My web application has a login page that submits authentication credentials via an AJAX call. If the user enters the correct username and password, everything is fine, but if not, the following happens:
The web server determines that although the request included a well-formed Authorization header, the credentials in the header do not successfully authenticate.
The web server returns a 401 status code and includes one or more WWW-Authenticate headers listing the supported authentication types.
The browser detects that the response to my call on the XMLHttpRequest object is a 401 and the response includes WWW-Authenticate headers. It then pops up an authentication dialog asking, again, for the username and password.
This is all fine up until step 3. I don't want the dialog to pop up, I want want to handle the 401 response in my AJAX callback function. (For example, by displaying an error message on the login page.) I want the user to re-enter their username and password, of course, but I want them to see my friendly, reassuring login form, not the browser's ugly, default authentication dialog.
Incidentally, I have no control over the server, so having it return a custom status code (i.e., something other than a 401) is not an option.
Is there any way I can suppress the authentication dialog? In particular, can I suppress the Authentication Required dialog in Firefox 2 or later? Is there any way to suppress the Connect to [host] dialog in IE 6 and later?
Edit
Additional information from the author (Sept. 18):
I should add that the real problem with the browser's authentication dialog popping up is that it give insufficient information to the user.
The user has just entered a username and password via the form on the login page, he believes he has typed them both correctly, and he has clicked the submit button or hit enter. His expectation is that he will be taken to the next page or perhaps told that he has entered his information incorrectly and should try again. However, he is instead presented with an unexpected dialog box.
The dialog makes no acknowledgment of the fact he just did enter a username and password. It does not clearly state that there was a problem and that he should try again. Instead, the dialog box presents the user with cryptic information like "The site says: '[realm]'." Where [realm] is a short realm name that only a programmer could love.
Web broswer designers take note: no one would ask how to suppress the authentication dialog if the dialog itself were simply more user-friendly. The entire reason that I am doing a login form is that our product management team rightly considers the browsers' authentication dialogs to be awful.
I encountered the same issue here, and the backend engineer at my company implemented a behavior that is apparently considered a good practice : when a call to a URL returns a 401, if the client has set the header X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest, the server drops the www-authenticate header in its response.
The side effect is that the default authentication popup does not appear.
Make sure that your API call has the X-Requested-With header set to XMLHttpRequest. If so there is nothing to do except changing the server behavior according to this good practice...
The browser pops up a login prompt when both of the following conditions are met:
HTTP status is 401
WWW-Authenticate header is present in the response
If you can control the HTTP response, then you can remove the WWW-Authenticate header from the response, and the browser won't popup the login dialog.
If you can't control the response, you can setup a proxy to filter out the WWW-Authenticate header from the response.
As far as I know (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), there is no way to prevent the login prompt once the browser receives the WWW-Authenticate header.
I don't think this is possible -- if you use the browser's HTTP client implementation, it will always pop up that dialog. Two hacks come to mind:
Maybe Flash handles this differently (I haven't tried yet), so having a flash movie make the request might help.
You can set up a 'proxie' for the service that you're accessing on your own server, and have it modify the authentication headers a bit, so that the browser doesn't recognise them.
I realize that this question and its answers are very old. But, I ended up here. Perhaps others will as well.
If you have access to the code for the web service that is returning the 401. Simply change the service to return a 403 (Forbidden) in this situation instead 401. The browser will not prompt for credentials in response to a 403. 403 is the correct code for an authenticated user that is not authorized for a specific resource. Which seems to be the situation of the OP.
From the IETF document on 403:
A server that receives valid credentials that are not adequate to
gain access ought to respond with the 403 (Forbidden) status code
In Mozilla you can achieve it with the following script when you create the XMLHttpRequest object:
xmlHttp=new XMLHttpRequest();
xmlHttp.mozBackgroundRequest = true;
xmlHttp.open("GET",URL,true,USERNAME,PASSWORD);
xmlHttp.send(null);
The 2nd line prevents the dialog box....
What server technology do you use and is there a particular product you use for authentication?
Since the browser is only doing its job, I believe you have to change things on the server side to not return a 401 status code. This could be done using custom authentication forms that simply return the form again when the authentication fails.
