My manager and the company I work for currently use a program called Crucible and Fish Eye to generate graphs and show data for code commits, code coverage, repository data etc.
My manager would like me to come up with some way of querying the database (the database that I only have access to through crucible). He suggested that I use a program called Fiddler to generate an HTTP Request in order to GET, POST, and PUT data.
I have attempted to do this but I am not able to get data, because I do not know how to login to crucible FROM Fiddler.
Do you know if there's an authentication that I can set from Fiddler to supply the username and password to my Crucible account, or is there a different way around this?
The easy way is to use Postman instead of Fiddler. It helps you with different types of authentication schemes.
If your webservice supports basic authentication then you can add the authentication header manually or automatically as follows. Assume your username is "foo" and your password is "bar". Combine them as in "foo:bar" and encode them base64 to "Zm9vOmJhcg==" (https://www.base64encode.org/).
Now go to the Composer in Fiddler and add the following header:
Authorization: Basic Zm9vOmJhcg==
That should do it. You can also do this automatically with FiddlerScript.
Related
I'm creating a headless API that's going to drive an Angular front end. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how I should handle user authentication though.
Obviously the API should run over SSL, but the question that's coming up is how should I send the request that contains the user's password: over GET or POST. It's a RESTFUL API, so what I'm doing is retrieving information meaning it should get a GET request. But sending the password over get means it's part of the URI, right? I know even a GET request is encrypted over HTTPS, but is that still the correct way? Or is this a case to break from RESTFUL and have the data in the body or something (can a GET request have data in the body?).
If you pass the credentials in a request header, you will be fine with either a GET or POST request. You have the option of using the established Authorization header with your choice of authentication scheme, or you can create custom headers that are specific to your API.
When using header fields as a means of communicating credentials, you do not need to fear the credentials being written to the access log as headers are not included in that log. Using header fields also conforms to REST standards, and should actually be utilized to communicate any meta-data relevant to the resource request/response. Such meta-data can include, but is not limited to, information like: collection size, pagination details, or locations of related resources.
In summary, always use header fields as a means of authentication/authorization.
mostly GET request will bind data in URL itself... so it is more redable than POST..
so if it is GET, there is a possibility to alive HISTORY LOG
Using ?user=myUsername&pass=MyPasswort is exactly like using a GET based form and, while the Referer issue can be contained, the problems regarding logs and history remain.
Sending any kind of sensitive data over GET is dangerous, even if it is HTTPS. These data might end up in log files at the server and will be included in the Referer header in links to or includes from other sides. They will also be saved in the history of the browser so an attacker might try to guess and verify the original contents of the link with an attack against the history.
You could send a data body with a get request too but this isn't supported by all libraries I guess.
Better to use POST or request headers. Look at other APIs and how they are handling it.
But you could still use GET with basic authentication like here: http://restcookbook.com/Basics/loggingin/
I am trying to use Dropwizard as a full web server, combining serving public pages, protected pages and data through REST API. So, I am validating the ability to protect some routes by applying a custom authorization scheme based on a computed token and a realm to manage different security areas.
I have difficulties to understand how to achieve the purpose. The sequence I was expecting is the following :
display an HTML login page with a user form
user enters its credentials
call an authenticate route to validate credentials and create a token for the user. Send back a welcome page with an Authorization header like : MyScheme token="TYGDF655HD88D098D0970CUCHD987D897", realm="SUPER SECRET STUFF"
user click a link to list its invoice : /html/invoices
this route is protected by DropWizard #Auth annotation
no header is sent by the browser so the server answer with a 401 response with a header : WWW-Authenticate MyScheme realm="SUPER SECRET STUFF", challenging the browser to give it an authorization header matching the challenge
Unfortunatly, the browser didn't send it this header. According to many articles, I thought browser managed authorization cache for all received credentials, their scheme and parameters (such as realm).
It seems browser have this behavior for well known schemes such as Basic authentication, but not for custom scheme (by the way, it's usually an issue for basic auth since browser can't "logout" a user since he does not erase the web history or close the browser).
How do you think it's possible to tell a browser to cache authorization credentials and to add them each time a server request is challenging it with the right scheme / realm ?
I could display here all the example codes I use to make this example run.
A reference (good to read) : RFC1945 at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1945#section-11
Thank you for your help.
