I am running two Windows server 2016s with IIS 10.0.14393. One server for staging purposes, and one for production.
The application has one "front-end app" and one "back-end REST api" running on the same IIS server. The front end communicates with the backend (suprise!). The difficulty I am facing is that the staging server works as expected, i.e no "Sign in" box appears when entering the front-end web page (React). However, on the production server this box pops-up.
When the page is loaded, there is javascript that fetches some information from the API, and it seems that this async fetch is causing the pop-up to occur (the request is in pending mode until login).
I have studied the configuration of IIS on the two servers but can't seem to find any obvious differences.
Both instances have both windows authentication and anonymous authentication turned on for both front-end and backe-end. I need this as the API has different types of authentication for the endpoints.
Anyone that has solved a similar issue?
Thanks
If someone experiences a similar issue the following link may help: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/258063/internet-explorer-may-prompt-you-for-a-password
In my case I was sending the request to the api with the full domain url. The problem was fixed by just using the machine name (and port in my case) when sending the request. If the whole domain with punctuation is used, the system believes that the request is meant for the Internet and not the intranet, and will not include any credentials.
Another, and probably more robust solution, is to add the site in question to: Internet properties -> security -> Local intranet -> sites -> advanced.
I have a asp.net mvc application that interacts with RabbitMq. Everything works great locally.
However, on our deployment server it cannot connect
DEBUG|MassTransit.RabbitMqTransport.Integration.RabbitMqConnectionCache|Connecting: muyuser#localhost:5672/|
ERROR|MassTransit.RabbitMqTransport.RabbitMqReceiveTransport|RabbitMQ connection failed: Connect failed: muyuser#localhost:5672/|
What I'm able to gather is this
In order to connect to RabbitMq you need a valid .erlang.cookie in (on windows) your User root
As best I can tell, this cookie is created when you install rabbitmq
In development we're using localdb which runs as the developer's user (which has this cookie)
In production the application runs off of IIS which uses the application pool and the built-in ApplicationPoolIdentity account. Which doesn't have a User folder for the .erlang.cookie file to live in.
So the question becomes...what now? How is this intended to work?
Obviously we could create a dedicated user for the web application but our system administrator is understandably very reluctant to do this.
Another clue, is that when I tried to RDP, log in as myself and connect to rabbit I found that I could not. After troubleshooting I discovered that my cookie didn't match up with that of others who could! I replaced it with the one from c:\windows\.erlang.cookie and could then connect from cli. It seems possible like there is a cookie installed somewhere for the applicationpoolidentity but it is an incorrect cookie. What is the location where it would go?
Erlang cookies are used for internode communication, whether it is for clustering RabbitMQ or for contacting RabbitMQ via the command line using rabbitmqctl.
If you have problems with an AMQP connection, then the erlang cookie has nothing to do here.
Take a look at access control https://www.rabbitmq.com/access-control.html to see if your user is properly configured.
At the same time check the server logs to see why the connection is refused.
I am a newbie at play, and I am trying at least to use HTTPS on a login and sign up pages in order to have more security on sensitive user data.
I have a range of questions regarding this:
I have configured my play application to use https on the application.conf file with the https.port property. However in my development environment I cant seem to start the server with https capability unless I use the command: play -Dhttps.port=<port>
Why does this happen? I would think that I could use a dev.conf (right now is the application.conf) file in order to do this. Can't I start the server in dev mode while using this kind of settings specified on the configuration file?
Although I start the server with https capabilities, what is the correct way to use https on play? I already created a java key store that I use, and tried to redirect (from a controller) requests to a https url using redirect(securedIndexCall.absoluteURL(request, secure)). But it does not seem to work at least on my dev enviroment (localhost). The logs specify exceptions like:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: empty text
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: invalid version format: M¥å/=<junk characters continue>
Should I use https on the whole application, or just securing the login and sign up requests is sufficient?
I feel the official documentation provided is rather insufficient and I am at a loss here trying to figure out how I should do this.
Any help would be really appreciated!
