Search Results

Search found 1458 results on 59 pages for 'protect from forgery'.

Page 1/59 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • rails fake data, considering switch from faker to forgery, any advantages or pitfalls?

    - by Michael Durrant
    With Ruby on Rails I've usually used Forgery for generating dummy data for testing. I've noticed recently that several clients and tutorials are using Faker They both seem fairly similar in use and popularity: Faker 128 forks, 418 watchers. Forgery 59 forks, 399 watchers. They both seem similar in how current they are: Faker Most updates are from 6 and 9 months ago. Forgery Most updates are from 4 and 9 months ago. The one distinguishing factor I've found so far is that Forgery seems like it has better instructions. Are there any particular benefits or disadvantages to using one over the other? Have you ever needed to switch from one to another for a particular reason?

    Read the article

  • Protect flash video from download/right protect

    - by Smyles
    Is it possible to protect flv files from download? I'd like to protect my files from download but I don't have the money for a streaming server which I think provides some sort of protection. The files are streamed via PHP and are located in an upload folder on my server. I've used PHP to ensure that only subscribers can view the video but I basically want to go a step further and prevent subscribers from, upon login, downloading my videos with downloaders such as Sothink Flv Downloader for Firefox.

    Read the article

  • Rails request forgery protection settings

    - by Vitaly
    Hey, please help a newbie in Rails :) I have protect_from_forgery call (which is given by default) with no attributes in my ApplicationController class. Basically here's the code: class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base helper :all # include all helpers, all the time protect_from_forgery helper_method :current_user_session, :current_user filter_parameter_logging :password, :password_confirmation What I assume it should do is: it should prevent any POST requests without correct authenticity_token. But when I send post request with jQuery like the one below, it works fine (there's update statement that is executed in the database)! $.post($(this).attr("href"), { _method: "PUT", data: { test: true } }); I see in console that there's no authenticity_token among sent parameters, but request is still considered valid. Why is that?

    Read the article

  • Portable hard disk with write-protect switch

    - by Wadih M.
    Hi, I'm looking for portable hard disks that have a physical switch (with or without key) to make it "read only" to prevent modification. Is there a particular keyword I should look for that designate those types of drives, or models I can look into, anything that can guide me will help. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request in ASP.NET MVC and AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent by the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> which writes to token to the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__=J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, I encountered 2 problems: It is expected to add [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] to each controller, but actually I have to add it for each POST actions, which is a little crazy; After anti-forgery validation is turned on for server side, AJAX POST requests will consistently fail. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) Problem For the first problem, usually a controller contains actions for both HTTP GET and HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become always invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index page cannot work at all. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If user sends a HTTP GET request from a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each HTTP POST action in the application:public class SomeController : Controller { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one attribute for one HTTP POST action), I created a wrapper class of ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // Actions for HTTP GET requests are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all HTTP POST actions. Submit token via AJAX Problem For AJAX scenarios, when request is sent by JavaScript instead of form:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution The token must be printed to browser then submitted back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be called in the page where the AJAX POST will be sent. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the page, and post it:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated in a tiny jQuery plugin:(function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function () { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. return $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken']").val(); }; var addToken = function (data) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } data = data ? data + "&" : ""; return data + "__RequestVerificationToken=" + encodeURIComponent($.getAntiForgeryToken()); }; $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, addToken(data), callback, type); }; $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = addToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); Then in the application just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() instead of $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. This solution looks hard coded and stupid. If you have more elegant solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Helpers for ASP.NET MVC and jQuery AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, this is a little crazy Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Submit token via AJAX The browser side problem is, if server side turns on anti-forgery validation for POST, then AJAX POST requests will fail be default. Problem For AJAX scenarios, when request is sent by jQuery instead of form:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution The tokens are printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token. Here $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is provided:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Recipes For ASP.NET MVC And AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, the work would be a little crazy. Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Specify Non-constant salt in runtime By default, the salt should be a compile time constant, so it can be used for the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] or [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute. Problem One Web product might be sold to many clients. If a constant salt is evaluated in compile time, after the product is built and deployed to many clients, they all have the same salt. Of course, clients do not like this. Even some clients might want to specify a custom salt in configuration. In these scenarios, salt is required to be a runtime value. Solution In the above [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] and [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute, the salt is passed through constructor. So one solution is to remove this parameter:public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = AntiForgeryToken.Value }; } // Other members. } But here the injected dependency becomes a hard dependency. So the other solution is moving validation code into controller to work around the limitation of attributes:public abstract class AntiForgeryControllerBase : Controller { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; protected AntiForgeryControllerBase(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } protected override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { base.OnAuthorization(filterContext); string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } Then make controller classes inheriting from this AntiForgeryControllerBase class. Now the salt is no long required to be a compile time constant. Submit token via AJAX For browser side, once server side turns on anti-forgery validation for HTTP POST, all AJAX POST requests will fail by default. Problem In AJAX scenarios, the HTTP POST request is not sent by form. Take jQuery as an example:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution Basically, the tokens must be printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() need to be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in both HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token, where $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is useful:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by an iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here, token's container window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Protect Windows folder without encrypting the contents

