled code generated assemblies by ASP.NET: In new CAS model they will be marked as security transparent level2 to use Framework 4.0 security transparent rule that means partial trust code is treated as completely Transparent and it is more strict enforcement. In legacy CAS model they will be marked as security transparent level1 to use Framework 2.0 security transparent rule for compatibility. Most of ASP.NET products runtime assemblies are also changed to be marked as security transparent level2 to switch to SecurityTransparent code by default unless SecurityCritical or SecuritySafeCritical attribute specified. You also can look at Security Changes in the .NET Framework 4 for more information about these security attributes. Support conditional APTCA If an assembly is marked with the Conditional APTCA attribute to allow partially trusted callers, and if you want to make the assembly both visible and accessible to partial-trust code in your web application, you must add a reference to the assembly in the partialTrustVisibleAssemblies section: <partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" />/partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>   Most of ASP.NET products runtime assemblies are also changed to be marked as conditional APTCA to prevent use of ASP.NET APIs in partial trust environments such as Winforms or WPF UI controls hosted in Internet Explorer.   Differences between ASP.NET new CAS model and legacy CAS model: Here list some differences between ASP.NET new CAS model and legacy CAS model ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model  : Asp.net partial trust appdomains have full trust permission Multiple different permission sets in a single appdomain are allowed in ASP.NET partial trust configuration files Code groups Machine CAS policy is honored processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is still honored    New configuration setting for legacy model: <trust level="Something" legacyCASModel="true" ></trust><partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>   ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model: ASP.NET will now run in homogeneous application domains. Only full trust or the app-domain's partial trust grant set, are allowable permission sets. It is no longer possible to define arbitrary permission sets that get assigned to different assemblies. If an application currently depends on fine-tuning the partial trust permission set using the ASP.NET partial trust configuration file, this will no longer be possible. processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is deprecated Dynamically compiled assemblies output by ASP.NET build providers will be updated to explicitly mark assemblies as transparent. ASP.NET partial trust grant sets will be independent from any enterprise, machine, or user CAS policy levels. A simplified model for locking down web servers that only allows trusted managed web applications to run. Machine policy used to always grant full-trust to managed code (based on membership conditions) can instead be configured using the new ASP.NET 4.0 full-trust assembly configuration section. The full-trust assembly configuration section requires explicitly listing each assembly as opposed to using membership conditions. Alternatively, the membership condition(s) used in machine policy can instead be re-defined in a <CodeGroup /> within ASP.NET's partial trust configuration file to grant full-trust.   New configuration setting for new model: <trust level="Something" legacyCASModel="false" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" hostSecurityPolicyResolverType=".NET type string" ></trust><fullTrustAssemblies> <add assemblyName=”MyAssembly” version=”1.0.0.0” publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></fullTrustAssemblies><partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>     Hope this post is helpful to better understand the ASP.Net 4.0 CAS. Xiaohong Tang ASP.NET QA Team

    Read the article

  • Trust: A New Line of Business

    - by ruth.donohue
    What do you think are the key factors in building and maintaining your company's reputation... Innovation? Price? Surprisingly, according to the recent 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer, survey respondents in the US valued transparency of business practices as well as company trustworthiness as the two most important factors influencing corporate reputation. What is trust? It's the confidence in a company's ability to do what is right for all its stakeholders -- shareholders, customers, employees, and the broader society at large -- and not just shareholders. Trust is an increasingly important component to maintaining your company's reputation and brand, and Western countries have seen an increase in global trust. Global businesses headquartered in the United States in particular have seen an 18 point boost to 54 percent in global trust. Whether this uptick represents the start of a new trend or a mere blip in the barometer remains to be seen. The Edelman report notes that the increase is "tenuous" as people expect companies to return to "business as usual" after the economy rebounds. This warning underscores the need for companies to continue engaging in open and frequent communications and business practices with its stakeholders across multiple channels and view trust as a "new line of business" to cultivate.