I agree with Fernando, I think it's easier to set up a front end web server. In my case I used Lighttpd and it was fairly straightforward to set up. I'd recommend:
Configure Lighttpd as per these instructions (at this stage, don't worry about HTTPS just get HTTP working): http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.3.x/HTTPServer
Then configure HTTPS in Lighttpd: http://redmine.lighttpd.net/projects/1/wiki/HowToSimpleSSL. If you intend on buying an SSL certificate then there will be a few more options to set (e.g. intermediate certificate). The following page has more information: http://redmine.lighttpd.net/projects/1/wiki/Docs_SSL
Answers to your main questions:
1) Enabling HTTPS in Play
Yes, you have to explicitly say you want to use HTTPS when starting up
http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.3.x/ConfiguringHttps
2) The "java.lang.IllegalArgumentException" error message
There might be an issue with the keystore. This SO article seems to discuss in more detail: Play framework 2.2.1 HTTPs fails on connection attempt
3) SSL for login page or whole app
Personally, I would go for the whole app. If you're taking the time to set up HTTPS I think you might as well cover the whole site. I guess there are slight performance overheads in running HTTPS but realistically it's not something you'd notice.
You should use a front end server for HTTPS, and use HTTPS for the whole application.
Please see Setting up a front end HTTP server and see the commented out nginx settings.
I have deployed a ASP.NET MVC 4 w/ SignalR application of mine which is working fine on all clients, except one. When using Chrome Dev tools to debug the page I see that the SignalR transport method is ServerSentEvents and that the SignalR GET requests have a status of 'Cancelled'. This is the case in both Chrome Latest & IE 9 Browsers.
This problem is specific to a single client. A few things I have tried are:
Disabling Windows Firewall
Adding my site to Trusted Sites with
Security settings 'Low'.
As a bit of a background on the client.. they are part of a corporate network running Windows 7. Another computer on the same network had the same issue, however, this was fixed by adding my site to 'Trusted Sites'.
AVG Internet Security was blocking these requests. Disabling 'Online Shield' meant the app returned to normal working order.
I heard that on Windows you can login from a web browser to the web server without going through the usual login entering username and password but using instead the credentials from Windows directly, using the NTLM protocol.
How is this achieved? Does the web server need to support some additional authentication?
Update: I'm asking for a generic web server, not just IIS. How to do that on Apache for instance?
The webserver just needs to be configured to support Windows authentication (which will be NTLM, or - better - Kerberos if both client and server are W2K or later). I believe that IIS or Apache can be configured to do that.
The browser also has to support this - at least IE does so (not sure about the others, it may be possible). edit: looks like firefox has some support for this too, and safari on MacOS
edit: for details on apache, google modules for NTLM authentication. Kerberos modules also exist. as per other answers, this really only works on an Intranet - not just because the browser needs to be in an Intranet zone (only applies to IE), but because any intervening firewall will typically stop this working, and because the necessary interdomain trusts will probably not exist. It's also a bit trickier to make work if the apache server is on UNIX, and especially if you also have Kerberos servers on UNIX in the mix, but still possible.
It will only be seamless in a specific situation; namely the webserver needs to support NTLM (for example, IIS), and it needs to be in a zone that the client is configured to trust (The "Intranet Zone" in IE parlance, unless the end user has tweaked their settings)
If your webserver and client pc's are on a network secured by Active Directory or similar, you can set 'Windows Integrated Security' in IIS on the web server for the website which automatically logs in all I.E clients (That are allowed).
As stated previously, NTLM is typically used if your back end is Windows Managed (MS Active Directory). However, there are also modules available for Apache that will tie into this: mod_ntlm.
Since this is it's own protocol, it is required that the browser is able to understand this protocol and reply to the authentication challenges. I don't know which browsers support this off hand, but my assumption would be that most do.
From my experience, kerberos is more of a prefered method, but I have not worked with it much, so unfortunately, I don't have much advise as far as that goes.
On a side note, I recall reading somewhere that the JRE also has ways of tying into NTLM on your web server in order to obtain identity information for the authenticated user. As stated previously, .NET has support for this as well.
Also, Firefox does not support NTLM by default but it can be configured using the following tut: http://www.crossedconnections.org/w/?p=89
If you set the IIS settings to require authentication then your users will need to log in to access the page. They then have any rights (if not an interface) to anything on that server that they would if they logged in the normal way (from the console).
Other than this, I am not sure what you are referring to.
Yes this is possible. It is often used in intranet applications where users are. windows uses NTLM or Kerberos to authorize the user against a central service, typically Active Directory on the windows platform. On the .NET platform the current user information can be accessed through the System.Threading.Thread.CurrentPrincipal.Identity instance.
You might also want to look into Jespa. It seems a little bit more straight forward than Kerberos but provides good ntlm sso capabilities.
I was looking for more information about Kerberos (because NTLM, even v2, become deprecated with AD 2008), and I found this article, explaining how make it work with Apache (as you mentionned it).
http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/08/10/kerberos-based-sso-with-apache/
This question is probably outdated (or at least solved), but if it can help someone ...