Which of the http request headers are required for a client to get the correct response from server?
Does it depend on server back-end?
I've come up with situations in which setting all request headers(just like browser does) gave me improper responses and i had to cross some out.
If all request headers are required, does it mean http helper libraries in programming languages set some default values? If not, is there a better solution than error-and-trail?
Related
I'm trying to determine what a client should do with headers on receiving a 303 (See Other) from the server. Specifically, what should be done with the Authorization header that was sent on the initial request?
Here's the problem: the client makes a request to myserver.com (HTTP request method is not relevant here) and the server at myserver.com responds with a 303 and the Location header contains otherserver.com/some_resource/. Tools like Postman and curl will follow the redirect by passing all the same headers in the subsequent request to otherserver.com. I haven't found a way to make these tools drop the headers.
In the case I've described, sending the Authorization header to otherserver.com seems like a security risk: otherserver.com now knows my token and possibly what host it can be used on so now the token is compromised. This can also cause errors, depending on how the destination host is configured. In the case where the redirect is to another resources on the same host (ie, myserver.com) then the Authorization header will (probably) need to be sent, and because it's the same host nothing is compromised.
Effectively, in different situations it seems that the correct behaviour is different. The relevant section in the RFC does not address this issue. In developing my own API, I've written documentation telling API clients to drop the Authorization header on redirect to otherserver.com. However, based on mucking around with curl and Postman, it's not clear to me either (a) what the default behaviour is for a typical HTTP client library or (b) whether HTTP client libraries permit easy modification of the HTTP headers before following a 303 redirect. As a result, it's possible my suggestion isn't practical. I also know of no way for the server to instruct the client as to what it should do with headers on following the 303 redirect.
What should a HTTP client do with the headers when it follows a 303 redirect? Who is responsible for deciding whether to use the same headers on the redirect, the HTTP client or server?
You can argue that when sending the 303 with otherserver.com's Location, myserver.com trusted otherserver.com to handle your token. It could have sent the token in the background as well. From the client's perspective, the client trusts myserver.com to handle the token, store and verify it securely, etc. If myserver.com decides to send it on to otherserver.com, should the client override? In this case it can of course, but in general I don't think it should.
As an attacker does not control the response headers from myserver.com which is a legit resource, I think in general it is secure to send the token by default to the other server it specifies, maybe unless you have some good reason not to (say an explicit policy on the client).
I'm trying to retrieve 3 response headers (Rails Devise Auth Headers: uid, client, access-token) in every request to a Rails Server.
Using Postman (http client) it's working.
With OkHttp (java http client) the headers just don't show up in the client (i've checked using Wireshark).
When i'm in debug mode it just work...
The additional headers with postman are due to postman sending an Origin header and the server is replying with CORS headers, i.e. Access-Control-.... These headers are send within the normal HTTP header, i.e. not after the response.
But these access control headers are only relevant when the access is done from a browser because they control the cross origin behavior of XHR. Since you are not inside a browser they should be irrelevant for what you are doing. What is relevant are the body of the response and some of the other headers and here you'll find no differences. Also irrelevant should be if multiple requests are send within the same TCP connection (HTTP keep-alive done by postman) or with multiple connections (OkHttp) because each request is independent from the other and using the same TCP connection is only a performance optimization.
If you really want to get these special headers you should add an Origin header within you OkHttp request. See the OkHttp examples on how to add your own headers. But like I said: these access control headers should be irrelevant for the real task and there should be no need to get to these headers.
There is a property "config.batch_request_buffer_throttle" in the file "config/initializers/devise_token_auth.rb" of the Rails Project. We changed it from 5 seconds to 0 seconds.
It is a property to keep the current token available for that amount of time to the following requests.
As the original documentation: "Sometimes it's necessary to make several requests to the API at the same time. In this case, each request in the batch will need to share the same auth token. This setting determines how far apart the requests can be while still using the same auth token."
So when we did the request using Postman or in Java Debug the 5 seconds was running allowing Devise to generate new tokens then retrieve them to the client.
I cannot find any RFC or Standard of HTTP client behavior in case it gets HTTP response with an error 4xx. I know the 401, 407 are the examples when the HTTP headers are parsed, but...
I have the concrete problem for OPTIONS method (HTTP1.1). The server responses 401 Unauthorized, so client tries to authenticate and re-sends the request with an authentication. After that the response has the error 404 Not Found and HTTP header is filled with Set-Cookie HTTP Header. The client use Apache Java HTTPClient/HTTPComponents, which ignores HTTP headers in case of an error in the response.
Should this HTTP Header be accepted by the client? I believe it should not be, but I cannot find the supportive quotation in the RFC.
RFC 2616 does not specify that any headers should be ignored, not for 404 responses and not for 4xx responses in general either.
RFC 6265 allows clients to ignore Set-Cookie headers, but does not specify situations where that might happen; a single example is given, that does not cover your case:
the user agent might wish to block responses to "third-party" requests
from setting cookies
In your case, since your server seems to use HTTP basic access authentication, it does not seem to concern the Set-Cookie header. In HTTP basic authentication, the Authorization header is sent by the client with every request, so there should be no need to keep state in a cookie.