    - by Jad
    Hi, I want to protect the "www" folder in my Apache server. Checked some tools on the net like TrueCrypt, FolderEncrypt etc. All these encrypt the folder contents. If the www folder is encrypted, then my php won't work. Is there a way to lock the folder in windows without encrypting its contents.[ A little harder to crack then no lock at all] Regards Jad

    Read the article

  • .htaccess code to protect a single url?

    - by Adrian M.
    Is it possible to achieve this? For example I will have "website.com/index.php?skin=name" can I protect only this url? (with no php changing only htaccess) P.S. "website.com/index.php" or "website.com/index.php?skin=other_name" should not be restricted.. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • protect php result

    - by siko
    hii i had simple php file to protect wmv files from downloading and stolen the file is like this <?php // get-file.php $id = (isset($_GET["id"])) ? strval($_GET["id"]) : "1"; // lookup $url[1] = 'http://mlfat.ledawy.net/Files/eng/moslslat/mosque/1.wmv'; $url[2] = 'URL'; $url[3] = 'URL'; header('Content-Type: text/plain'); echo("$url[$id]"); ?> and i embedd the movies like this http:// mlfat.ledawy.net/Files/eng/moslslat/mosque/mosque.php?id=1 but if you call this link you can find the source url can i have some protection ?? tried a lot of adding a php session variable so that the script can not be accessed directly. thank you

    Read the article

  • Problem with Validate Anti Forgery

    - by Mikael Egnér
    Hi! I have a problem regarding MVC Anti forgery token. When I do my authentication I have pseudo code like this: var user = userRepository.GetByEmail(email); System.Threading.Thread.CurrentPrincipal = HttpContext.Current.User = user; by doing so I'm able to get the current user in my code like this: var user = HttpContext.Current.User as EntityUser; This works fine until I add the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute to an action. When I add the attribute I get A required anti-forgery token was not supplied or was invalid. If I comment out this line: System.Threading.Thread.CurrentPrincipal = HttpContext.Current.User = user; The antiforgery validation works fine, but the I don't have my convenient way of getting my "EntityUser" from the HttpContext. Any ideas of how to work around this? Best regards Mikael

    Read the article

  • How to protect your real time online shooter from potential bots

    - by Zaky German
    I'm looking to create a multiplayer top down shooter. While i've read about different topics, i can see them i've got some real challenges ahead, but i'm all up for it. One thing i can't understand is how am i supposed to be protecting the game from people who try to create bots? What i mean is, as far as i understand, it's impossible to protect the network traffic in a way that players won't be able to create programs that listen to what's going on and understand it. So what worries me is that people can create bots that listen to the current location of rival players, and send communication that mimic as if the player is shooting in the exact "perfect" location to win that match. So what kind of techniques are used to protect real time games from such bots? Also i'd like to mention that i've tried searching for discussions (as this sounds like something many people struggle with), but couldn't find anything about it specifically, only as a part of broader questions about networking in real time games. If i should have looked harder feel free to put me in my place :) Thanks alot!

