Related
hi iam doing signup function so,I need a function that should read all cookies from browser and it should cross-browser compatible
Undoable.
The browser sends back to the server the cookies on each HTTP request. There is absolutely no other way, on the server side, to "read" cookies from a browser.
For the nitpickers: You can make the browser execute JavaScript which can read some cookies and send them back actively, but this will give you less cookies (the non HttpOnly ones) than a normal browser response.
Accessing cookies in a browser through security holes is clearly not cross-browser compatible.
At the moment I have the following understanding (which, I assume, is incomplete and probably even wrong).
A web server receives request from a client. The requests are coming to a particular "path" ("address", "URL") and have a particular type (GET, POST and probably something else?). The GET and POST requests can also come with variables and their values (which can be though as a "dictionary" or "associate array"). The parameters of GET requests are set in the address line (for example: http://example.com?x=1&y=2) while parameters of POST requests are set by the client (user) via web forms (in other words, a user fills in a form and press "Submit" button).
In addition to that we have what is called SESSION (also known as COOKIES). This works the following way. When a web-server gets a request (of GET or POST type) it (web server) checks the values of the sent parameters and based on that it generates and sends back to the client HTML code that is displayed in a browser (and is seen by the user). In addition to that the web servers sends some parameters (which again can be imagined as "dictionary" or "associative arrays"). These parameters are saved by the browser somewhere on the client side and when a client sends a new request, he/she also sends back the session parameters received earlier from the web server. In fact server says: you get this from me, memorize it and next time when you speak to me, give it back (so, I can recognize you).
So, what I do not know is if client can see what exactly is in the session (what parameters are there and what values they have) and if client is able to modify the values of these parameters (or add or remove parameters). But what user can do, he/she might decide not to accept any cookies (or session).
There is also something called "local storage" (it is available in HTML5). It works as follows. Like SESSION it is some information sent by web-server to the client and is also memorized (saved) by the client (if client wants to). In contrast to the session it is not sent back b the client to the server. Instead, JavaScripts running on the client side (and send by web-servers as part of the HTML code) can access information from the local storage.
What I am still missing, is how AJAX is working. It is like by clicking something in the browser users sends (via Browser) a request to the web-server and waits for a response. Then the browser receives some response and use it to modify (but not to replace) the page observed by the user. What I am missing is how the browser knows how to use the response from the web-server. Is it written in the HTML code (something like: if this is clicked, send this request to the web server, and use its answer (provided content) to modify this part of the page).
I am going to answer to your questions on AJAX and LocalStorage, also on a very high level, since your definition strike me as such on a high level.
AJAX stands for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML.
Your browser uses an object called XMLHTTPRequest in order to establish an HTTP request with a remote resource.
The client, being a client, is oblivious of what the remote server entails on. All it has to do is provide the request with a URL, a method and optionally the request's payload. The payload is most commonly a parameter or a group of parameters that are received by the remote server.
The request object has several methods and properties, and it also has its ways of handling the response.
What I am missing is how the browser knows how to use the response
from the web-server.
You simply tell it what to do with the reponse. As mentioned above, the request object can also be told what to do with a response. It will listen to a response, and when such arrives, you tell the client what to do with it.
Is it (the response) written in the HTML code?
No. The response is written in whatever the server served it. Most commonly, it's Unicode. A common way to serve a response is a JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) object.
Whatever happens afterwards is a pure matter of implementation.
LocalStorage
There is also something called "local storage" (it is available in
HTML5). It works as follows. Like SESSION it is some information sent
by web-server to the client and is also memorized (saved) by the
client (if client wants to)
Not entirely accurate. Local Storage is indeed a new feature, introduced with HTML5. It is a new way of storing data in the client, and is unique to an origin. By origin, we refer to a unique protocol and a domain.
The life time of a Local Storage object on a client (again, per unique origin), is entirely up to the user. That said, of course a client application can manipulate the data and decide what's inside a local storage object. You are right about the fact that it is stored and can be used in the client through JavaScript.