It is not clear from your question if you have a very specific HTTP server that you're talking to, or if you are implementing a general HTTP client that is supposed to work with whatever server you throw it at. If you have such a specific case that the HTTP server you work with sends state with 404 responses, and you're required to honor that state in order to communicate with the server, and you have no control over the server, then it does not matter what the standard says; you will honor the state sent, or you will not be able to talk to the server.
If, on the other hand, you're implementing a general client and need it to work regardless of the remote server, then your best bet is to stick to RFC 1958:
Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving.
Implementations must follow specifications precisely when sending to
the network, and tolerate faulty input from the network. When in
doubt, discard faulty input silently, without returning an error
message unless this is required by the specification.
Which, to me, would mean that you should honor the full response received, regardless of the status code, unless you have an objective reason making it impossible for you to do so. I don't see a reason to ignore the state, even if it violates the standard (or in this case, your personal perception of the standard, since it does not say anything about accepting or ignoring the state).
Update: RFC 2617 (HTTP Authentication) states:
A client SHOULD assume that all paths at or deeper than the depth of
the last symbolic element in the path field of the Request-URI also
are within the protection space specified by the Basic realm value of
the current challenge. A client MAY preemptively send the
corresponding Authorization header with requests for resources in
that space without receipt of another challenge from the server.
It is highly inconsistent if the server expects HTTP authentication for one URL, but does not honor it for URLs beneath it, requiring a separate cookie-based authentication for them. If anything should be changed in your server implementation, it should be to harmonize the authentication scheme for all resources.
I need to authenticate a client when he sends a request to an API. The client has an API-token and I was thinking about using the standard Authorization header for sending the token to the server.
Normally this header is used for Basic and Digest authentication. But I don't know if I'm allowed to customize the value of this header and use a custom authentication scheme, e.g:
Authorization: Token 1af538baa9045a84c0e889f672baf83ff24
Would you recommend this or not? Or is there a better approach for sending the token?
You can create your own custom auth schemas that use the Authorization: header - for example, this is how OAuth works.
As a general rule, if servers or proxies don't understand the values of standard headers, they will leave them alone and ignore them. It is creating your own header keys that can often produce unexpected results - many proxies will strip headers with names they don't recognise.
Having said that, it is possibly a better idea to use cookies to transmit the token, rather than the Authorization: header, for the simple reason that cookies were explicitly designed to carry custom values, whereas the specification for HTTP's built in auth methods does not really say either way - if you want to see exactly what it does say, have a look here.
The other point about this is that many HTTP client libraries have built-in support for Digest and Basic auth but may make life more difficult when trying to set a raw value in the header field, whereas they will all provide easy support for cookies and will allow more or less any value within them.
In the case of CROSS ORIGIN request read this:
I faced this situation and at first I chose to use the Authorization Header and later removed it after facing the following issue.
Authorization Header is considered a custom header. So if a cross-domain request is made with the Autorization Header set, the browser first sends a preflight request. A preflight request is an HTTP request by the OPTIONS method, this request strips all the parameters from the request. Your server needs to respond with Access-Control-Allow-Headers Header having the value of your custom header (Authorization header).
So for each request the client (browser) sends, an additional HTTP request(OPTIONS) was being sent by the browser. This deteriorated the performance of my API.
You should check if adding this degrades your performance. As a workaround I am sending tokens in http parameters, which I know is not the best way of doing it but I couldn't compromise with the performance.
This is a bit dated but there may be others looking for answers to the same question. You should think about what protection spaces make sense for your APIs. For example, you may want to identify and authenticate client application access to your APIs to restrict their use to known, registered client applications. In this case, you can use the Basic authentication scheme with the client identifier as the user-id and client shared secret as the password. You don't need proprietary authentication schemes just clearly identify the one(s) to be used by clients for each protection space. I prefer only one for each protection space but the HTTP standards allow both multiple authentication schemes on each WWW-Authenticate header response and multiple WWW-Authenticate headers in each response; this will be confusing for API clients which options to use. Be consistent and clear then your APIs will be used.
I would recommend not to use HTTP authentication with custom scheme names. If you feel that you have something of generic use, you can define a new scheme, though. See http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-latest.html#rfc.section.2.3 for details.
Kindly try below on postman :-
In header section example work for me..
Authorization : JWT eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.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.BkyB0LjKB4FIsCtnM5FcpcBLvKed_j7rCCxZddwiYnU
In how many ways can an HTTP request be generated?
There are endless ways how you can create and from where you can send HTTP requests to a server. Actually your server has no idea, what the origin of such a request is (if it's AJAX or "regular" request, or sent from a console application or ...)
But there are HTTP methods (HTTP verbs) that (can) tell the server about the intent of the request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Verbs#Request_methods
Also you can set headers in a request, for example the content-type or the accepted encoding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_header_fields
Most JavaScript libraries for example set the (non-standard) HTTP header X-Requested-With, so your application can differentiate between regular and ajax requests.
You see, it's even possible to set your own, non-standard headers. There are endless possible combinations...
HttpRequest is a C# class that wraps a petition sent by a client during a Web request.
There are many ways to generate it. The most usual one happens when your browser connects to an ASP.NET website.
You can, for example, create your own custom HttpRequest to petition a specific web page from a C# console application.
Are you trying to achieve something more specific?