    Read the article

  • The Best Ways to Lock Down Your Multi-User Computer

    - by Lori Kaufman
    Whether you’re sharing a computer with other family members or friends at home, or securing computers in a corporate environment, there may be many reasons why you need to protect the programs, data, and settings on the computers. This article presents multiple ways of locking down a Windows 7 computer, depending on the type of usage being employed by the users. You may need to use a combination of several of the following methods to protect your programs, data, and settings. How to Stress Test the Hard Drives in Your PC or Server How To Customize Your Android Lock Screen with WidgetLocker The Best Free Portable Apps for Your Flash Drive Toolkit

    Read the article

  • How to Knock into Your Network, Part 2: Protect Your VPN (DD-WRT)

    - by Aviad
    We’ve shown you how to trigger WOL remotely by “Port Knocking” on your router. In this article, we will show how to use it to protect a VPN service. Image by Aviad Raviv & bfick. Screenshot Tour: XBMC 11 Eden Rocks Improved iOS Support, AirPlay, and Even a Custom XBMC OS How To Be Your Own Personal Clone Army (With a Little Photoshop) How To Properly Scan a Photograph (And Get An Even Better Image)

    Read the article

  • What's a reliable and practical way to protect software with a user license ?

    - by Frank
    I know software companies use licenses to protect their softwares, but I also know there are keygen programs to bypass them. I'm a Java developer, if I put my program online for sale, what's a reliable and practical way to protect it ? How about something like this, would it work ? <1> I use ProGuard to protect the source code. <2> Sign the executable Jar file. <3> Since my Java program only need to work on PC [I need to use JDIC in it], I wrap the final executable Jar into an .exe file which makes it harder to decompile. <4> When a user first downloads and runs my app, it checks for a Pass file on his PC. <5> If the Pass file doesn't exist, run the app in demo mode, exits in 5 minutes. <6> When demo exits a panel opens with a "Buy Now" button. This demo mode repeats forever unless step <7> happens. <7> If user clicks the "Buy Now" button, he fills out a detailed form [name, phone, email ...], presses a "Verify Info" button to save the form to a Pass file, leaving license Key # field empty in this newly generated Pass file. <8> Pressing "Verify Info" button will take him to a html form pre-filled with his info to verify what he is buying, also hidden in the form's input filed is a license Key number. He can now press a "Pay Now" button to goto Paypal to finish the process. <9> The hidden license Key # will be passed to Paypal as product Id info and emailed to me. <10> After I got the payment and Paypal email, I'll add the license Key # to a valid license Key list, and put it on my site, only I know the url. The list is updated hourly. <11> Few hours later when the user runs the app again, it can find the Pass file on his PC, but the license Key # value is empty, so it goes to the valid list url to see if its license Key # is on the list, if so, write the license Key # into the Pass file, and the next time it starts again, it will find the valid license Key # and start in purchased mode without exiting in 5 minutes. <12> If it can't find its license Key # on the list from my url, run in demo mode. <13> In order to prevent a user from copying and using another paid user's valid Pass file, the license Key # is unique to each PC [I'm trying to find how], so a valid Pass file only works on one PC. Only after a user has paid will Paypal email me the valid license Key # with his payment. <14> The Id checking goes like this : Use the CPU ID : "CPU_01-02-ABC" for example, encrypt it to the result ID : "XeR5TY67rgf", and compare it to the list on my url, if "XeR5TY67rgf" is not on my valid user list, run in demo mode. If it exists write "XeR5TY67rgf" into the Pass File license field. In order to get a unique license Key, can I use his PC's CPU Id ? Or something unique and useful [ relatively less likely to change ]. If so let's say this CPU ID is "CPU_01-02-ABC", I can encrypt it to something like "XeR5TY67rgf", and pass it to Paypal as product Id in the hidden html form field, then I'll get it from Paypal's email notification, and add it to the valid license Key # list on the url. So, even if a hacker knows it uses CPU Id, he can't write it into the Pass file field, because only encrypted Ids are valid Ids. And only my program knows how to generate the encrypted Ids. And even if another hacker knows the encrypted Id is hidden in the html form input field, as long as it's not on my url list, it's still invalid. Can anyone find any flaw in the above system ? Is it practical ? And most importantly how do I get hold of this unique ID that can represent a user's PC ? Frank