Running dropWizard 0.9.2 on Jdk Oracle 1.8 / Debian 8.
Browser doesn't manage authorization. It never does, or at least never should.
Server should always keep its cache, and verify input from the browser.
At a basic level, all of the fields you need, are part of the HTTP Header. If you inject the request, you'll have access to them.
If dropwizard doesn't have things you need, you can always ignore everything, and simply read the request headers and do the custom processing you need.
For instance, add a Filter which sets the realm, something like WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="myrealm:"
Authorization: MyScheme Ceasar-cipher-password. You'll need to parse it and process it yourself, perhaps set up an incoming Filter on all requests, or selective requests.
Is it a good idea, I'll let you be the judge. Perhaps, in your use case it makes sense.
If you have a look at the source code and how the BasicCredentials are used, perhaps, it can provide insight in a potential solution you may adapt yourself.
Hope it helps.
I'm building an app with Phonegap. It simply reads xml feeds to display latest articles uploaded by a school for parents to read.
There will be an option where each user of the app can decide whether they want to receive Push Notifications or not. I have a simple database table where the device's registration i.d. from Google Cloud Console is stored. When the user clicks "yes", the registration i.d. is generated and stored on the server. If they then click "no", it's deleted. I want to secure these call to the server with basic HTTP authentification.
Any documentation I have seen on basic authentification describes the sending of username and passwords. But with my application, there is no username or password as the users do not need to sign up. What do I send to authenticate the client? Would there be a key hard-coded on the client side and sent with each request? Couln't this be easily exposed by unpacking the .apk?
I object to the premise of the question. I actually see this as less a security issue and more a preferences issue. Understanding the distinction makes the development of your feature much easier.
Simply modify your application to allow the user to configure what he or she wants to see in the settings and then store the preferences wherever you want on the client (like local storage). The server can then push as before, but the app should simply refuse to render those pushes that the user doesn't want to see.
If you want to simply disseminate non-sensitive content to the users who want to see it, this is a preferences issue and/or a publish/subscribe issue. But it is not a security issue.
Since you have access to server side, you have the control of the whole process. So, in order to handle that, you may think about something like session cookies that a web server creates in case of normal authentication.
I have done something similar and what I've done is to generate a kind of token server side that is stored in the cookies of the device or the localStorage.
So the process flow should be something like this :
Generate a token and store it on the device (cookies or local storage).
For each request, send this value in a http header
From server side, you may identify the user from that token.
For example : you maintain a table that identifies device/token.
That's it
In addition to what the other answers said you can pass a custom useragent string as part of the requests, and validate it matches what you expect. It's not a sure way to 'secure' requests, but along with a (simple) token system and HTTPS this could be enough for your needs.
What options are available for authentication of an MVC3 Web API application that is to be consumed by a JQuery app from another domain?
Here are the constraints/things I've tried so far:-
I don't want to use OAuth; for private apps with limited user bases I cannot expect end users to have their accounts on an existing provider and there is no scope to implement my own
I've had a fully functioning HMAC-SHA256 implemention working just fine using data passed in headers; but this doesn't work in IE because CORS in IE8/9 is broken and doesn't allow you to send headers
I require cross-domain as the consuming app is on a different domain to the API, but can't use jsonp becuase it doesn't allow you to use headers
I'd like to avoid a token (only) based approach, as this is open to replay and violates REST by being stateful
At this point I'm resigned to a HMAC-SHA256 approach that uses either the URL or querystring/post to supply the hash and other variables.
Putting these variables in the URL just seems dirty, and putting them in the querystring/post is a pain.
I was succesfully using the JQuery $.ajaxSetup beforeSend option to generate the hash and attach it to the headers, but as I mentioned you can't use headers with IE8/9.
Now I've had to resort to $.ajaxPrefilter because I can't change the ajax data in beforeSend, and can't just extend data in $.ajaxSetup because I need to dynamically calculate values for the hash based on the type of ajax query.
$.ajaxPrefilter is also an issue because there is no clean/simple way to add the required variables in such a way that is method agnostic... i.e. it has to be querystring for GET and formdata for POST
I must be missing something because I just cannot find a solution that:-
a) supports cross-domain
a) not a massive hack on both the MVC and JQuery sides
c) actually secure
d) works with IE8/9
There has to be someone out there doing this properly...
