I'm currently trying to send a SOAP request to an Exchange server, but I'm getting a 401 Unauthorized. I repeated the request using Postman, and it looks like it's trying to do NTLM authentication. However, I want to authenticate using Basic authentication by using just a username/password. Is there any way to specify this in the message headers or something? Is this something that's configured on the server end?
If it's not possible, how do I go about implementing NTLM authentication? I'm very new to this, so any help/direction will be much appreciated.
Thanks!
Related
I'm having troubles authenticating NiFi to a SOAP WebService, using a NTLM Authentication.
I've using this custom processor:
https://github.com/peetkes/nifi-http-processor
I've created a simple flow, with a FlowFile that contains the XML request, passed to the CustomInvokeHTTP Processor.
The problem is that I obtain "Error 401 Unauthorized".
I tried to use the same credentials with SOAPUI and they work.
I attach the flow and the processor properties.
Is there something else I can try?
I don't really know what to do.
Thank you so much!
I am trying to get the response back from API using Postman native app in windows 10.
I am in my company system which uses proxy, so i need to pass proxy credentials for every request which i send from my system.
As per postman documentation, i set proxy settings but still getting 401: Unauthorized error.
Postman Proxy Settings
Other suggestion was to use Basic Authentication while sending a request. It doesn't help either:
Baisc Auth settings for Proxy in postman
I tried all the things in native app but it's not working.
The workaround is to use Chrome extension for Postman.
Please refer the steps below:
1.> Search for Postman Interceptor chrome extension
2.> Install the extension
3.> Launch postman extension
4.> Login using your google account Or register an account in postman.
5.> When you try to login, pop appear in which proxy userid and password needs to be entered.
6.> Once proxy settings has been updated, send the request. You should receive expected response back.
Happy coding :)
I'm building an MVC web app that uses the openID Connect hybrid flow to authenticate with Identity Server 3. The MVC web app contains jQuery scripts to get async JSON data from een ApiController. That ApiController is part of the same MVC web app.
I don't want that everyone is able to access the data from the API, so I want to secure the API as well. I added an [authorize] attribute to the ApiController. When requesting the API with a JQuery ajax request I get the following error message:
XMLHttpRequest cannot load
https://localhost:44371/identity/connect/authorize?....etc.
Response to preflight request doesn't pass access control check: No
'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested
resource. Origin 'http://localhost:13079' is therefore not allowed
access. The response had HTTP status code 405.
But, when I do a request to the API method directly in browser, I will be correct redirected to the Login page of Identity Server..
So, what's exactly the problem here? I read something about that requesting the /authorize endpoint is not allowed via 'back-channel', but I don't understand what's the difference between 'front-channel' and 'back-channel'. Is it possible that I mixed up the wrong OAuth flows? Is the Hybrid flow not the correct one maybe?
I also find out that the API is often a seperate app, but is it always neccessary / best-practice to build a seperate API app that for example requires a bearer token?
Please point me in the right direction about this.
The authorize method on your identity server does not allow ajax calls. Even specifying CORS headers is not going to help you in this particular case. Perhaps you could return a forbidden response instead of a redirect and manually redirect the client to the desired location via window.location
You need to allow your IdentityServer to be accessed from other domains, this is done by allowing "Cross Origin Resource Sharing" or CORS for short. In IdentityServer the simplest way to allow this is in your Client configuration for your Javascript Client, see this from the IdentityServer docs on CORS:
One approach to configuing CORS is to use the AllowedCorsOrigins collection on the client configuration. Simply add the origin of the client to the collection and the default configuration in IdentityServer will consult these values to allow cross-origin calls from the origins.
The error you're seeing is the browser telling you that when it asked IdentityServer if it allows requests from your Javscript client, it returned a response basically saying no, because the origin (http://localhost:13079) was not specified in the "Access-Control-Allow-Origin" response header. In fact that header wasn't in the response at all meaning CORS is not enabled.
If you follow the quickstart for adding a JavaScript client from the docs here all the necessary code is detailed there that you need for the Client config and to setup IdentityServer to allow CORS.
I am trying to figure out what the best way is to pass an oauth bearer token to a websocket endpoint.
This SO answer suggests to send the token in the URL,
however this approach has all the drawbacks of authenticating via the URL. Security implications discussed here
Thus i was wondering what would be the drawbacks to use the subprotocols to pass the token to the server ? i.e. instead of treating the requested subprotocols as a list of constants. Send at least one subprotocol that follows a syntax like for example: authorization-bearer-<token>
The token would end up in a request header.
The server while processing the subprotocols would be able to find and treat the token easily with a bit of custom code.
Since passing subprotocols should be supported by a lot of websocket implementations, this should work for a lot of clients.
This worked for me, I used this WebSocket client library.
You need to send OAUTH token via the Websocket Header, Below is the code, hope this is helpful.
ws = factory.createSocket("wss://yourcompleteendpointURL/");
ws.addHeader("Authorization", "Bearer <yourOAUTHtoken>");
ws.addHeader("Upgrade", "websocket");
ws.addHeader("Connection", "Upgrade");
ws.addHeader("Host", "<YourhostURLasabovegiveupto.com>");
ws.addHeader("Sec-WebSocket-Key", "<Somerandomkey>");
ws.addHeader("Sec-WebSocket-Version", "13");
ws.connect();
How oData or AJAX services should respond when the authentication cookie is expired and it's time to renew?
What should the server send to the client when
An oData or AJAX service access is forbidden (access denied)
When the session credentials are stale, and need to be renewed, perhaps by redirecting to an ADFS, OpenID, or Azure ACS IDP
Just looking in Wikipedia lets me guess that I should send some version of 403.x for the first scenario, and a 401 for the second scenario.
Please confirm if the above is correct, and what I should include in the response header and body as well.
Some examples I assume to be incorrect do the following:
Silently error out the AJAX service and return no data
Attempt to redirect the AJAX call to the IDP
Send error text to the client that is not in JSON format
its always safe to play with the HTTP Status codes instead of cooking up your own tokens or anything of that sort.
Since the fundamentals of OData is to make it possible for any client which knows how to communicate HTTP, it makes sense to play around the HTTP status code. The clients will decide what to do on a particular status code.
HTTP Status Codes are the way to go. OData specifically doesn't define anything that is already implemented at a lower level (such as security and authentication.)
401 is for Unauthenticated, 403 is for Unauthorized. For secnario 1 you only say "Access denied" but not why you're denying access. Is the user not authenticated? Then return 401. Is the user authenticated but lacking privileges? Then return 403.
For scenario 2, I would agree, return a detailed 401 status (i.e. with a valid "WWW-Authenticate" header for your authentication provider.)
The Wikipedia article I recommend starting at (you may have already found this) is: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes
Hope this helps someone. :-)