    Read the article

  • How to protect UI components using OPSS Resource Permissions

    - by frank.nimphius
    v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Normal 0 false false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} table.MsoTableGrid {mso-style-name:"Table Grid"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-priority:59; mso-style-unhide:no; border:solid black 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid black .5pt; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid black; mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid black; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} ADF security protects ADF bound pages, bounded task flows and ADF Business Components entities with framework specific JAAS permissions classes (RegionPermission, TaskFlowPermission and EntityPermission). If used in combination with the ADF security expression language and security checks performed in Java, this protection already provides you with fine grained access control that can also be used to secure UI components like buttons and input text field. For example, the EL shown below disables the user profile panel tabs for unauthenticated users: <af:panelTabbed id="pt1" position="above">   ...   <af:showDetailItem        text="User Profile" id="sdi2"                                       disabled="#{!securityContext.authenticated}">   </af:showDetailItem>   ... </af:panelTabbed> The next example disables a panel tab item if the authenticated user is not granted access to the bounded task flow exposed in a region on this tab: <af:panelTabbed id="pt1" position="above">   ...   <af:showDetailItem text="Employees Overview" id="sdi4"                        disabled="#{!securityContext.taskflowViewable         ['/WEB-INF/EmployeeUpdateFlow.xml#EmployeeUpdateFlow']}">   </af:showDetailItem>   ... </af:panelTabbed> Security expressions like shown above allow developers to check the user permission, authentication and role membership status before showing UI components. Similar, using Java, developers can use code like shown below to verify the user authentication status: ADFContext adfContext = ADFContext.getCurrent(); SecurityContext securityCtx = adfContext.getSecurityContext(); boolean userAuthenticated = securityCtx.isAuthenticated(); Note that the Java code lines use the same security context reference that is used with expression language. But is this all that there is? No ! The goal of ADF Security is to enable all ADF developers to build secure web application with JAAS (Java Authentication and Authorization Service). For this, more fine grained protection can be defined using the ResourcePermission, a generic JAAS permission class owned by the Oracle Platform Security Services (OPSS).  Using the ResourcePermission  class, developers can grant permission to functional parts of an application that are not protected by page or task flow security. For example, an application menu allows creating and canceling product shipments to customers. However, only a specific user group - or application role, which is the better way to use ADF Security - is allowed to cancel a shipment. To enforce this rule, a permission is needed that can be used declaratively on the UI to hide a menu entry and programmatically in Java to check the user permission before the action is performed. Note that multiple lines of defense are what you should implement in your application development. Don't just rely on UI protection through hidden or disabled command options. To create menu protection permission for an ADF Security enable application, you choose Application | Secure | Resource Grants from the Oracle JDeveloper menu. The opened editor shows a visual representation of the jazn-data.xml file that is used at design time to define security policies and user identities for testing. An option in the Resource Grants section is to create a new Resource Type. A list of pre-defined types exists for you to create policy definitions for. Many of these pre-defined types use the ResourcePermission class. To create a custom Resource Type, for example to protect application menu functions, you click the green plus icon next to the Resource Type select list. The Create Resource Type editor that opens allows you to add a name for the resource type, a display name that is shown when granting resource permissions and a description. The ResourcePermission class name is already set. In the menu protection sample, you add the following information: Name: MenuProtection Display Name: Menu Protection Description: Permission to grant menu item permissions OK the dialog to close the resource permission creation. To create a resource policy that can be used to check user permissions at runtime, click the green plus icon in the Resources section of the Resource Grants section. In the Create Resource dialog, provide a name for the menu option you want to protect. To protect the cancel shipment menu option, create a resource with the following settings Resource Type: Menu Protection Name: Cancel Shipment Display Name: Cancel Shipment Description: Grant allows user to cancel customer good shipment   A new resource Cancel Shipmentis added to the Resources panel. Initially the resource is not granted to any user, enterprise or application role. To grant the resource, click the green plus icon in the Granted To section, select the Add Application Role option and choose one or more application roles in the opened dialog. Finally, you click the process action to define the policy. Note that permission can have multiple actions that you can grant individually to users and roles. The cancel shipment permission for example could have another action "view" defined to determine which user should see that this option exist and which users don't. To use the cancel shipment permission, select the disabled property on a command item, like af:commandMenuItem and click the arrow icon on the right. From the context menu, choose the Expression Builder entry. Expand the ADF Bindings | securityContext node and click the userGrantedResource option. Hint: You can expand the Description panel below the EL selection panel to see an example of how the grant should look like. The EL that is created needs to be manually edited to show as #{!securityContext.userGrantedResource[               'resourceName=Cancel Shipment;resourceType=MenuProtection;action=process']} OK the dialog so the permission checking EL is added as a value to the disabled property. Running the application and expanding the Shipment menu shows the Cancel Shipments menu item disabled for all users that don't have the custom menu protection resource permission granted. Note: Following the steps listed above, you create a JAAS permission and declaratively configure it for function security in an ADF application. Do you need to understand JAAS for this? No!  This is one of the benefits that you gain from using the ADF development framework. To implement multi lines of defense for your application, the action performed when clicking the enabled "Cancel Shipments" option should also check if the authenticated user is allowed to use process it. For this, code as shown below can be used in a managed bean public void onCancelShipment(ActionEvent actionEvent) {       SecurityContext securityCtx =       ADFContext.getCurrent().getSecurityContext();   //create instance of ResourcePermission(String type, String name,   //String action)   ResourcePermission resourcePermission =     new ResourcePermission("MenuProtection","Cancel Shipment",                            "process");        boolean userHasPermission =          securityCtx.hasPermission(resourcePermission);   if (userHasPermission){       //execute privileged logic here   } } Note: To learn more abput ADF Security, visit http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E17904_01/web.1111/b31974/adding_security.htm#BGBGJEAHNote: A monthly summary of OTN Harvest blog postings can be downloaded from ADF Code Corner. The monthly summary is a PDF document that contains supporting screen shots for some of the postings: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/adf/learnmore/index-101235.html

