Related
I can hit this endpoint, http://catfacts-api.appspot.com/api/facts?number=99 via Postman and it returns JSON
Additionally I am using create-react-app and would like to avoid setting up any server config.
In my client code I am trying to use fetch to do the same thing, but I get the error:
No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested
resource. Origin 'http://localhost:3000' is therefore not allowed
access. If an opaque response serves your needs, set the request's
mode to 'no-cors' to fetch the resource with CORS disabled.
So I am trying to pass in an object, to my Fetch which will disable CORS, like so:
fetch('http://catfacts-api.appspot.com/api/facts?number=99', { mode: 'no-cors'})
.then(blob => blob.json())
.then(data => {
console.table(data);
return data;
})
.catch(e => {
console.log(e);
return e;
});
Interestingly enough the error I get is actually a syntax error with this function. I am not sure my actual fetch is broken, because when I remove the { mode: 'no-cors' } object, and supply it with a different URL it works just fine.
I have also tried to pass in the object { mode: 'opaque'} , but this returns the original error from above.
I belive all I need to do is disable CORS.. What am I missing?
mode: 'no-cors' won’t magically make things work. In fact it makes things worse, because one effect it has is to tell browsers, “Block my frontend JavaScript code from seeing contents of the response body and headers under all circumstances.” Of course you never want that.
What happens with cross-origin requests from frontend JavaScript is that browsers by default block frontend code from accessing resources cross-origin. If Access-Control-Allow-Origin is in a response, then browsers relax that blocking and allow your code to access the response.
But if a site sends no Access-Control-Allow-Origin in its responses, your frontend code can’t directly access responses from that site. In particular, you can’t fix it by specifying mode: 'no-cors' (in fact that’ll ensure your frontend code can’t access the response contents).
However, one thing that will work: if you send your request through a CORS proxy.
You can also easily deploy your own proxy to Heroku in just 2-3 minutes, with 5 commands:
git clone https://github.com/Rob--W/cors-anywhere.git
cd cors-anywhere/
npm install
heroku create
git push heroku master
After running those commands, you’ll end up with your own CORS Anywhere server running at, for example, https://cryptic-headland-94862.herokuapp.com/.
Prefix your request URL with your proxy URL; for example:
https://cryptic-headland-94862.herokuapp.com/https://example.com
Adding the proxy URL as a prefix causes the request to get made through your proxy, which:
Forwards the request to https://example.com.
Receives the response from https://example.com.
Adds the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header to the response.
Passes that response, with that added header, back to the requesting frontend code.
The browser then allows the frontend code to access the response, because that response with the Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header is what the browser sees.
This works even if the request is one that triggers browsers to do a CORS preflight OPTIONS request, because in that case, the proxy also sends back the Access-Control-Allow-Headers and Access-Control-Allow-Methods headers needed to make the preflight successful.
I can hit this endpoint, http://catfacts-api.appspot.com/api/facts?number=99 via Postman
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Access_control_CORS explains why it is that even though you can access the response with Postman, browsers won’t let you access the response cross-origin from frontend JavaScript code running in a web app unless the response includes an Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header.
http://catfacts-api.appspot.com/api/facts?number=99 has no Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header, so there’s no way your frontend code can access the response cross-origin.
Your browser can get the response fine and you can see it in Postman and even in browser devtools—but that doesn’t mean browsers expose it to your code. They won’t, because it has no Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header. So you must instead use a proxy to get it.
The proxy makes the request to that site, gets the response, adds the Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header and any other CORS headers needed, then passes that back to your requesting code. And that response with the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header added is what the browser sees, so the browser lets your frontend code actually access the response.
So I am trying to pass in an object, to my Fetch which will disable CORS
You don’t want to do that. To be clear, when you say you want to “disable CORS” it seems you actually mean you want to disable the same-origin policy. CORS itself is actually a way to do that — CORS is a way to loosen the same-origin policy, not a way to restrict it.
But anyway, it’s true you can—in your local environment—do suff like give a browser runtime flags to disable security and run insecurely, or you can install a browser extension locally to get around the same-origin policy, but all that does is change the situation just for you locally.
No matter what you change locally, anybody else trying to use your app is still going to run into the same-origin policy, and there’s no way you can disable that for other users of your app.