    Read the article

  • Use a partial in a partial?

    - by Greg Wallace
    I'm a Rails newbie, so bear with me. I have a few places, some pages, some partials that use: <%= link_to "delete", post, method: :delete, data: { confirm: "You sure?" }, title: post.content %> Would it make sense to make this a partial since it is used repeatedly, sometimes in other partials too? Is it o.k. to put partials in partials?

    Read the article

  • Domain Trust 2008 to 2003

    - by nick3216
    I'm having trouble setting up the trust relationship between a Windows Server 2003 and a Windows Server 2008 AD. Domain a is Windows Server 2003 Forest functional level. Domain b is a Windows Server 2008 Forest functional level. I can set up the incoming side of the trust relationship on domain "a" so that it trusts domain "b". Try as I might on domain "b" I can't set up the outgoing side of the trust relationship to domain "a". The GUI interface gives an unhelpful 'The request is not supported'. I'm not sure netdom is being more or less helpful as it refers me to FilterSIDs netdom trust /add b /uo:b\admin /po:* /d:a /ud:a\admin /pd:* /oneside:trusting To improve the security of this external trust, security identifier (SID) filtering is enabled, however, if users have been migrated to the trusted domain and their SID histories have been preserved, you may choose to turn off this feature. For more information about SID filtering and how to turn it off, see the help for netdom trust /FilterSids or see Help and Support. The request is not supported. The command failed to complete succesfully. I say 'less helpful' because Windows Server 2008 doesn't support the /FilterSIDs option. How can we force creation of this trust? Edit: Just to clarify I've checked that the [Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options] "Network access: Allow anonymous SID/Name translation” is enabled on both sides of the trust as per http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/winserverDS/thread/cc61fc25-3569-4413-bbfd-92390eb31118

    Read the article

  • Getting NLog Running in Partial Trust

    - by grant.barrington
    To get things working you will need to: Strong name sign the assembly Allow Partially Trusted Callers In the AssemblyInfo.cs file you will need to add the assembly attribute for “AllowPartiallyTrustedCallers” You should now be able to get NLog working as part of a partial trust installation, except that the File target won’t work. Other targets will still work (database for example)   Changing BaseFileAppender.cs to get file logging to work In the directory \Internal\FileAppenders there is a file called “BaseFileAppender.cs”. Make a change to the function call “TryCreateFileStream()”. The error occurs here: Change the function call to be: private FileStream TryCreateFileStream(bool allowConcurrentWrite) { FileShare fileShare = FileShare.Read; if (allowConcurrentWrite) fileShare = FileShare.ReadWrite; #if DOTNET_2_0 if (_createParameters.EnableFileDelete && PlatformDetector.GetCurrentRuntimeOS() != RuntimeOS.Windows) { fileShare |= FileShare.Delete; } #endif #if !NETCF try { if (PlatformDetector.IsCurrentOSCompatibleWith(RuntimeOS.WindowsNT) || PlatformDetector.IsCurrentOSCompatibleWith(RuntimeOS.Windows)) { return WindowsCreateFile(FileName, allowConcurrentWrite); } } catch (System.Security.SecurityException secExc) { InternalLogger.Error("Security Exception Caught in WindowsCreateFile. {0}", secExc.Message); } #endif return new FileStream(FileName, FileMode.Append, FileAccess.Write, fileShare, _createParameters.BufferSize); }   Basically we wrap the call in a try..catch. If we catch a SecurityException when trying to create the FileStream using WindowsCreateFile(), we just swallow the exception and use the native System.Io.FileStream instead.

    Read the article

  • partial classes/partial class file

    - by Ravisha
    In C# .net there is a provision to have two different class files and make them a single class using the keyword partial keyword.this helps it to keep [for ex]UI and logic seperate. of course we can have two classes to achieve this one for UI and other for logic. Can this be achieved in java some how?