Example: some web tracking tools want to have some sort of a back up plan, in case the server that collects user data is unreachable for some reason. The web tracker, sometimes introduced as a JavaScript plugin, can write any event to the local storage first, and release it only when the remote server confirmed that it received the event successfully, even if the user closed the browser.
First of all, this is just a simple explanation to clarify your mind. To explain this stuff in more detail we would need to write a book. This been said, I'll go step by step.
Request
A request is a client asking for / sending data to a server.
This request has the following parts:
An URL (Protocol + hostname/IP + path)
A Method (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, PATCH, and so on)
Some optional parameters (the way they are sent depends on the method)
Some headers (metadata sent to the server)
Some optional cookies
An optional SESSION ID
Some explanations about this:
Cookies can be set by the client or by the server, but they are always stored by the client's browser. Therefore, the browser can decide whether to accept them or not, or to delete or modify them
Session is stored in the server. The server sends the client a session ID to be able to recongnize him in any future request.
Session and cookies are two different things. One is server side, and the other is client side.
AJAX
I'll ommit the meaning of the acronym as you can easily google it.
The great thing about AJAX is the very first A, that stands for asynchronous, what means that the JS engine (in this case built in the browser) won't block until the response gets back.
To understand how AJAX works, you have to know that it's very much alike a common request, but with the difference that it can be triggered without reloading the web page.
The content of the response it whatever you want it to be. From some HTML code, to a JSON string. Even some plain text.
The way the response is treated depends on the implementation and programming. As an example, you could simply alert() the result of an AJAX call, or you and append it to a DOM element.
Local Storage
This doesn't have much to do with anything.
Local storage is just some disk space offered by the browser so you can save data in the browser that persists even if the page or the browser is closed.
An example
Chrome offers a javascript API to manage local storage. It's client side, and you can programmatically access to this storage and make CRUD opperations. It's just like a non-sql non-relational DB in the browser.
I wil summarize your main questions along with a brief answer right below them:
Q1:
Can the client see what exactly is in the session?
A: No. The client only knows the "SessionID", which is meta-data (all other session-data is stored on server only, and client can't see or alter it). The SessionID is used by the server only to identify the client and to map the application process to it's previous state.
HTTP is a stateless protocol, and this classic technique enables it as stateful.
There are very rare cases when the complete session data is stored on client-side (but in such cases, the server should also encrypt the session data so that the client can't see/alter it).
On the other hand, there are web clients that don't have the capability to store cookies at all, or they have features that prevent storing cookie data (e.g. the ability of the user to reject cookies from domains). In such cases, the workaround is to inject the SessionID into URL parameters, by using HTTP redirects.
Q2:
What's the difference between HTML5 LocalStorage and Session?
LocalStorage can be viewed as the client's own 'session' data, or better said a local data store where the client can save/persist data. Only the client (mainly from javascript) can access and alter the data. Think of it as javascript-controlled persistent storage (with the advantage over cookies that you can control what data, it's structure and the format you want to store it). It's also more advantageous than storing data to cookies - which have their own limitations such as data size and structure.
Q3:
How AJAX works?
In very simple words, AJAX means loading on-demand data on top of an already loaded (HTML) page. A typical http request would load the whole data of a page, while an ajax request would load and update just a portion of the (already-loaded) page.
This being said, an AJAX request is very similar to a standard HTTP Request.
Ajax requests are controlled by the javascript code and it can enrich the interaction with the page. You can request specific segments of data and update sections of the page.
Now, if we remember the old days when any interaction with a website (eg. signing in, navigating to other pages etc.) required a complete page reload? Back then, a lot of unnecessary traffic occurred just to perform any simple action. This in turn impacted site responsiveness, user experience, network traffic etc.
This happened due to browsers incapability (at that time) to [a.] perform a parallel HTTP request to the server and [b]render a partial HTML view.
Modern browsers come with these two features that enables AJAX technology - that is, invoking asynchronous(parallel) HTTP Requests (Ajax HTTP Requests) and they also provide on-the-fly DOM alteration mechanism via javascript (real-time HTML Document Object Model manipulation).