You most likely never want to use mode: 'no-cors' in practice except in a few limited cases, and even then only if you know exactly what you’re doing and what the effects are. That’s because what setting mode: 'no-cors' actually says to the browser is, “Block my frontend JavaScript code from looking into the contents of the response body and headers under all circumstances.” In most cases that’s obviously really not what you want.
As far as the cases when you would want to consider using mode: 'no-cors', see the answer at What limitations apply to opaque responses? for the details. The gist of it is:
In the limited case when you’re using JavaScript to put content from another origin into a <script>, <link rel=stylesheet>, <img>, <video>, <audio>, <object>, <embed>, or <iframe> element (which works because embedding of resources cross-origin is allowed for those)—but for some reason you don’t want to/can’t do that just by having the markup of the document use the resource URL as the href or src attribute for the element.
When the only thing you want to do with a resource is to cache it. As alluded to in What limitations apply to opaque responses?, in practice the scenario that’s for is when you’re using Service Workers, in which case the API that’s relevant is the Cache Storage API.
But even in those limited cases, there are some important gotchas to be aware of; see the answer at What limitations apply to opaque responses? for the details.
I have also tried to pass in the object { mode: 'opaque'}
There is no 'opaque' request mode — opaque is instead just a property of the response, and browsers set that opaque property on responses from requests sent with no-cors mode.
But incidentally the word opaque is a pretty explicit signal about the nature of the response you end up with: “opaque” means you can’t see into any of its details; it blocks you from seeing.
If you are trying to address this issue temporarily on your localhost, you can use this chrome extension : Allow CORS Access-Control-Allow-Origin
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/allow-cors-access-control/lhobafahddgcelffkeicbaginigeejlf
If you are using Express as back-end you just have to install cors and import and use it in app.use(cors());.
If it is not resolved then try switching ports.
It will surely resolve after switching ports
So if you're like me and developing a website on localhost where you're trying to fetch data from Laravel API and use it in your Vue front-end, and you see this problem, here is how I solved it:
In your Laravel project, run command php artisan make:middleware Cors. This will create app/Http/Middleware/Cors.php for you.
Add the following code inside the handles function in Cors.php:
return $next($request)
->header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', '*')
->header('Access-Control-Allow-Methods', 'GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, OPTIONS');
In app/Http/kernel.php, add the following entry in $routeMiddleware array:
‘cors’ => \App\Http\Middleware\Cors::class
(There would be other entries in the array like auth, guest etc. Also make sure you're doing this in app/Http/kernel.php because there is another kernel.php too in Laravel)
Add this middleware on route registration for all the routes where you want to allow access, like this:
Route::group(['middleware' => 'cors'], function () {
Route::get('getData', 'v1\MyController#getData');
Route::get('getData2', 'v1\MyController#getData2');
});
In Vue front-end, make sure you call this API in mounted() function and not in data(). Also make sure you use http:// or https:// with the URL in your fetch() call.
Full credits to Pete Houston's blog article.
You can also set up a reverse proxy which adds the CORS headers using a self-hosted CORS Anywhere or Just CORS if you want a managed solution.
https://justcors.com/<id>/<your-requested-resource>
http://cors-anywhere.com/<your-requested-resource>
Very easy solution (2 min to config) is to use local-ssl-proxy package from npm
The usage is straight pretty forward:
1. Install the package:
npm install -g local-ssl-proxy
2. While running your local-server mask it with the local-ssl-proxy --source 9001 --target 9000
P.S: Replace --target 9000 with the -- "number of your port" and --source 9001 with --source "number of your port +1"
Solution for me was to just do it server side
I used the C# WebClient library to get the data (in my case it was image data) and send it back to the client. There's probably something very similar in your chosen server-side language.
//Server side, api controller
[Route("api/ItemImage/GetItemImageFromURL")]
public IActionResult GetItemImageFromURL([FromQuery] string url)
{
ItemImage image = new ItemImage();
using(WebClient client = new WebClient()){
image.Bytes = client.DownloadData(url);
return Ok(image);
}
}
You can tweak it to whatever your own use case is. The main point is client.DownloadData() worked without any CORS errors. Typically CORS issues are only between websites, hence it being okay to make 'cross-site' requests from your server.
Then the React fetch call is as simple as:
//React component
fetch(`api/ItemImage/GetItemImageFromURL?url=${imageURL}`, {
method: 'GET',
})
.then(resp => resp.json() as Promise<ItemImage>)
.then(imgResponse => {
// Do more stuff....