    Read the article

  • Partial upgrade on 12.04, how to stop nagging after locking to a working NVIDIA & xorg

    - by alsk
    How to stop the upgrade manager from offering updates and upgrades that potentially would harm my working 2D and 3D graphics? Finally, I got 12.04 working as it should: with nvidia-173 drivers by downgrading xorg and locking the version: On my 32-bit system on Athlon64, with (Albatron) NVIDIA GeForce FX5700XT, locked (/pinned) to xorg 1:7.6-7ubuntu7, xserver-xorg-core 2:11.1-0obuntu10.07, nvidia-173 173.14.35-0ubuntu0.2? An annoying thing left is that every time the updates are checked, I get warning of partial updates, and ambiguous options of "partial update" and "close". Ambiguous in that sense that if I click close, I will get option to update a few packages, which has been OK, while "partial update" would like to update my kernel to 3.2, alter xorg, remove nvidia-173 etc., and update mesa etc. This is not what I call appropriate, after locking XORG and NVIDIA drivers to working ones. One may say according to package management logic it may be correct, but to me as an user it makes little sense. Last Ubuntu that worked without big mess for me was 10.10, hence I will not put 12.10 to my "production" system, until I can be sure it will not trash the system again. P.S. Is there a recommended way to keep NVIDIA GeForce FX working with 3D on Ubuntu... in future?

    Read the article

  • Update Manager offers 900+ updates under partial upgrade mode

    - by TriforceLZG
    Today I checked for updates and got an error message telling me I must do a partial upgrade. I was shocked to see how many updates there were available. 900+ Updates! By using synaptic I found out that it wanted to remove core packages from my system, such as compiz and python, but also update some as well. I am very confused why package manager would want to do this all of a sudden, and why it wants to destroy my system. I really need an answer, because I now cannot update my system.

    Read the article

  • Continuously asking for partial upgrade

    - by udinnet
    I just upgraded my Ubuntu 11.10 to 12.04 after the announcement of the final release of Ubuntu 12.04. The upgrade process went fine. But now when I run the update manager it asks for a partial upgrade. But the funny thing is it installs 84 new packages in installation step, remove all the 84 packages in the cleaning step!!! This is happening recursively(Every time I launch the update manager). Please can you suggest something? Logs can be found in the launchpad bug page. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/update-manager/+bug/990449

    Read the article

  • asp.net MVC partial view

    - by DotnetSparrow
    Hi all: I have created a function for load event like this: $(function() { $('#dvGames').load( '<%= Url.Action("Partial3", "LiveGame") %>',{ gameDate: '2011-03-06' } ); }); and it works. Also, I have created a function for date change like this: $(function() { $('#datepicker').datepicker({ onSelect: function(dateText, inst) { $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: "/LiveGame/Partial3", data: "gameDate=" + dateText, success: function(result) { alert(result); var domElement = $(result); // create element from html $("#dvGames").append(domElement); // append to end of list } }); } }); }); but it doesnt work. neither it goes in controller action. My controller action is: public ActionResult Partial3(string gameDate) { return PartialView("Partial3"); } Please suggest me solution to this.

    Read the article

  • "partial views" best practices for 'container' divs?

    - by ropstah
    What is the 'best' way to handle the html markup for partial views? (which are also refreshed using AJAX) The biggest issue I run into is where to place the 'container' div... Consider having a masterpage and a partial view. (class="" could be interchanged with id="" depending if the partial is guaranteed to be unique, however this isn't really important to the issue i think) Masterpage: <div id="place1" class="placeholder"> <!-- render partial --> </div> Partial: <div id="partial1" class="partial"> <!-- content --> </div> I feel that something isn't being done right. However I cannot remove the div in the masterpage, because I need that to 'encapsulate' the response from AJAX partial updates. And also I cannot move the div in the partial to the masterpage, because that would require to move 'partial' info to the masterpage... How do you handle this?