In Mozilla land, setting the mozBackgroundRequest parameter of XMLHttpRequest (docs) to true suppresses those dialogs and causes the requests to simply fail. However, I don't know how good cross-browser support is (including whether the the quality of the error info on those failed requests is very good across browsers.)
jan.vdbergh has the truth, if you can change the 401 on server side for another status code, the browser won't catch and paint the pop-up.
Another solution could be change the WWW-Authenticate header for another custom header. I dont't believe why the different browser can't support it, in a few versions of Firefox we can do the xhr request with mozBackgroundRequest, but in the other browsers?? here, there is an interesting link with this issue in Chromium.
I have this same issue with MVC 5 and VPN where whenever we are outside the DMZ using the VPN, we find ourselves having to answer this browser message. Using .net I simply handle the routing of the error using
<customErrors defaultRedirect="~/Error" >
<error statusCode="401" redirect="~/Index"/>
</customErrors>
thus far it has worked because the Index action under the home controller validates the user. The view in this action, if logon is unsuccessful, has login controls that I use to log the user in using using LDAP query passed into Directory Services:
DirectoryEntry entry = new DirectoryEntry("LDAP://OurDomain");
DirectorySearcher Dsearch = new DirectorySearcher(entry);
Dsearch.Filter = "(SAMAccountName=" + UserID + ")";
Dsearch.PropertiesToLoad.Add("cn");
While this has worked fine thus far, and I must let you know that I am still testing it and the above code has had no reason to run so it's subject to removal... testing currently includes trying to discover a case where the second set of code is of any more use. Again, this is a work in progress, but since it could be of some assistance or jog your brain for some ideas, I decided to add it now... I will update it with the final results once all testing is done.
I'm using Node, Express & Passport and was struggling with the same issue. I got it to work by explicitly setting the www-authenticate header to an empty string. In my case, it looked like this:
(err, req, res, next) => {
if (err) {
res._headers['www-authenticate'] = ''
return res.json(err)
}
}
I hope that helps someone!
I recently encountered the similar situation while developing a web app for Samsung Tizen Smart TV. It was required to scan the complete local network but few IP addresses were returning "401 Unauthorized" response with "www-authenticate" header attached. It was popping up a browser authentication pop requiring user to enter "Username" & "Password" because of "Basic" authentication type (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Authentication).
To get rid from this, the simple thing which worked for me is setting credentials: 'omit' for Fetc Api Call (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Fetch_API/Using_Fetch). Official documentation says that:
To instead ensure browsers don’t include credentials in the request, use credentials: 'omit'
fetch('https://example.com', {
credentials: 'omit'
})
For those unsing C# here's ActionAttribute that returns 400 instead of 401, and 'swallows' Basic auth dialog.
public class NoBasicAuthDialogAuthorizeAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(AuthorizationContext filterContext)
{
base.HandleUnauthorizedRequest(filterContext);
filterContext.Result = new HttpStatusCodeResult(400);
}
}
use like following:
[NoBasicAuthDialogAuthorize(Roles = "A-Team")]
public ActionResult CarType()
{
// your code goes here
}
Hope this saves you some time.
Related
I've been trying to scrape some raw XML data from an internal company site (url excluded for security purposes). I am currently using selenium and beautifulsoup to do so (but am open to any other options). When accessing the site manually, I am prompted with a javascript browser alert for a username and password (see picture). My attempt to automatically validate credentials is below (does not pass authentication):
def main():
#gets specified list of direct reports
# username:password#
url ="http://{username}:{password}#myURL.com"
driver.get(url)
html = driver.page_source
soup = BeautifulSoup(html, "lxml")
# parsing logic follows ...
However, when the script runs I still have to manually enter the username and password in the browsing window controlled by chromedriver and then the rest of the program runs as expected..
Is there a way avoid this manually entry? I've also tried solutions around driver.alert and sending keys & credentials to the browser to no avail.. (I know this may be difficult because the site is not accessible outside of the network, any insight is appreciated!)
Edit: I should mention this method was working a couple weeks ago, but following a chrome update no longer does..
Your login process is likely returning an access token of some kind, either a value in the response body or a header with a token, possibly an Authorization header or a Set-Cookie header.
In most cases, you will need to send that token with every request, either as an authorization header, a body parameter, or whatever the page expects.
Your job is to find that token by inspecting the response from the server when you authenticate, store it somewhere, and send it back each time you make a page request to the server.
How you send it back is dictated by the requirements of the server in question. It may want a request body param or a header, those are the two most likely cases.