)}
I had a similar problem with my browser debugger saying my response.body was null but fiddler and the developer tools show it as populated that turned out to be basically the same scenario as this. I was using a local Angular application hitting a Web Api service running on IISExpress. I fixed it by following the steps outlined here to find the correct applicationhost.config file to add a Access-Control-Allow-Origin header like so:
<customHeaders>
<clear />
<add name="X-Powered-By" value="ASP.NET" />
<add name="Access-Control-Allow-Origin" value="*" />
<add name="Access-Control-Allow-Headers" value="Content-Type" />
</customHeaders>
If all the above solutions don't work, probably it's because of the file permissions as sometimes even if you have fixed the non-cors problem using Heroku or another way, it throws 403 forbidden error. Set the directory/file permissions like this:
Permissions and ownership errors
A 403 Forbidden error can also be caused by incorrect ownership or permissions on your web content files and folders.
Permissions
Rule of thumb for correct permissions:
Folders: 755
Static Content: 644
Dynamic Content: 700
I can hit this endpoint, http://catfacts-api.appspot.com/api/facts?number=99 via Postman and it returns JSON
Additionally I am using create-react-app and would like to avoid setting up any server config.
In my client code I am trying to use fetch to do the same thing, but I get the error:
No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested
resource. Origin 'http://localhost:3000' is therefore not allowed
access. If an opaque response serves your needs, set the request's
mode to 'no-cors' to fetch the resource with CORS disabled.
So I am trying to pass in an object, to my Fetch which will disable CORS, like so:
fetch('http://catfacts-api.appspot.com/api/facts?number=99', { mode: 'no-cors'})
.then(blob => blob.json())
.then(data => {
console.table(data);
return data;
})
.catch(e => {
console.log(e);
return e;
});
Interestingly enough the error I get is actually a syntax error with this function. I am not sure my actual fetch is broken, because when I remove the { mode: 'no-cors' } object, and supply it with a different URL it works just fine.
I have also tried to pass in the object { mode: 'opaque'} , but this returns the original error from above.
I belive all I need to do is disable CORS.. What am I missing?
mode: 'no-cors' won’t magically make things work. In fact it makes things worse, because one effect it has is to tell browsers, “Block my frontend JavaScript code from seeing contents of the response body and headers under all circumstances.” Of course you never want that.
What happens with cross-origin requests from frontend JavaScript is that browsers by default block frontend code from accessing resources cross-origin. If Access-Control-Allow-Origin is in a response, then browsers relax that blocking and allow your code to access the response.
But if a site sends no Access-Control-Allow-Origin in its responses, your frontend code can’t directly access responses from that site. In particular, you can’t fix it by specifying mode: 'no-cors' (in fact that’ll ensure your frontend code can’t access the response contents).
However, one thing that will work: if you send your request through a CORS proxy.
You can also easily deploy your own proxy to Heroku in just 2-3 minutes, with 5 commands:
git clone https://github.com/Rob--W/cors-anywhere.git
cd cors-anywhere/
npm install
heroku create
git push heroku master
After running those commands, you’ll end up with your own CORS Anywhere server running at, for example, https://cryptic-headland-94862.herokuapp.com/.
Prefix your request URL with your proxy URL; for example:
https://cryptic-headland-94862.herokuapp.com/https://example.com
Adding the proxy URL as a prefix causes the request to get made through your proxy, which:
Forwards the request to https://example.com.
Receives the response from https://example.com.
Adds the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header to the response.
Passes that response, with that added header, back to the requesting frontend code.
The browser then allows the frontend code to access the response, because that response with the Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header is what the browser sees.
This works even if the request is one that triggers browsers to do a CORS preflight OPTIONS request, because in that case, the proxy also sends back the Access-Control-Allow-Headers and Access-Control-Allow-Methods headers needed to make the preflight successful.
I can hit this endpoint, http://catfacts-api.appspot.com/api/facts?number=99 via Postman
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Access_control_CORS explains why it is that even though you can access the response with Postman, browsers won’t let you access the response cross-origin from frontend JavaScript code running in a web app unless the response includes an Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header.
http://catfacts-api.appspot.com/api/facts?number=99 has no Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header, so there’s no way your frontend code can access the response cross-origin.