    Read the article

  • Trust Bluetooth 4.0 and Bluetooth Headset

    - by Seregwethrin
    Firstly, I'm writing this after 5 hours of nonstop struggle to make it work, so I searched into the deepest websites from Google, and tried many things. I have Trust Bluetooth 4.0 USB adapter (link) Samsung HM1500 Bluetooth Headset Windows 7 64-bit Desktop PC Facts Nothing wrong with the headset. (it works, tested on a phone and a laptop. Problem is all about bluetooth dongle and its driver.) Trust BT adapter can send and receive files even without any driver. I can pair successfully without any driver too. In Headset's Properties, Services tab, Handsfree and Headset services are checked. Problem When I pair with my BT headset, I cannot see it as a sound playback device. Also when I double-click the headset device icon in Bluetooth Devices, in laptop: it opens a connection window where I can connect and disconnect to that device - perfect! in desktop: it opens the properties window, even though Handsfree and Headset services are checked (I check them explicitly, in laptop they came as already checked) - Problem! Unsuccessful driver installations The driver on the Trust's website says "Error 1606 Could not access Network Location" on start, so it doesn't get installed. The driver on Broadcom (link) is being closed with Windows's that classic "has stopped working" error on validation step, so it doesn't get installed too. (Those tests made more than once) Successful installation In the Win64 folder of Trust's driver from their website, if I install through "BTW.msi", it doesn't give me Error 1606 and it gets installed. Then the problem: When I try to start bluetooth from start menu (or it gets started at Windows startup), an error popup says: "BtBalloon.dll is missing..." so it doesn't start. I found BBalloon.dll in the driver folder, I renamed it to BtBalloon.dll, moved into Windows/system32 and Windows/SysWOW64 folders, and it seems working. Or maybe it gets closed behind the scenes. The bluetooth icon is there with or without this driver since Windows has it. Bluetooth Peripheral Device First it didn't get installed from Windows Update. After, I showed the driver folder path in Device Manager and pressed "Explore in this location". Surprisingly, it's being found as "Handsfree" driver. Now even I uninstall the drivers, it still can see the Handsfree. But still, no playback device. Any ideas to guide me? I'm out of ideas.

    Read the article

  • How can Hosting Providers allow .NET Full Trust?

    - by Alex
    I wondered how certain .NET hosting providers can safely grant full trust to their customers? Doesn't this open up everybody who is hosting with that company to potential safety issues? Or is there a way to safely restrict each customer, despite giving full trust, to "their" space without giving them the abiliy to bring down the system or spy on other customers?

    Read the article

  • Runtime Exception when using Custom Healthmonitoring event in medium trust

    - by Elementenfresser
    Hi, I'm using custom healthmonitoring events in ASP.NET We recently moved to a new server with default High Trust Permissions. Literature says that healthmonitoring and custom events should work under Medium or higher trust (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb398933.aspx). Problem is it doesn't. In less than high trust I get a SecurityException saying The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy It works in Full trust or when I remove the inheritance of System.Web.Management.WebErrorEvent. Any suggestions anyone? Here is the super simple code behind with a custom event defined: public partial class Default : System.Web.UI.Page { protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { CallCustomEvent(); } catch (Exception ex) { Response.Write(ex.Message); throw ex; } } /// <summary> /// this metho is never called due to lacking permissions... /// </summary> private void CallCustomEvent() { try { //do something useful here } catch (Exception) { //code to instantiate the forbidden inheritance... WebBaseEvent.Raise(new CustomEvent()); } } } /// <summary> /// custom error inheriting WebErrorEvent which is not allowed in high trust? can't believe that... /// </summary> public class CustomEvent : WebErrorEvent { public CustomEvent() : base("test", HttpContext.Current.Request, 100001, new ApplicationException("dummy")) { } } and the Web Config excerpt for high trust: <system.web> <trust level="High" originUrl="" />