Please let me know if you need more info on these topics, or if there's anything else I can help with.
For a more profound understanding, I also recommend this nice web history article as it explains how everything started from when HTML was created and what was it's purpose (to define [at the time] rich documents), and then how HTTP was initially created and what problem it solved (at the time - to "transfer" static HTML). That explains why it is a stateless protocol.
Later on, as HTML and the WEB evolved, other needs emerged (such as the need to interact with the end-user) - and then the Cookie mechanism enhanced the protocol to enable stateful client-server communication by using session cookies. Then Ajax followed. Nowadays, the cookies come with their own limitations too and we have LocalStorage. Did I also mention WebSockets?
1. Establishing a Connection
The most common way web servers and clients communicate is through a connection which follows Transmission Control Protocol, or TCP. Basically, when using TCP, a connection is established between client and server machines through a series of back-and-forth checks. Once the connection is established and open, data can be sent between client and server. This connection can also be termed a Session.
There is also UDP, or User Datagram Protocol which has a slightly different way of communicating and comes with its own set of pros and cons. I believe recently some browsers may have begun to use a combination of the two in order to get the best results.
There is a ton more to be said here, but unless you are going to be writing a browser (or become a hacker) this should not concern you too much beyond the basics.
2. Sending Packets
Once the client-server connection is established, packets of data can be sent between the two. TCP packets contain various bits of information to assist in communication between the two ports. For web programmers, the most important part of the packet will be the section which includes the HTTP request.
HTTP, Hypertext Transfer Protocol is another protocol which describes what the makeup/format of these client-server communications should be.
A most basic example of the relevant portion of a packet sent from a client to a server is as follows:
GET /index.html HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
The first line here is called the Response line. GET describes the method to be used, (others include POST, HEAD, PUT, DELETE, etc.) /index.html describes the resource requested. Finally, HTTP/1.11 describes the protocol being used.
The second line is in this case the only header field in the request, and in this case it is the HOST field which is sort of an alias for the IP address of the server, given by the DNS.
[Since you mentioned it, the difference between a GET request and a POST request is simply that in a GET request the parameters (ex: form data) is included as part of the Response Line, whereas in a POST request the parameters will be included as part of the Message Body (see below).]
3. Receiving Packets
Depending on the request sent to the server, the server will scratch its head, think about what you asked it, and respond accordingly (aka whatever you program it to do).
Here is an example of a response packet send from the server:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
...
<html>
<head>
<title>A response from a server</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Hello World!</h1>
</body>
</html>
The first line here is the Status Line which includes a numerical code along with a brief text description. 200 OK obviously means success. Most people are probably also familiar with 404 Not Found, for example.
The second line is the first of the Response Header Fields. Other fields often added include date, Content-Length, and other useful metadata.
Below the headers and the necessary empty line is finally the (optional) Message Body. Of course this is usually the most exciting part of the response, as it will contain things like HTML for our browsers to display for us, JSON data, or pretty much anything you can code in a return statement.
4. AJAX, Asynchronous JavaScript and XML
Based off all of that, AJAX is fairly simple to understand. In fact, the packets sent and received can look identical to non-ajax requests.
The only difference is how and when the browser decides to send a request packet. Normally, upon page refresh a browser will send a request to the server. However, when issuing an AJAX request, the programmer simply tells the browser to please send a packet to the server NOW as opposed to on page refresh.
However, given the nature of AJAX requests, usually the Message Body won't contain an entire HTML document, but will request smaller, more specific bits of data, such as a query from a database.
Then, your JavaScript which calls the Ajax can also act based off the response. Any JavaScript method is available as making an Ajax call is just another JavaScript function. Thus, you can do things like innerHTML to add/replace content on your page with some HTML returned by the Ajax call. Alternatively though, you could also do something like make an Ajax call which simply should return True or False, and then you could call some JavaScript function with an if else statement. As you can hopefully see, Ajax has nothing to do with HTML per say, it is just a JavaScript function which makes a request from the server and returns the response, whatever it may be.