Your browser can get the response fine and you can see it in Postman and even in browser devtools—but that doesn’t mean browsers expose it to your code. They won’t, because it has no Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header. So you must instead use a proxy to get it.
The proxy makes the request to that site, gets the response, adds the Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header and any other CORS headers needed, then passes that back to your requesting code. And that response with the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header added is what the browser sees, so the browser lets your frontend code actually access the response.
So I am trying to pass in an object, to my Fetch which will disable CORS
You don’t want to do that. To be clear, when you say you want to “disable CORS” it seems you actually mean you want to disable the same-origin policy. CORS itself is actually a way to do that — CORS is a way to loosen the same-origin policy, not a way to restrict it.
But anyway, it’s true you can—in your local environment—do suff like give a browser runtime flags to disable security and run insecurely, or you can install a browser extension locally to get around the same-origin policy, but all that does is change the situation just for you locally.
No matter what you change locally, anybody else trying to use your app is still going to run into the same-origin policy, and there’s no way you can disable that for other users of your app.
You most likely never want to use mode: 'no-cors' in practice except in a few limited cases, and even then only if you know exactly what you’re doing and what the effects are. That’s because what setting mode: 'no-cors' actually says to the browser is, “Block my frontend JavaScript code from looking into the contents of the response body and headers under all circumstances.” In most cases that’s obviously really not what you want.
As far as the cases when you would want to consider using mode: 'no-cors', see the answer at What limitations apply to opaque responses? for the details. The gist of it is:
In the limited case when you’re using JavaScript to put content from another origin into a <script>, <link rel=stylesheet>, <img>, <video>, <audio>, <object>, <embed>, or <iframe> element (which works because embedding of resources cross-origin is allowed for those)—but for some reason you don’t want to/can’t do that just by having the markup of the document use the resource URL as the href or src attribute for the element.
When the only thing you want to do with a resource is to cache it. As alluded to in What limitations apply to opaque responses?, in practice the scenario that’s for is when you’re using Service Workers, in which case the API that’s relevant is the Cache Storage API.
But even in those limited cases, there are some important gotchas to be aware of; see the answer at What limitations apply to opaque responses? for the details.
I have also tried to pass in the object { mode: 'opaque'}
There is no 'opaque' request mode — opaque is instead just a property of the response, and browsers set that opaque property on responses from requests sent with no-cors mode.
But incidentally the word opaque is a pretty explicit signal about the nature of the response you end up with: “opaque” means you can’t see into any of its details; it blocks you from seeing.
If you are trying to address this issue temporarily on your localhost, you can use this chrome extension : Allow CORS Access-Control-Allow-Origin
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/allow-cors-access-control/lhobafahddgcelffkeicbaginigeejlf
If you are using Express as back-end you just have to install cors and import and use it in app.use(cors());.
If it is not resolved then try switching ports.
It will surely resolve after switching ports
So if you're like me and developing a website on localhost where you're trying to fetch data from Laravel API and use it in your Vue front-end, and you see this problem, here is how I solved it:
In your Laravel project, run command php artisan make:middleware Cors. This will create app/Http/Middleware/Cors.php for you.
Add the following code inside the handles function in Cors.php:
return $next($request)
->header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', '*')
->header('Access-Control-Allow-Methods', 'GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, OPTIONS');
In app/Http/kernel.php, add the following entry in $routeMiddleware array:
‘cors’ => \App\Http\Middleware\Cors::class
(There would be other entries in the array like auth, guest etc. Also make sure you're doing this in app/Http/kernel.php because there is another kernel.php too in Laravel)
Add this middleware on route registration for all the routes where you want to allow access, like this:
Route::group(['middleware' => 'cors'], function () {
Route::get('getData', 'v1\MyController#getData');
Route::get('getData2', 'v1\MyController#getData2');
});
In Vue front-end, make sure you call this API in mounted() function and not in data(). Also make sure you use http:// or https:// with the URL in your fetch() call.
Full credits to Pete Houston's blog article.
You can also set up a reverse proxy which adds the CORS headers using a self-hosted CORS Anywhere or Just CORS if you want a managed solution.
https://justcors.com/<id>/<your-requested-resource>
http://cors-anywhere.com/<your-requested-resource>
Very easy solution (2 min to config) is to use local-ssl-proxy package from npm
The usage is straight pretty forward:
1. Install the package:
npm install -g local-ssl-proxy
2. While running your local-server mask it with the local-ssl-proxy --source 9001 --target 9000
P.S: Replace --target 9000 with the -- "number of your port" and --source 9001 with --source "number of your port +1"
Solution for me was to just do it server side
I used the C# WebClient library to get the data (in my case it was image data) and send it back to the client. There's probably something very similar in your chosen server-side language.