EDIT
To clarify, the authentication mechanism on the API side is fine... no matter which way I validate the request I generate a GenericPrincipal and use that in the API (the merits of this are for another post, but it does allow me to use the standard authorization mechanisms in MVC, which I prefer to rolling my own... less for other developers on my API to learn and maintain)
The problem lies primarly in the transfer of authentication information from the client to the API:-
- It can't rely on server/API state. So I can't pass username/password in one call, get a token back and then keep using that token (open to replay attack)
- Anything that requires use of request headers is out, because IE uses XDR instead of XHR like the rest of the browsers, and it doesn't support custom headers (I know IE10 supports XHR, but realistically I need IE8+ support)
- I think I'm stuck generating a HMAC and passing it in the URL somewhere (path or querystring) but this seems like a hack because I'm using parts of the request not designed for this
- If I use the path there is a lot of messy parsing because at a minimum I have to pass a username, timestamp and hash with each request; these need to be delimited somehow and I have little control over delimiters being used in the rest of the url
- If I use data (querystring/formdata) I need to change the place I'm sending my authentication details depending on the method I'm using (formdata for POST/PUT/etc and querystring for GET), and I'm also polution the application layer data space with these vars
As bad as it is, the querystring/formdata seems the best option; however now I have to work out how to capture these on each request. I can use a MessageHandler or Filter, but neither provide a convienient way to access the formdata.
I know I could just write all the parsing and handling stuff myself (and it looks like I will) but the point is I can't believe that there isn't a solution to this already. It's like I have (1) support for IE, (2) secure and (3) clean code, and I can only pick two.
Your requirements seem a little bit unjustified to me. You can't ever have everything at the same time, you have to be willing to give something up. A couple of remarks:
OAuth seems to be what you want here, at least with some modifications. You can use Azure's Access Control Service so that you don't have to implement your own token provider. That way, you have "outsourced" the implementation of a secure token provider. Last I checked Azure ACS was still free. There is a lot of clutter when you look for ACS documentation because people mostly use it to plug into another provider like Facebook or Google, but you can tweak it to just be a token provider for your own services.
You seem to worry a lot about replay attacks. Replay attacks almost always are a possibility. I have to just listen to the data passing the wire and send it to your server, even over SSL. Replay attacks are something you need to deal with regardless. Typically what I do is to track a cache of coming requests and add the hash signature to my cache. If I see another request with the same hash within 5 minutes, I ignore it. For this to work, I add the timestamp (millisecond granularity) of the request and some derivative of the URL as my hash parameters. This allows one operation per millisecond to the same address from the same client without the request being marked as replay attack.
You mentioned jQuery which puzzles me a bit if you are using the hashing method. That would mean you actually have your hash algorithm and your signature logic on the client. That's a serious flaw because by just inspecting javascript, I can now know exactly how to sign a request and send it to your server.
Simply said; there is not much special in ASP.NET WebAPI when it comes to authentication.
What I can say is that if you are hosting it inside ASP.NET you'll get support by ASP.NET for the authentication and authorization. In case you have chosen for self-hosting, you will have the option to enable WCF Binding Security options.
When you host your WebAPI in ASP.NET, you will have several authentication options:
Basic Authentication
Forms Authentication - e.g. from any ASP.Net project you can enable Authentication_JSON_AppService.axd in order to the forms authentication
Windows Authentication - HttpClient/WebHttpRequest/WebClient
Or explicitly allow anonymous access to a method of your WebAPI
I've spent the better part of today trying to get this working, and still haven't been successful. I have a simple case - I'd just like to send one GET request to my web-service. But no matter what I do, I can't get it to authenticate. I've tried all kinds of combinations of Authorization Manager, Cookie Manager, Header Manager... To no avail.
I've boiled it down this simplest test:
Thread Group
---->HTTP Authorization Manager
---->HTTP Request
---->View Results Tree
What could I possibly be missing?? I've tried several URLs for the Authorization Manager, and currently have it set to https://[domain]:[port].
I've filled in Username and Password, and that's it.
To enable pre-emptive authentication, use HTTPClient 3.1 implementation of http request.
Then change the files below to add:
jmeter.properties:
httpclient.parameters.file=httpclient.parameters
httpclient.parameters:
http.authentication.preemptive$Boolean=true