    Read the article

  • how protect intellectual property when oursourcing software development?

    - by gkdsp
    I'm a small company needing to outsource software development. I've written both functional and technical specifications for GUI developers and back-end (C or PHP) developers to implement my software application. I'm a little nervous handing over copies of these documents to request bids from numerous companies. Looking for recommendations to protect my work while outsourcing. What's the conventional wisdom? Is there generic NDA someone could send me a link to. How do others handle this situation. What would the outsource companies expect, or not expect, from me?

    Read the article

  • Protect js code from being stolen

    - by Kaidul Islam Sazal
    I have developed an web app with jquery,html-css markup which would be an premium web app. So I have to ensure the security of the code from being stolen.But as all these are client side,so there is no 100% secure way to protect them.But I want to make them harder to steal.For this I did : I have disabled the right click button of mouse I have minified and obfuscated the code. I have used js code to add external js file and obfuscated the code so that none can understand the name of the external js file I have created a index.html file in the js folder so that none can get access the js folder Do you think all these are enough to make stealing harder? Or any suggestion/advice for me?

    Read the article

  • How to protect own software from copying [closed]

    - by Zzz
    Possible Duplicate: How do you prevent the piracy of your software? Is possible to protect some file from copying if you are administrator of machine? I heard some story about some behavior: one software developer sells his software in some way. He is installing it on every client's computer and this software does not work on other computers or cannot be copied physically. How to implement the first and second protection. Is it effectively protection if software costs about $100 for all copies across client's company?

    Read the article

  • Live Security Talk Webcast: Using Standards-Based Internet Explorer Features to Protect Apps (Level

    If you are building mashups and other web applications, what do you need to know to make sure that you are building secure applications that don't expose security vulnerabilities? What do you need to consider when building your applications using features from HTML 5, HTML 4.01, and important features of the browser? Attend this webcast to learn how to use standards-based Windows Internet Explorer features to protect the applications you develop....Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • As a indie, how to protect your game?

    - by user16829
    As a indie, you might not work in a company. And you may have a great game idea and you feel it gonna be a big success. When you released your game. How do you protect it as your own creation? So that someone also can't steal the title and publish a "sequel" e.g. Your-Game-Name 2,3,4. Or even produce by-products like Angry Birds but without your permission. So how we can prevent these from happening by legal methods. Like copyrights, trademarks? If a professional can fill us those info, it will be great.