//Server side, api controller
[Route("api/ItemImage/GetItemImageFromURL")]
public IActionResult GetItemImageFromURL([FromQuery] string url)
{
ItemImage image = new ItemImage();
using(WebClient client = new WebClient()){
image.Bytes = client.DownloadData(url);
return Ok(image);
}
}
You can tweak it to whatever your own use case is. The main point is client.DownloadData() worked without any CORS errors. Typically CORS issues are only between websites, hence it being okay to make 'cross-site' requests from your server.
Then the React fetch call is as simple as:
//React component
fetch(`api/ItemImage/GetItemImageFromURL?url=${imageURL}`, {
method: 'GET',
})
.then(resp => resp.json() as Promise<ItemImage>)
.then(imgResponse => {
// Do more stuff....
)}
I had a similar problem with my browser debugger saying my response.body was null but fiddler and the developer tools show it as populated that turned out to be basically the same scenario as this. I was using a local Angular application hitting a Web Api service running on IISExpress. I fixed it by following the steps outlined here to find the correct applicationhost.config file to add a Access-Control-Allow-Origin header like so:
<customHeaders>
<clear />
<add name="X-Powered-By" value="ASP.NET" />
<add name="Access-Control-Allow-Origin" value="*" />
<add name="Access-Control-Allow-Headers" value="Content-Type" />
</customHeaders>
If all the above solutions don't work, probably it's because of the file permissions as sometimes even if you have fixed the non-cors problem using Heroku or another way, it throws 403 forbidden error. Set the directory/file permissions like this:
Permissions and ownership errors
A 403 Forbidden error can also be caused by incorrect ownership or permissions on your web content files and folders.
Permissions
Rule of thumb for correct permissions:
Folders: 755
Static Content: 644
Dynamic Content: 700
I've posted before on this subject, but after a year of getting on with other things, I've managed to get into a pickle once again. I'll try and give a brief overview of the scenario and the current attempts to make things work:
IIS web server hosting HTML, JS etc. on host: iis.mycompany.com (referred to as foo)
WCF RESTful web services hosted via a Windows Service on host: wcf.mycompany.com (referred to as bar)
The Javascript served from foo works by making RESTful ajax calls (GET or POST depending on the action) to the WCF services on bar, obviously these are cross domain calls as they aren't on the same host.
The Javascript uses the jQuery (1.7.2) framework to manipulate the DOM and perform ajax calls to bar, the expected content type for POSTS is JSON, and the response from GETS is expected to be JSON too (application/json).
Bar has it's WCF services configured using TransportCredentialOnly as the security mode and the transport client credentail type is NTLM, so only authed users to contact the services.
CORS Support has been added to bar's WCF services using an extension to WCF:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/carlosfigueira/archive/2012/05/15/implementing-cors-support-in-wcf.aspx
We have added additional headers and modfied some that the post already contained based on numerous internet articles:
property.Headers.Add("Access-Control-Allow-Headers", "Accept, Content-Type");
property.Headers.Add("Access-Control-Allow-Methods", "POST, GET, OPTIONS");
property.Headers.Add("Access-Control-Max-Age", "172800");
property.Headers.Add("Access-Control-Allow-Origin", "http://iis.mycompany.com");
property.Headers.Add("Access-Control-Allow-Credentials", "true");
property.Headers.Add("Content-type", "application/json");
Sites giving information on enabling CORS suggest that the Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header should be set to "*" however, this is not possible in our case as we make jQuery ajax calls using the following setup:
$.ajaxSetup({
cache: "false",
crossDomain: true,
xhrFields: {
withCredentials: true
}
});
As it turns out you cannot use "*" for the accepted origin when you are using "withCredentials" in the ajax call:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/http_access_control
"Important note: when responding to a credentialed request, server
must specify a domain, and cannot use wild carding."
Currently in our development lab, this doesn't matter as we can hard code the requests to the IIS (foo) server URL.