I know this has been asked countless times, but none of the answers I found described the actual connection to backend.
I have a one-page JS app that communicates with small backend (Django) API. I use session based authentication. User info is cached on first load. If session expires, I need to change page header and flush user info from cache. However, most of my API resources are public and return always 200. Several other resources are private and return 403 if user isn't logged in, which is great as this gives me excatly the information I need. The problem is, some pages access public resources only. In case session is suddenly deleted on backend and user navigates to url that accesses only public resources, user info isn't flushed and I have an UX problem.
My initial idea was to request private user resource (let's call it /users/self/) on every url change which returns 200 in case user is authenticated and 403 in case they aren't. This however requires 1 extra request before every other request for each url change, which isn't really ideal.
Are there any easier techniques I could use in this case? I don't mind even switching to other type of authentication if that would solve the problem.
What i have done and seen for such scenarios is to use some type of http interceptor that intercept all http requests done by Angular and if it finds a response status of 401, such interceptors raise an event using $rootScope.
See one library here https://github.com/witoldsz/angular-http-auth
To use it, one needs to subscribe to the events raise using some type of root controller, which can redirect the user to login page.
See an example here https://medium.com/opinionated-angularjs/7bbf0346acec
Instead of sending a additional auth request, just check in your backend in every request, if the session didnt expire. If the user is not auth, then return a status code.
In angularjs we used a httpResponse interceptor, who intercepts every response and checks against this status code.
Your backend could add a header to the response if the user is still logged in, regardless if the requested resource is public or not. The client can then check the presence of that header and act accordingly.
On both sides this is done with some kind of filter or interceptor. In angular this would be a $http interceptor.
We at work do what others have already told you: use an HttpInterceptor.
We have every response sent from our backend structured in the same way: an object with two fields: a responseCode and the actual response. We vary the responseCode according to what happened in the backend, being success, security alert, or authentication required for that given action the most common cases.
Then the interceptor reacts in the appropriate way according to each responseCode we have defined. In the case of an authentication required, we redirect to the login page, you could do whatever you need. It's working great for us.
I am currently in the process of implementing a server-side OAuth2 flow in order to authorize my application.
The JS application will be displaying YouTube Analytics data on behalf of a registered CMS account to an end user (who own's a channel partnered with the CMS account). As a result of this, the authorization stage needs to be completely hidden from the user. I am attempting to authorize once, then use the 'permanent' authorization code to retrieve access tokens as and when they're needed.
I am able to successfully authorize, and retrieve an access code. The problem begins when i attempt to exchange the access code for a token.
The HTTP POST Request to achieve this needs to look like this...
POST /o/oauth2/token HTTP/1.1
Host: accounts.google.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
code=4/P7q7W91a-oMsCeLvIaQm6bTrgtp7&
client_id=8819981768.apps.googleusercontent.com&
client_secret={client_secret}&
redirect_uri=https://oauth2-login-demo.appspot.com/code&
grant_type=authorization_code
I am using this code to achieve this:
var myPOSTRequest = new XMLHttpRequest();
myPOSTRequest.open('POST', 'https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/token', true);
myPOSTRequest.setRequestHeader('content-type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
myPOSTRequest.send('code=' + myAuthCode + '&redirect_uri=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FCMSAuth3.html&client_id=626544306690-kn5m3vu0dcgb17au6m6pmr4giluf1cle.apps.googleusercontent.com&scope=&client_secret={my_client_secret}&grant_type=authorization_code');
I can successfully get a 200 OK response to this Request however no access token is returned, and myPOSTRequest.responseText returns an empty string.
I have played with Google's OAuth Playground - and can successfully get a token using my own credentials.
Am i missing something here?
You cannot do this, because there is the same origin policy. This is a security concept of modern browsers, which prevents javascript to get responses from another origin, than your site. This is an important concept, because it gives you the ability, to protect you against CSRF. So don't use the code authorization flow, use instead the token authorization flow.
Try and build up the full URL. Then dump it in a webbrowser. If its corect you will get the json back. You have the corect format.
https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/token?code=<myAuthCode>&redirect_uri=<FromGoogleAPIS>&client_id=<clientID>&client_secret={my_client_secret}&grant_type=authorization_code
Other things to check:
Make sure that you are using the same redirect_uri that is set up in google apis.