5. Cookies
HTTP Protocol is an example of a Stateless Protocol. Basically, this means that each pair of Request and Response (like we described) is treated independently of other requests and responses. Thus, the server does not have to keep track of all the thousands of users who are currently demanding attention. Instead, it can just respond to each request individually.
However, sometimes we wish the server would remember us. How annoying would it be if every time I waned to check my Gmail I had to log in all over again because the server forgot about me?
To solve this problem a server can send Cookies to be stored on the client's machine. The server can send a response which tells the client to store a cookie and what exactly it should contain. The client's browser is in charge of storing these cookies on the client's system, thus the location of these cookies will vary depending on your browser and OS. It is important to realize though that these are just small files stored on the client machine which are in fact readable and writable by anyone who knows how to locate and understand them. As you can imagine, this poses a few different potential security threats. One solution is to encrypt the data stored inside these cookies so that a malicious user won't be able to take advantage of the information you made available. (Since your browser is setting these cookies, there is usually a setting within your browser which you can modify to either accept, reject, or perhaps set a new location for cookies.
This way, when the client makes a request from the server, it can include the Cookie within one of the Request Header Fields which will tell the server, "Hey I am an authenticated user, my name is Bob, and I was just in the middle of writing an extremely captivating blog post before my laptop died," or, "I have 3 designer suits picked out in my shopping cart but I am still planning on searching your site tomorrow for a 4th," for example.
6. Local Storage
HTML5 introduced Local Storage as a more secure alternative to Cookies. Unlike cookies, with local storage data is not actually sent to the server. Instead, the browser itself keeps track of State.
This alternative also allows much larger amounts of data to be stored, as there is no requirement for it to be passed across the internet between client and server.
7. Keep Researching
That should cover the basics and give a pretty clear picture as to what is going on between clients and servers. There is more to be said on each of these points, and you can find plenty of information with a simple Google search.
Lets consider next scenario: assume I have a web app, and authentication of users is performed through a modal dialog window (lets say, that when a user clicks login button, ajax request is sent and depending on the callback I either close the window or display an error), and I use only HTTP protocol. Why is it considered to be not secure way to do things?
Also, please make sure that a modal dialog window is taken into account, because this is vital info. There may be some data displayed underneath the dialog window and can be accessible if modality is broken.
The question includes both:
How can you break an app security by
utilizing ajax call?
Is Ajax HTTP less secure than a
regular form HTTP?
Whoever told you - he is wrong. The ajax through post is not less secure than post with regular forms. Just because it is the same thing.
Update 1 according to the last edit:
You cannot
No
Argument: the AJAX request is the same http request as any other (such as request sent by html form). Absolutely the same. So by definition it cannot be less or more secure.
I don't know how to explain more and what to say else: ajax is a http request. the same request as your browser does when you open SO page or when you post the SO question form.
I can rephrase your question to something like "Why A is less secure than A". Answer to it: A is not less secure than A, because A is A :-S
Any sensitive data should be channeled through HTTPS. GET data is sent in the querystring. POST data is sent in the HTTP Request header. Ajax can do both. BOTH are not secure. You need a channel level encryption to really secure it.
HTTP isn't secure for private data because the data is transmitted in plaintext. This can be intercepted anywhere between the client and server (eg. wifi.) Ajax over HTTPS would be much better.
I think the issue is that you are using http. No matter how you look at it it wont be secure. If you use https the ajax request will be just as secure as a html form.
Somy answer would be to use https and you will be all set.
I'm no security expert, but I think it might be more secure sending it over HTTPS. Just googling learns me that it can be done securely though:
http://www.indicthreads.com/1524/secure-ajax-based-user-authentication/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc793961.aspx (focused on ASP.NET)
etc.
Since browsers use the same network stack for HTTP and HTTPS, be it AJAX or not, there is no difference. All the headers, cookies, authentication, etc work exactly the same.
I'm trying to determine the most secure method for an ajax based login form to authenticate and set a client side cookie. I've seen things about XSS attacks such as this:
How do HttpOnly cookies work with AJAX requests?
and
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001167.html
So, I guess my core questions are...
