localhost :: cross domain ajax - ajax

Is there any way to tell your localhost that it can do cross domain ajax calls?
I need this for my testing.
If it is a browser specific issue i am using google chrome.
Cheers.

It's very possible. Let's start with a dev browser.
Step 1: Download Chromium
Windows -- http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/download-chromium
Mac -- http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/36244/chromium/
There should be a build ready to go, but these locations change over time. So if these end up with 404's do a Google search for Windows Chromium Download and you'll find it.
Step 2: Then run the executable with this flag after it. --disable-web-security
Windows -- Create a shortcut to the executable and tag this in the Properties. Or run from [CMD].
Mac -- Open up a terminal and run this straight from there with the flag.
And, you should be good to go. I also setup a quick Apache service and run through a 127.0.0.1 configured domain, but localhost should be just fine. Here's proof.
I hope this helps you!

No, it's absolutely not possible. If it could be disabled by the user then it would be the main target for anyone with nefarious or dubious intent, and as prone as any other software to exploitation. It's difficult enough making secure software, without painting on even more attractive targets.
The only way to implement cross-domain Ajax is to route requests via a server-side script.
It's worth mentioning that there is, perhaps, a glimmer of hope for you: in the form of cross-window messaging with HTML 5 postMessage
It's probably worth your having a read of some related (though I'm not sure they're duplicate) questions:
Why the cross-domain Ajax is a security concern?
Firefox Cross Domain Request
Edited in response to comment:
So you mean have a script that takes the params, adds them to the request, sends it out, and then echos out the response object?
Essentially yes. In picture format:
client |--------------> | server side |-----------------------> | remote domain
browser | <----ajax------| script | <------------------------|--/
Edited to add that this is now sort of possible, using Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS); in which a script from one domain sends an Origin HTTP header stating the URL of the page, and the server can respond (if configured to do so) with either an error (if CORS is disabled, or unsupported) or with any requested data.
References:
CORS compatibility.
Cross-Origin Resource Sharing, at the W3.org.
Enable Cross-Origin Resource Sharing.

Related

Kaspersky Internet Security blocks AJAX requests

For about two weeks, customers complain that our site is broken. After debugging and asking customers for screenshots of the error, we found out that Kaspersky Internet Security blocks AJAX requests, necessary for the site to work.
Console writes this error:
TypeError: ns.GetCommandSrc is not a function
What makes Kaspersky block certain requests?
Our site is on www.mysite.example and makes requests to api.mysite.example. access-allow-origin headers are set and work for us and most of the other customers.
I found that in KAV Settings/Additional/Network, there is an "Inject script into web traffic to interact with web pages" option.
Try turning that off to see if stops the problem.
I have the same issue. The block is intermittent. It looks to me that KAV tries to get some info from its servers to deal with the request, and if that fails, it breaks the AJAX call.
Luckily for me, I have a fallback action, providing default information to the app when the AJAX fails.
In another thread someone suggested that the issue is with the URL or parameters of the call. If it has keywords that can indicate a sensitive operation (banking and such), KAV gives it some extra attention. In my case the call has "license" in the URL, so it may be a correct guess. I'm planning to change the URL to something unremarkable, but it will take some time.

Safe cross-origin ajax on phonegap

This is the first time I`m toying with PhoneGap, so I actually never needed Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) before.
It is by default blocked, and the options I found in the web are either hacks or insecure.
My question is: What is the best or proper way to accomplish server integration using PhoneGap?
Bear in mind:
I need session control serverside to keep the user logged in
The request is coming from a file in PhoneGap's webview so origin = null
I'm using PHP serverside and have full control over it
<access origin="*" /> is already added to config.xml (it enables me to reach out for the server, but doesn't guarantee it will respond to a cross-origin request)
A long search on the web lead me to:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin *
Access-Control-Allow-Credentials true
But I understood they're rather unsafe, specially combined.
I could save the user session ID locally, but that seems hacky and unsafe.
There's also JSONP to the rescue, but that also seems hacky, unsafe and won't persist my session ID.
I could use a proxy server, but that seems far from optimal and as I understand it'll be hard to prevent an attacker to not use this same proxy server to perform the same operations.
Hi you can disable security to browser and use it.
Please find the link for disabling security for chrome.
[Disable same origin policy in Chrome