The main problem now appears to be attempting POST requests (GET is working using the above configuration). When the browser attempts the POST process, it first sends an OPTIONS header to the server requesting allowed OPTIONS for the subsequent post. This is where we would like to see the headers we've configured in the CORS Support WCF extension being passed back, however we aren't getting that far; before the response comes back as "401 Unauthorized", I believe this is to do with the transport security binding configuration requesting NTLM, but I'm not sure.
Also, I'm not very experienced with this, but I haven't seen much information about POST using application/json content type as opposed to text/plain when performing cross domain requests.
I know that people will probably suggest JSONP as the one true solution, I'm not against different approaches, indeed I encourage anyone to suggest best practices as it would help others reading this question later. However, please attempt to answer the question before suggestion alternatives to it.
Many thanks in advance for anyone who contributes.
peteski
:)
UPDATE:
It appears that Chrome (20.x.x) doesn't suffer the problem of not negotiating NTLM to retrieve the OPTIONS header response from the server, but Firefox (13.0.1) does.
We've also noticed that someone has already posted a bug up on the Firefox forum, which we've added information to:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=751552
Please vote for this bug to be fixed on the bugzilla site!
Using the following code, we can watch the network trace to see Firefox failing and Chrome working fine:
var url = "http://myWebServiceServer/InstantMessagingService/chat/message/send";
var data = '{ "remoteUserUri" : "sip:foo.bar#mydomain.com", "message" : "This is my message" }';
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open("POST", url, true);
request.withCredentials = true;
request.setRequestHeader("Content-Type", "application/json");
request.send(data);
console.log(request);
On a separate note, IE8 doesn't support the XMLHttpRequest for cross domain calls, favouring it's own magical XDomainRequest object, so we've got some work to do in changing the client side code to handle IE8 vs the world cases. (Thanks IE8).
/me crosses fingers that Mozilla fix the Firefox bug.
UPDATE 2:
After some digging it appears that IE8's XDomainRequest cannot be used to make cross domain requests where NTLM must be negotiated, this basically means that the security on our WCF binding can't be used thanks to limitations in a web browser.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2010/05/13/xdomainrequest-restrictions-limitations-and-workarounds.aspx
"No authentication or cookies will be sent with the request"
So, I guess we've taken this as far as it is going to go for now.. It looks like we're going to have to create our own custom token authentication and pass it across to the WCF service in a cookie, or in IE8's case, POST it with the JSON. The WCF service will then have to handle decrypting the data and using that instead of the ServiceSecurityContext.Current.WindowsIdentity we previously had access to with NTLM auth.
I know you said you would rather have the problem itself addressed, but you may consider using a "reverse proxy."
I don't know what technologies you are using, but we use Apache web server and have a Java RESTful API running on a different server that required authentication. For a while, we messed with JSONP and CORS, but were not satisfied.
In the end, we setup an Apache Reverse Proxy and it worked miracles. The web browser believes it is communicating with its own domain and acts appropriately. The RESTful API doesn't know it is being used via a proxy. Therefore, everything just works. And Apache does all the magic.
Hopefully, all web servers have a feature like Apache's reverse proxy.
Here is some documentation on the feature: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_proxy.html
All we had to do is ensure the mod_proxy module was installed, then add the following lines to our Apache config file:
ProxyPass /restapi http://restfulserver.com/restapi
ProxyPassReverse /restapi http://restfulserver.com/restapi
Then restart the web server and voila!
This is bizarre, I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on why this happened.
Basically, I've been pulling my hair out trying to test JSONP out so I can implement a JSON web service that other sites can use. I'm doing development on localhost--specifically, Visual Studio 2008 and Visual Studio 2008's built-in web server.
So as a JSONP test run w/ jQuery, I implemented the following:
$().ready(function() {
debugger;
try {
$.getJSON("<%= new Uri(Request.Url, "/").ToString() %>XssTest?callback=?", function(data) {
alert(data.abc);
});
} catch (err) {
alert(err);
}
});
And on the server ..
<%= Request["callback"] %>({abc : 'def'})
So what ends up happening is I set a breakpoint on the server and I get the breakpoint both on the first "debugger;" statment in the client-side script as well as on the server. The JSONP URL is indeed being invoked after the page loads. That's working great.
The problem I was having was that the callback would never execute. I tested this in both IE8 as well as Firefox 3.5. Neither one would invoke the callback. The catch(err) was never reached, either. Nothing happened at all!