    Read the article

  • Security Exception when using Custom ASP.NET Healthmonitoring event in medium trust

    - by Elementenfresser
    Hi, I'm using custom healthmonitoring events in ASP.NET We recently moved to a new server with default High Trust Permissions. Literature says that healthmonitoring and custom events should work under Medium or higher trust (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb398933.aspx). Problem is - it doesn't. In less than full trust I get a SecurityException saying The application attempted to perform an operation not allowed by the security policy It works in Full trust or when I remove the inheritance of System.Web.Management.WebErrorEvent. Any suggestions anyone? Here is the super simple code behind with a custom event defined: public partial class Default : System.Web.UI.Page { protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { CallCustomEvent(); } catch (Exception ex) { Response.Write(ex.Message); throw ex; } } /// <summary> /// this metho is never called due to lacking permissions... /// </summary> private void CallCustomEvent() { try { //do something useful here } catch (Exception) { //code to instantiate the forbidden inheritance... WebBaseEvent.Raise(new CustomEvent()); } } } /// <summary> /// custom error inheriting WebErrorEvent which is not allowed in high trust? can't believe that... /// </summary> public class CustomEvent : WebErrorEvent { public CustomEvent() : base("test", HttpContext.Current.Request, 100001, new ApplicationException("dummy")) { } } and the Web Config excerpt for high trust: <system.web> <trust level="High" originUrl="" />

    Read the article

  • multiple partial views mvc 2

    - by nik1
    Hello World! Hi guys, I have a master page with two partial viewson it both of which submit to the AccountController. When I click Submit on either of the partial views the following happens: If I declare the partial views like Html.BeginForm("PartialAction1","Account") it redirects to that partial view on clicking submit instead bringing back the default HomeContoller Index view with validation errors. If I declare the partial view forms as Html.BeginForm() then it returns to the default index view of the home controller. But it actually fires both partial view actions inside the AccountController and thus returns validation errors for both partial views simultaneously. What I want is version 2 above with only one action firing instead of two. Am I missing, hopefully, something very simple? I hoping someone can help me or point me in the right direction. Here's the code from my master page for the partial views Html.Action("Login1","Account") Html.Action("Login2", "Account") Many Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Trust my work domain on a Dev Domain without a domain level password

    - by Vaccano
    I setup a virtual machine to host a dev version of TFS (to test plugins on). Getting a computer on my work domain requires large amounts of red tape and paperwork that I would rather not do. I created my own domain the the VM and I would like to trust all users from my work domain on that VM Domain. But when I tried to setup the trust I needed a password from my work domain (which I don't have). Am I trying to do something nefarious? I just want to be able to authenticate to my Test TFS (VM) Server as me (my login on my work domain). Is there a way to do that with out having to have a domain level password for my work domain? (My VM is a Windows Server 2008 R2 server)

    Read the article

  • One-way forest trust between geographically distributed forests using Server 2008 R2

    - by bwerks
    Hi all, I'm planning out a joinder between two domains, as would take place with contracting companies. Forests A and B exist in distant sites, and there is to be a one-way forest trust so that domain users in Forest A can be authenticated on machines in Forest B. In order to facilitate this, each forest's domain controller must be able to contact each other in order to set up & confirm the trust, but my question is what underlying networking magic must take place beneath it. So far the prevailing approach has been to maintain a VPN connection between the two sites, but the technet documentation seems to indicate that DNS forwarding may be the way to go. Is this the case? Furthermore, if DNS will suffice, does that mean that there must be a server running DNS on boundary servers in each domain so that they can be reached from across the internet? How must they be configured? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Cross-Forest Trust