    Read the article

  • Password protect an alias virtual difrecory

    - by Jason
    I have a main domain being hosted through CPanel. I also have a sub-domain that I would like to appear as a path under the main domain instead of as a sub-domain. So I have: http://example.com/ pointing to the main hosted file. http://example.com/mydir pointing to the subdomain files. This is achieved by a httpd.conf include from the main domain section to set an alias: alias /mydir /path/to/subdomain/files/ Now, that works fine so far. The problem is that if a .htaccess file under /path/to/the/subdomain/files/ contains an error, the alias is completely skipped, and /mydir goes instead to the main host files. That is kind of surprising to me - I would expect an error to return an error instead. Now the killer: if I try to password protect /path/to/subdomain/files/, then trying to access http://example.com/mydir will again attempt to deliver from under the main hosted files and not from /path/to/subdomain/files/ I am not seeing any errors reported on the .htaccess file in the apache error log, so I am assuming the .htaccess is valid: AuthUserFile /path/to/valid/readable/.htpasswd AuthName "Secure Access" AuthType Basic Require valid-user This kind of behaviour does not seem right to me. Is there something obvious that could be causing it? Or is this just the way it works? Perhaps using an alias is the wrong way to go?

    Read the article

  • Password protect an alias virtual directory

    - by Jason
    I have a main domain being hosted through CPanel. I also have a sub-domain that I would like to appear as a path under the main domain instead of as a sub-domain. So I have: http://example.com/ pointing to the main hosted file. http://example.com/mydir pointing to the subdomain files. This is achieved by a httpd.conf include from the main domain section to set an alias: alias /mydir /path/to/subdomain/files/ Now, that works fine so far. The problem is that if a .htaccess file under /path/to/the/subdomain/files/ contains an error, the alias is completely skipped, and /mydir goes instead to the main host files. That is kind of surprising to me - I would expect an error to return an error instead. Now the killer: if I try to password protect /path/to/subdomain/files/, then trying to access http://example.com/mydir will again attempt to deliver from under the main hosted files and not from /path/to/subdomain/files/ I am not seeing any errors reported on the .htaccess file in the apache error log, so I am assuming the .htaccess is valid: AuthUserFile /path/to/valid/readable/.htpasswd AuthName "Secure Access" AuthType Basic Require valid-user This kind of behaviour does not seem right to me. Is there something obvious that could be causing it? Or is this just the way it works? Perhaps using an alias is the wrong way to go?

    Read the article

  • tmpreaper, --protect and a non-root user

    - by nsg
    Hi, I'm a little confused. I have a download directory that I want to remove all files older then 30 days with tmpreaper. Just one problem, the directory in question is a separate partition with a lost+found directory, of course I need to keep it so I added --protect 'lost+found', the problem is that tmpreaper outputs: error: chdir() to directory 'lost+found' (inode 11) failed: Permission denied (PID 30604) Back from recursing down `lost+found'. Entry matching `--protect' pattern skipped. `lost+found' I have tried with other pattern like lost* and so on... I'm running tmpreaper as a non-root user because there is no reason for superuser privileges because I own all files (except lost+found). Are I'm forced to run tmpreaper as root? Or are my shell-skills not as good as I thought? I guess the problem is: tmpreaper will chdir(2) into each of the directories you've specified for cleanup, and check for files matching the <shell_pattern> there. It then builds a list of them, and uses that to protect them from removal. Any thought and/or advice? Edit: The command I'm trying to run is something like $ /usr/sbin/tmpreaper -t --protect 'lost+found' 30d /mydir 1> /dev/null error: chdir() to directory `lost+found' (inode 11) failed: Permission denied Edit 2: I read the source code for tmpreaper-1.6.13 and found this if (safe_chdir (dirname)) exit(1); and if (chdir (dirname)) { message (LOG_ERROR, "chdir() to directory `%s' (inode %lu) failed: %s\n", dirname, (u_long) sb1.st_ino, strerror (errno)); return 1; } So it seems tmpreaper needs to be able to chdir in to all directories, ignored or not. I see two options left Run tmpreaper as root Move the download directory Find a alternative tool (tmpwatch?) I will give it some more research before i make a choice.

    Read the article

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