I'd been stuck on this for a week, and even tested with a manually keyed HTTP request in Telnet on the specified port to be sure that the server is returning the format...
callbackfn({abc : 'def'})
.. and it is.
Then it dawned on me, what if I change the hostname from localhost to localhost with a globalizer ('.'), i.e http://localhost.:41559/ instead of http://localhost:41559/ (yes, adding a dot to any hostname is legal, it is to DNS what global:: is to C# namespaces). And then it worked! Internet Explorer and Firefox 3.5 finally showed me an alert message when I just added a dot.
So this makes me wonder, what is going on here? Why would late script tag generation work with an Internet hostname and not with plain localhost? Or is that the right question?
Clearly this is implemented for security reasons, but what are they trying to secure?? And, by getting it to work with a dot, did I just expose a security hole in this security feature?
By the way, my hosts file, while altered for other hosts, has nothing special going on with localhost; the default 127.0.0.1 / ::1 are still in place with no overrides below.
FOLLOW-UP: I got past this for local development purposes by adding:
127.0.0.1 local.mysite.com
.. to my hosts file, then adding the following code to my global.asax:
protected void Application_BeginRequest(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (Request.Headers["Host"].Split(':')[0] == "localhost")
{
Response.Redirect(
Request.Url.Scheme
+ "://"
+ "local.mysite.com"
+ ":" + Request.Url.Port.ToString()
+ Request.Url.PathAndQuery
, true);
}
}
I'm going to throw an answer out there; after some thought I've reached my own conclusions.
It could be that this is a security feature that's implemented to try to thwart an Internet web site from invoking JSONP services running on the client machine.
A web site could just go through a list of ports and keep invoking localhost on different ports and paths. 'Localhost' is one of few DNS hostnames that are dynamic in meaning depending on when and where it's queried, making the potential targets vulnerable. And yes, the fact that appending a dot (.) to 'localhost' ('localhost.') produces a working workaround does expose a security vulnerability, but does offer a [tentative] workaround for development puposes.
A better approach is to map the loopback IP to a new hostname entry in the hosts file so that it works locally, isn't prone to be "fixed" by a browser update, and doesn't work anywhere else but on the development workstation.
I'm experiencing a similar problem. Most of the solutions I've tried work with IE (7), but I'm having difficulty getting Firefox (3.5.2) to play ball.
I've installed HttpFox in order to see how my server's responses are being interpreted on the client, and I'm getting NS_ERROR_DOM_BAD_URI. My situation is a little different to yours though, as I'm trying to invoke a JSONP call back to the same site the hosting page came from, and then this call is responding with a 302 redirect to another site. (I'm using the redirect as a convenient way to get cookies from both domains returned to the browser.)
I'm using jQuery, and I originally tried doing a standard AJAX call via $.ajax(). I figured that as the initial request was to the same site as the hosting page, Firefox would just follow the 302 response to another domain. But no, it appeared to fall foul of XSS defenses. (Note that contrary to what Returning redirect as response to XHR request implies, jQuery does follow the 302 redirect for a standard dataType="json" call: a redirect to the same domain works fine; a redirect to another domain generates NS_ERROR_DOM_BAD_URI in the browser.) As an aside, I don't see why same-domain 302 redirects to other domains can't just be followed - after all, it's the hosting page's domain that is issuing the redirect, so why can't it be trusted? If you're worried about scripting injection attacks, then the JSONP route is open for abuse anyway...
jQuery's $.getJSON() with a ?callback=? suffix also fails in Firefox with the same error. As does using $.getScript() to roll my own JSONP <script> tag.
What does appear to work, is having a pre-existing <script id="jsonp" type="text/javascript"></script> in the HTML and then using $("jsonp").attr("src", url + "?callback=myCallback") to invoke the JSONP call. If I do that, then the cross-domain 302 redirect is followed and I get my JSON response passed to myCallback (which I've defined at the same time as the <script/> tag).
And, yes, I'm developing all this using Cassini with localhost:port URLs. Cassini won't respond to non-localhost URLs, so I can't easily try local.mysite.com to see if that has any affect on the solutions I've tried above. However, sticking a dot at the end of localhost appears to have fixed all my problems!