1) Is using pure ajax to set cookies secure, if so, what is the most secure method (httpOnly + SSL + encrypted values, etc.)?
2) Does a pure ajax method involve setting the cookie client side? Is this at all secure?
3) Is setting cookies this way reliable across all major browsers/OSs?
4) Would using a hidden IFrame be any more secure (calling a web page to set the cookies)?
5) If possible, does anybody have code for this (PHP is my backend)?
My goal is to set the cookies and have them available for the next call to the server without navigating away from the page.
I really want to nail down the consensus, most secure way to do this. Eventually, this code is planned to be made Open Source, so please no commercial code (or nothing that wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny)
Thanks,
-Todd
The cookie needs to be generated server-side because the session binds the client to the server, and therefore the token exchange must go from server to client at some stage. It would not really be useful to generate the cookie client-side, because the client is the untrusted remote machine.
It is possible to have the cookie set during an AJAX call. To the server (and the network) an AJAX call is simply an HTTP call, and any HTTP response by the server can set a cookie. So yes, it is possible to initiate a session in response to an AJAX call, and the cookie will be stored by the client as normal.
So, you can use AJAX to do the logging in process in the same was as you could have just relied on a POST from a form on the page. The server will see them the same way, and if the server sets a cookie the browser will store it.
Basically, client-side Javascript never needs to be able to know the value of the cookie (and it is better for security if it doesn't, which can be achieved using the "httponly" cookie extension honored by recent browsers). Note that further HTTP calls from the client to the server, whether they are normal page requests or they are AJAX requests, will include that cookie automatically, even if it's marked httponly and the browser honors that extension. Your script does not need to be 'aware' of the cookie.
You mentioned using HTTPS (HTTP over SSL) - that prevents others from being able to read information in transit or impersonate the server, so it's very handy for preventing plain text transmission of the password or other important information. It can also help guard against network based attacks, though it does not make you immune to everything that CSRF can throw you, and it does not at all protect you against the likes of session fixation or XSS. So I would avoid thinking of HTTPS as a fix-all if you use it: you still need to be vigilant about cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery.
(see 1. I sort of combined them)
Given that the cookie is set by the server in its HTTP response headers, yes it is reliable. However, to make it cross-browser compatible you still need to ensure logging in is possible when AJAX is unavailable. This may require implementing an alternative that is seen only when there is no Javascript or if AJAX isn't available. (Note: now in 2014, you don't need to worry about browser support for AJAX anymore).
It would not change the security. There would be no need for it, except that I have seen hidden iframes used before to 'simulate' AJAX before - ie make asyncronous calls to the server. Basically, however you do it doesn't matter, it's the server setting the cookie, and the client will accept and return the cookie whether it does it by AJAX or not.
For the most part, whether you use AJAX or not does not affect the security all that much as all the real security happens on the server side, and to the server an AJAX call is just like a non-AJAX call: not to be trusted. Therefore you'll need to be aware of issues such as session fixation and login CSRF as well as issues affecting the session as a whole like CSRF and XSS just as much as you would if you were using no AJAX. The issues don't really change when using AJAX except, except, I guess, that you may make more mistakes with a technology if you're less familiar with it or it's more complicated.
Answer updated September 2014
JavaScript needs access to cookies if AJAX is used on a site with access restrictions based on cookies. Will HttpOnly cookies work on an AJAX site?
Edit: Microsoft created a way to prevent XSS attacks by disallowing JavaScript access to cookies if HttpOnly is specified. FireFox later adopted this. So my question is: If you are using AJAX on a site, like StackOverflow, are Http-Only cookies an option?
Edit 2: Question 2. If the purpose of HttpOnly is to prevent JavaScript access to cookies, and you can still retrieve the cookies via JavaScript through the XmlHttpRequest Object, what is the point of HttpOnly?
Edit 3: Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
When the browser receives such a cookie, it is supposed to use it as usual in the following HTTP exchanges, but not to make it visible to client-side scripts.[32] The HttpOnly flag is not part of any standard, and is not implemented in all browsers. Note that there is currently no prevention of reading or writing the session cookie via a XMLHTTPRequest. [33].