How are you getting the Authcode back? If you are riping it from the title of the page i have had issues with it not returning the full authcode in the title try checking the body of the page. This doesnt happen all the time. I just ocationally.
I've just noticed it doesn't matter where I put my Authenticity Token when submitting a request via AJAX. I can either append it to the form as POST data, or put it into the Header.
Is there any difference? Especially regarding security?
Additionally:
I didn't encode the Token in Javascript. Am I exposed to something now?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT:
form.on("sending", function(file, xhr, formData) {
xhr.setRequestHeader('X-CSRF-Token', AUTH_TOKEN);
// formData.append('authenticity_token', AUTH_TOKEN);
});
This is my Javascript adding the token to the Header or (commented out) to the POST data. AUTH_TOKEN is the raw key. I did not encode it in any way.
Part one
There is totally no difference if you pass authenticity token via GET params, POST data or request headers (POST/GET params are virtually the same in Rails).
Let's look at the code (not the best code I've ever seen but...)
def verified_request?
!protect_against_forgery? || request.get? || request.head? ||
form_authenticity_token == params[request_forgery_protection_token] ||
form_authenticity_token == request.headers['X-CSRF-Token']
end
Request if valid if (any of following)
protect_against_forgery? is false
request is GET
request is HEAD
token in params equals one stored in session
token in headers equals one stored in session
I should add that token is generated for every request and stored in session for later inspection (if subsequent request is POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE)
So as you see both ways of passing authenticity token are valid.
Part two
Is passing raw auth token in AJAX dangerous? No, as much as passing it in a form is totally not dangerous. To explain further I will quote an excellent answer in another SO question
Why this happens: Since the authenticity token is stored in the
session, the client can not know its value. This prevents people from
submitting forms to a rails app without viewing the form within that
app itself. Imagine that you are using service A, you logged into the
service and everything is ok. Now imagine that you went to use service
B, and you saw a picture you like, and pressed on the picture to view
a larger size of it. Now, if some evil code was there at service B, it
might send a request to service A (which you are logged into), and ask
to delete your account, by sending a request to
http://serviceA.com/close_account. This is what is known as CSRF
(Cross Site Request Forgery).
original answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1571900/2422778
I still consider this question laziness/lack of patience on your side as all I wrote is very well explained both in Rails Guides and on Stack Overflow. Hope next time you will be more persistent in looking for answers before posting here.
Anyway I am glad I could help.
You can see the difference when you use some tool like https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Category:OWASP_WebScarab_Project or http://www.charlesproxy.com/
That are proxies, which you can turn on locally to fiddle with your HTTP requests and responses.
Very useful for web development.
Good luck.
I'm having the following problem in a Safari extension. I ask the user to provide their username/password for a web service and send off a quick request to verify that the credentials are correct. If they are not, the service will respond with a 401 as I believe it should. The problem is that Safari seems to intercept this response before my javascript code can handle it, showing the grey login box instead of letting me handle the error.
Is there anything I can do about this? I'm using a js library to make the call, but it's functionally equivalent to the following jQuery.
$.ajax({
type: "GET",
url: url,
username: username,
password: password,
success: function() { /* handle success */ },
error: function() { /* handle error */ }
});
As far as I'm aware (after having had this issue myself) there's no way you'll get Safari to stop intercepting a 401. If those findings are correct, the only way is creative (read: mis-) use of another error code, e.g. 403, or using a custom one (see below).
Of course, this assumes that you have access to changing the status code sent back from the web service (it's not entirely clear from the question if you developed the web service too).
403, of course, really says "you're already authenticated, but not authorized to access this resource", which isn't correct (hence "misuse"), but at least it has no side effects in browsers that I'm aware of.
400 is sometimes used as an alternative, but since that one ("bad request") is really meant to signify a HTTP protocol error, it may cause side effects (never seen or heard of it happening, but potentially, it might cause an over-helpful attempt by some future browser or anti-hijacking software to start troubleshooting/diagnostics).
412 is another alternative that I've seen used ("precondition failed"), but it actually is meant to indicate that the server didn't live up to the preconditions the request set.
Or you could make up your own non-standard 4xx error - e.g. 461 - which is allowed (notice that twitter has a custom 420 status code, for example)
A more correct approach would be to continue to use 401 as the error code but not send the WWW-Authenticate header when the credentials have been sent but they were not correct.
That no longer triggers the browser's dialog and allows you to process 401 directly.