Now I can go back to a standard $.ajax({ ... dataType:"jsonp" ... }) call with localhost__.__:port instead of localhost:port and all is well. I find it interesting that modifying the src attribute of a script tag that pre-exists in the page's HTML does allow ordinary localhost URLs to be invoked - I guess following your thought process, this could be another security vulnerability.
I need to make an AJAX request from a website to a REST web service hosted in another domain.
Although this is works just fine in Internet Explorer, other browsers such as Mozilla and Google Chrome impose far stricter security restrictions, which prohibit cross-site AJAX requests.
The problem is that I have no control over the domain nor the web server where the site is hosted. This means that my REST web service must run somewhere else, and I can't put in place any redirection mechanism.
Here is the JavaScript code that makes the asynchronous call:
var serviceUrl = "http://myservicedomain";
var payload = "<myRequest><content>Some content</content></myRequest>";
var request = new XMLHttpRequest();
request.open("POST", serviceUrl, true); // <-- This fails in Mozilla Firefox amongst other browsers
request.setRequestHeader("Content-type", "text/xml");
request.send(payload);
How can I have this work in other browsers beside Internet Explorer?
maybe JSONP can help.
NB youll have to change your messages to use json instead of xml
Edit
Major sites such as flickr and twitter support jsonp with callbacks etc
The post marked as the answer is erroneous: the iframes document is NOT able to access the parent. The same origin policy works both ways.
The fact is that it is not possible in any way to consume a rest based webservice using xmlhttprequest. The only way to load data from a different domain (without any framework) is to use JSONP. Any other solutions demand a serverside proxy located on your own domain, or a client side proxy located on the remote domain and som sort of cross-site communication (like easyXDM) to communicate between the documents.
The fact that this works in IE is a security issue with IE, not a feature.
Unfortunately cross-site scripting is prohibited, and the accepted work around is to proxy the requests through your own domain: do you really have no ability to add or modify server side code?
Furthermore, the secondary workaround - involving the aquisition of data through script tags - is only going to support GET requests, which you might be able to hack with a SOAP service, but not so much with the POST request to a RESTful service you describe.
I'm really not sure an AJAX solution exists, you might be back to a <form> solution.
The not very clear workaround (but works) is using iframe as container for requests to another sites. The problem is, the parent can not access iframe's content, can only navigate iframe's "src" attribut. But the iframe content can access parent's content.
So, if the iframe's content know, they can call some javascript content in parent page or directly access parent's DOM.
EDIT:
Sample:
function ajaxWorkaroung() {
var frm = gewtElementById("myIFrame")
frm.src = "http://some_other_domain"
}
function ajaxCallback(parameter){
// this function will be called from myIFrame's content
}
Make your service domain accept cross origin resource sharing (CORS).
Typical scenario: Most CORS compliant browsers will first send an OPTIONS header, to which, the server should return information about which headers are accepted. If the headers satisfy the service's requirements for the request provided (Allowed Methods being GET and POST, Allowed-Origin *, etc), the browser will then resend the request with the appropriate method (GET, POST, etc.).
Everything this point forward is the same as when you are using IE, or more simply, if you were posting to the same domain.
Caviots: Some service development SDK's (WCF in particular) will attempt to process the request, in which case you need to preprocess the OPTIONS Method to respond to the request and avoid the method being called twice on the server.
In short, the problem lies server-side.
Edit There is one issue with IE 9 and below with CORS, in that it is not fully implemented. Luckily, you can solve this problem by making your calls from server-side code to the service and have it come back through your server (e.g. mypage.aspx?service=blah&method=blahblah&p0=firstParam=something). From here, your server side code should implement a request/response stream model.
Just use a server side proxy on your origin domain. Here is an example: http://jquery-howto.blogspot.com/2009/04/cross-domain-ajax-querying-with-jquery.html
This can also be done using a webserver setup localy that calls curl with the correct arguments and returns the curl output.
app.rb
require 'sinatra'
require 'curb'
set :views,lambda {"views/"+self.name.to_s.downcase.sub("controller","")}
set :haml, :layout => :'../layout', :format => :html5, :escape_html=>true
disable :raise_errors
get '/data/:brand' do
data_link = "https://externalsite.com/#{params[:brand]}"
c = Curl::Easy.perform(data_link)
c.body_str
end
Sending an ajax request to localhost:4567/data/something will return the result from externalsite.com/something.
Another option would be to setup a CNAME record on your own domain to "Mask" the remote domain hostname.