I understand that document.cookie is blocked when you use HttpOnly. But it seems that you can still read cookie values in the XMLHttpRequest object, allowing for XSS. How does HttpOnly make you any safer than? By making cookies essentially read only?
In your example, I cannot write to your document.cookie, but I can still steal your cookie and post it to my domain using the XMLHttpRequest object.
<script type="text/javascript">
var req = null;
try { req = new XMLHttpRequest(); } catch(e) {}
if (!req) try { req = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP"); } catch(e) {}
if (!req) try { req = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); } catch(e) {}
req.open('GET', 'http://stackoverflow.com/', false);
req.send(null);
alert(req.getAllResponseHeaders());
</script>
Edit 4: Sorry, I meant that you could send the XMLHttpRequest to the StackOverflow domain, and then save the result of getAllResponseHeaders() to a string, regex out the cookie, and then post that to an external domain. It appears that Wikipedia and ha.ckers concur with me on this one, but I would love be re-educated...
Final Edit: Ahh, apparently both sites are wrong, this is actually a bug in FireFox. IE6 & 7 are actually the only browsers that currently fully support HttpOnly.
To reiterate everything I've learned:
HttpOnly restricts all access to document.cookie in IE7 & and FireFox (not sure about other browsers)
HttpOnly removes cookie information from the response headers in XMLHttpObject.getAllResponseHeaders() in IE7.
XMLHttpObjects may only be submitted to the domain they originated from, so there is no cross-domain posting of the cookies.
edit: This information is likely no longer up to date.
Yes, HTTP-Only cookies would be fine for this functionality. They will still be provided with the XmlHttpRequest's request to the server.
In the case of Stack Overflow, the cookies are automatically provided as part of the XmlHttpRequest request. I don't know the implementation details of the Stack Overflow authentication provider, but that cookie data is probably automatically used to verify your identity at a lower level than the "vote" controller method.
More generally, cookies are not required for AJAX. XmlHttpRequest support (or even iframe remoting, on older browsers) is all that is technically required.
However, if you want to provide security for AJAX enabled functionality, then the same rules apply as with traditional sites. You need some method for identifying the user behind each request, and cookies are almost always the means to that end.
In your example, I cannot write to your document.cookie, but I can still steal your cookie and post it to my domain using the XMLHttpRequest object.
XmlHttpRequest won't make cross-domain requests (for exactly the sorts of reasons you're touching on).
You could normally inject script to send the cookie to your domain using iframe remoting or JSONP, but then HTTP-Only protects the cookie again since it's inaccessible.
Unless you had compromised StackOverflow.com on the server side, you wouldn't be able to steal my cookie.
Edit 2: Question 2. If the purpose of Http-Only is to prevent JavaScript access to cookies, and you can still retrieve the cookies via JavaScript through the XmlHttpRequest Object, what is the point of Http-Only?
Consider this scenario:
I find an avenue to inject JavaScript code into the page.
Jeff loads the page and my malicious JavaScript modifies his cookie to match mine.
Jeff submits a stellar answer to your question.
Because he submits it with my cookie data instead of his, the answer will become mine.
You vote up "my" stellar answer.
My real account gets the point.
With HTTP-Only cookies, the second step would be impossible, thereby defeating my XSS attempt.
Edit 4: Sorry, I meant that you could send the XMLHttpRequest to the StackOverflow domain, and then save the result of getAllResponseHeaders() to a string, regex out the cookie, and then post that to an external domain. It appears that Wikipedia and ha.ckers concur with me on this one, but I would love be re-educated...
That's correct. You can still session hijack that way. It does significantly thin the herd of people who can successfully execute even that XSS hack against you though.
However, if you go back to my example scenario, you can see where HTTP-Only does successfully cut off the XSS attacks which rely on modifying the client's cookies (not uncommon).
It boils down to the fact that a) no single improvement will solve all vulnerabilities and b) no system will ever be completely secure. HTTP-Only is a useful tool in shoring up against XSS.