Azure and CORS Access-Control-Allow-Origin with ajax and php

First I'm not in the web side of our world, so be nice with the backend guy.
A quick background : For a personal need I've developped a google chrome extension. They are basically a webpage loaded in a chrome windows and... yeah that's it. Everything is on the client side (scripts, styles, images, etc...) Only the data are coming from a server through ajax calls. A cron job call a php script every hours to generate two files. One, data.json contains the "latest" datas in a json format. Another one hash.json contain the hash of the data. The client chrome application use local storage. If the remote hash differ from the local one, he simply retrieve the data file from the remote server.
As I have a BizSpark account with Azure my first idea was : Azure Web Site with php for the script, a simple homepage and the generated file and the Azure Scheduler for the jobs.
I've developed everything locally and everything is running fine... but once on the azure plateform I get this error
XMLHttpRequest cannot load http://tso-mc-ws.azurewebsites.net/Core/hash.json. No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource. Origin 'http://localhost:23415' is therefore not allowed access.
But what I really can't understand is that I'm able (and you'll be too) to get the file with my browser... So I just don't get it... I've also tried based on some post I've found on SO and other site to manipulate the config, add extra headers, nothing seems to be working...
Any idea ?
But what I really can't understand is that I'm able (and you'll be
too) to get the file with my browser... So I just don't get it
So when you type in http://tso-mc-ws.azurewebsites.net/Core/hash.json in your browser's address bar, it is not a cross-domain request. However when you make an AJAX request from an application which is running in a different domain (http://localhost:23415 in your case), that's a cross-domain request and because CORS is not enabled on your website, you get the error.
As far as enabling CORS is concerned, please take a look at this thread: HTTP OPTIONS request on Azure Websites fails due to CORS. I've never worked with PHP/Azure Websites so I may be wrong with this link but hopefully it should point you in the right direction.
Ok, will perhap's be little troll answer but not my point (I'm .net consultant so... nothing against MS).
I pick a linux azure virtual machine, installed apache and php, configure apache, set some rights and define the header for the CROS and configure a cron in +/- 30minutes... As my goal is to get it running the problem is solved, it's running.

security of sending passwords through Ajax

Is it ok to pass passwords like this or should the method be POST or does it not matter?
xmlhttp.open("GET","pas123",true);
xmlhttp.send();
Additional info: I'm building this using a local virtual web server so I don't think I'll have https until I put upfront some money on a real web server :-)
EDIT: According to Gumo's link encodeURIComponent should be used. Should I do xmlhttp.send(encodeURIComponent(password)) or would this cause errors in the password matching?
Post them via HTTPS than you don't need to matter about that ;)
But note that you need that the page which sends that data must be accessed with https too due the same origin policy.
About your money limentation you can use self signed certificates or you can use a certificate from https://startssl.com/ where you can get certificates for free.
All HTTP requests are sent as text, so the particulars of whether it's a GET or POST or PUT... don't really matter. What matters for security in transmission is that you send it via SSL (and handle it safely on the other end, of course).
You can use a self-signed cert until something better is made available. It will be a special hell later if you don't design with https in mind now :)
It shouldn't matter, the main reason for not using GET on conventional web forms is the fact that the details are visible in the address bar, which isn't an issue when using AJAX.
All HTTP requests (GET/POST/ect) are sent in plain text so could be obtained using network tracing software (e.g. Wireshark) to protect against this you will need to use HTTPS

Is a change required only in the code of a web application to support HSTS?

If I want a client to always use a HTTPs connection, do I only need to include the headers in the code of the application or do I also need to make a change on the server? Also how is this different to simply redirecting a user to a HTTPs page make every single time they attempt to use HTTP?
If you just have HTTP -> HTTPS redirects a client might still try to post sensitive data to you (or GET a URL that has sensitive data in it) - this would leave it exposed publicly. If it knew your site was HSTS then it would not even try to hit it via HTTP and so that exposure is eliminated. It's a pretty small win IMO - the bigger risks are the vast # of root CAs that everyone trusts blindly thanks to policies at Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, and Google.

Resources