    - by cdalley
    I am looking at testing a cross-domain trust we can have two domain controllers (with different forests and domain names) setup so we can move everyone onto the new domain. We do NOT run exchange on site and we do not have any links to O365 to AD currently. Onto the problem: I have setup two DCs in a Virtual Machine: They are on the same network 192.168.0.* The Windows 2003 server: Name: OLDSRVR "Clone" of our current Domain Controller IP: 192.168.0.1 Domain: internal.test.com The Windows 2012 server: Name: ADCTEST01 Brand new domain setup from scratch separate to internal.test.com Domain: internal.test2.com IP: 192.168.0.2 OLDSRVR can only see ADCTEST if it has dynamic IP set. If I set a static IP it cannot see it. If I try using the dynamic IP and try to join it gets to the end then complains "??The trust relationship between this workstation and the primary domain failed" Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Two-way Trust relationship between Samba 3 and AD 2008 R2

    - by Romain
    Did somebody already make a two-way trust relationship between Samba 3 and AD ? I've got Samba 3.5 domain (ES02) controller and AD 2008 R2 domain (ES01) controller. Trust domain seems to be ok: Trusted domains list: ES01 S-1-5-21-1816646249-803782145-3669927669 Trusting domains list: ES01 S-1-5-21-1816646249-803782145-3669927669 I can login AD domain workstation with a Samba user account and access to AD domain workstation shares from Samba workstation with Samba user account. BUT, when I try to access to Samba domain workstation shares from AD domain workstation with AD account (test), I've got this: [2012/12/16 23:00:26.146090, 5] auth/auth.c:268(check_ntlm_password) check_ntlm_password: winbind authentication for user [test] FAILED with error NT_STATUS_NO_SUCH_USER [2012/12/16 23:00:26.146123, 2] auth/auth.c:314(check_ntlm_password) check_ntlm_password: Authentication for user [test] - [test] FAILED with error NT_STATUS_NO_SUCH_USER When I try to access samba share with the Administrator account that I create on both side with same password, I've got this: [2012/12/16 22:57:22.701841, 1] rpc_server/srv_pipe_hnd.c:1602(serverinfo_to_SamInfo_base) _netr_LogonSamLogon: user ES01\Administrator has user sid S-1-5-21-1816646249-803782145-3669927669-500 but group sid S-1-5-21-3405883886-2425668597-4100599511-513. The conflicting domain portions are not supported for NETLOGON calls I don't know if winbind is working because of this: wbinfo -u root nobody smb3user administrator "wbinfo -u" should list all local and trusted users, no ? Any fresh idea would be appreciated, I've been reading all the Internet for 1 week... Regards,

    Read the article

  • C# Sharp: Partial Classes

    - by dcolumbus
    This is quick confirmation question: In order to make partial classes work, I initially thought that there would be a main Class public class ManageDates and then you would create partial classes like public partial class ManageDates to extend the ManageDates class. But from some experiementing, I've come to find out that if you're going to use partial classes, each individual class must be declared public partial class [ClassName] ... Am I correct in this conclusion?

    Read the article

  • Working with partial views

    - by MrW
    Hi. I'm trying to create a page that contains a grid and searching. The issue is that I want to have a partial view for the grid and one for the searching. If doing a search, this should render the grid partial view with the new information. At the moment I need information, such as what column I'm sorting by and so on, from the grid (currently stored in viewdata), in order to do the search as I want to keep those settings. This information is only available in the grid partial though. What's the best approach of this to make it neat and nice in the code, but not a mess to work with? Where can I store information that I need in the other partial view? Partial View 1; <table> <%= Html.CreateGrid(Model, "Grid", "Grid", (int)ViewData["SortColumn"], (bool)ViewData["SortedASC"])%> </table> Partial View 2; <div class="searchControl"> <input type="text" class="SearchBox" href="<%= Url.Action("Grid", "Grid", new {page = 1, columnToSortBy=/* would like to access viewdata from partial view 1 here. */, sortASC = /* would like to access viewdata from partial view 1 here. */ } ) %>" /> <input type="submit" value="Search" class="SearchButton" /> </div> I know I might take the completely wrong approach on this, so feel free to point me in the right one! Thanks!

    Read the article

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