Similarly, even though the cross domain restriction on XmlHttpRequest isn't 100% successful in preventing all XSS exploits, you'd still never dream of removing the restriction.
Yes, they are a viable option for an Ajax based site. Authentication cookies aren't for manipulation by scripts, but are simply included by the browser on all HTTP requests made to the server.
Scripts don't need to worry about what the session cookie says - as long as you are authenticated, then any requests to the server initiated by either a user or the script will include the appropriate cookies. The fact that the scripts cannot themselves know the content of the cookies doesn't matter.
For any cookies that are used for purposes other than authentication, these can be set without the HTTP only flag, if you want script to be able to modify or read these. You can pick and choose which cookies should be HTTP only, so for example anything non-sensitive like UI preferences (sort order, collapse left hand pane or not) can be shared in cookies with the scripts.
I really like the HTTP only cookies - it's one of those proprietary browser extensions that was a really neat idea.
Not necessarily, it depends what you want to do. Could you elaborate a bit? AJAX doesn't need access to cookies to work, it can make requests on its own to extract information, the page request that the AJAX call makes could access the cookie data & pass that back to the calling script without Javascript having to directly access the cookies
As clarification - from the server's perspective, the page that is requested by an AJAX request is essentially no different to a standard HTTP get request done by the user clicking on a link. All the normal request properties: user-agent, ip, session, cookies, etc. are passed to the server.
There's a bit more to this.
Ajax doesn't strictly require cookies, but they can be useful as other posters have mentioned. Marking a cookie HTTPOnly to hide it from scripts only partially works, because not all browsers support it, but also because there are common workarounds.
It's odd that the XMLHTTPresponse headers are giving the cookie, technically the server doesn't have to return the cookie with the response. Once it's set on the client, it stays set until it expires. Though there are schemes in which the cookie is changed with every request to prevent re-use. So you may be able to avoid that workaround by changing the server to not provide the cookie on the XMLHTTP responses.
In general though, I think HTTPOnly should be used with some caution. There are cross site scripting attacks where an attacker arranges for a user to submit an ajax-like request originating from another site, using simple post forms, without the use of XMLHTTP, and your browser's still-active cookie would authenticate the request.
If you want to be sure that an AJAX request is authenticated, the request itself AND the HTTP headers need to contain the cookie. Eg through the use of scripts or unique hidden inputs. HTTPOnly would hinder that.
Usually the interesting reason to want HTTPOnly is to prevent third-party content included on your webpage from stealing cookies. But there are many interesting reasons to be very cautious about including third-party content, and filter it aggressively.
Cookies are automatically handled by the browser when you make an AJAX call, so there's no need for your Javascript to mess around with cookies.
Therefore I am assuming JavaScript needs access to your cookies.
All HTTP requests from your browser transmit your cookie information for the site in question. JavaScript can both set and read cookies. Cookies are not by definition required for Ajax applications, but they are required for most web applications to maintain user state.
The formal answer to your question as phrased - "Does JavaScript need access to cookies if AJAX is used?" - is therefore "no". Think of enhanced search fields that use Ajax requests to provide auto-suggest options, for example. There is no need of cookie information in that case.
No, the page that the AJAX call requests has access to cookies too & that's what checks whether you're logged in.
You can do other authentication with the Javascript, but I wouldn't trust it, I always prefer putting any sort of authentication checking in the back-end.
Yes, cookies are very useful for Ajax.
Putting the authentication in the request URL is bad practice. There was a news item last week about getting the authentication tokens in the URL's from the google cache.
No, there is no way to prevent attacks. Older browsers still allow trivial access to cookies via javascript. You can bypass http only, etc. Whatever you come up with can be gotten around given enough effort. The trick is to make it too much effort to be worthwhile.
If you want to make your site more secure (there is no perfect security) you could use an authentication cookie that expires. Then, if the cookie is stolen, the attacker must use it before it expires. If they don't then you have a good indication there's suspicious activity on that account. The shorter the time window the better for security but the more load it puts on your server generating and maintaining keys.