Asmx web service is called using Visual Studio generated code from MVC2 controller using code below.
Method call throws exception since web service certificate has expired. How to fix this so that web service can still used?
Using .NET 3.5 and MVC2.
public class AsmxController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
var cl = new store2.CommerceSoapClient();
// System.ServiceModel.Security.SecurityNegotiationException was unhandled by user code
//Message=Could not establish trust relationship for the SSL/TLS secure channel with authority 'asmxwebservice.com'.
var vl = cl.GetVendorList( AsmxService.LicenseHeader() ,
new AsmxService.GetVendorListRequest());
return View();
}
}
}
From James blog:
So, for testing, we needed to find a way to bypass the certificate
validation. It turns out that you need to provide a
RemoteCertificateValidationCallback delegate and attach it to
ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback. What’s not
clear is what happens if two threads are competing to set this
property to different values, since it’s a static property. Reflector
suggests that the property set method doesn’t do anything fancy, so
you could easily get into a race condition.
so, he does the following:
// allows for validation of SSL conversations
ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback += new RemoteCertificateValidationCallback(ValidateRemoteCertificate);
// callback used to validate the certificate in an SSL conversation
private static bool ValidateRemoteCertificate(
object sender, X509Certificate certificate, X509Chain chain, SslPolicyErrors policyErrors)
{
if (Convert.ToBoolean(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["IgnoreSslErrors"]))
{
// allow any old dodgy certificate...
return true;
}
else
{
return policyErrors == SslPolicyErrors.None;
}
}
Related
I am building an ASP.NET 5 (vNext) site that will host dynamic pages, static content, and a REST Web API. I have found examples of how to create middleware using the new ASP.NET way of doing things but I hit a snag.
I am trying write my own authentication middleware. I would like to create a custom attribute to attach to the controller actions (or whole controllers) that specifies that it requires authentication. Then during a request, in my middleware, I would like to cross reference the list of actions that require authentication with the action that applies to this current request. It is my understanding that I configure my middleware before the MVC middleware so that it is called first in the pipeline. I need to do this so the authentication is done before the request is handled by the MVC controller so that I can't prevent the controller from ever being called if necessary. But doesn't this also mean that the MVC router hasn't determined my route yet? It appears to me the determination of the route and the execution of that routes action happen at one step in the pipeline right?
If I want to be able to determine if a request matches a controller's action in a middleware pipeline step that happens before the request is handled by the controller, am I going to have to write my own url parser to figure that out? Is there some way to get at the routing data for the request before it is actually handled by the controller?
Edit: I'm beginning to think that the RouterMiddleware might be the answer I'm looking for. I'm assuming I can figure out how to have my router pick up the same routes that the standard MVC router is using (I use attribute routing) and have my router (really authenticator) mark the request as not handled when it succeeds authentication so that the default mvc router does the actual request handling. I really don't want to fully implement all of what the MVC middleware is doing. Working on trying to figure it out. RouterMiddleware kind of shows me what I need to do I think.
Edit 2: Here is a template for the middleware in ASP.NET 5
public class TokenAuthentication
{
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
public TokenAuthentication(RequestDelegate next)
{
_next = next;
}
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context)
{
//do stuff here
//let next thing in the pipeline go
await _next(context);
//do exit code
}
}
I ended up looking through the ASP.NET source code (because it is open source now!) and found that I could copy the UseMvc extension method from this class and swap out the default handler for my own.
public static class TokenAuthenticationExtensions
{
public static IApplicationBuilder UseTokenAuthentication(this IApplicationBuilder app, Action<IRouteBuilder> configureRoutes)
{
var routes = new RouteBuilder
{
DefaultHandler = new TokenRouteHandler(),
ServiceProvider = app.ApplicationServices
};
configureRoutes(routes);
routes.Routes.Insert(0, AttributeRouting.CreateAttributeMegaRoute(
routes.DefaultHandler,
app.ApplicationServices));
return app.UseRouter(routes.Build());
}
}
Then you create your own version of this class. In my case I don't actually want to invoke the actions. I will let the typical Mvc middleware do that. Since that is the case I gut all the related code and kept just what I needed to get the route data which is in actionDescriptor variable. I probably can remove the code dealing with backing up the route data since I dont think what I will be doing will affect the data, but I have kept it in the example. This is the skeleton of what I will start with based on the mvc route handler.
public class TokenRouteHandler : IRouter
{
private IActionSelector _actionSelector;
public VirtualPathData GetVirtualPath(VirtualPathContext context)
{
EnsureServices(context.Context);
context.IsBound = _actionSelector.HasValidAction(context);
return null;
}
public async Task RouteAsync(RouteContext context)
{
var services = context.HttpContext.RequestServices;
EnsureServices(context.HttpContext);
var actionDescriptor = await _actionSelector.SelectAsync(context);
if (actionDescriptor == null)
{
return;
}
var oldRouteData = context.RouteData;
var newRouteData = new RouteData(oldRouteData);
if (actionDescriptor.RouteValueDefaults != null)
{
foreach (var kvp in actionDescriptor.RouteValueDefaults)
{
if (!newRouteData.Values.ContainsKey(kvp.Key))
{
newRouteData.Values.Add(kvp.Key, kvp.Value);
}
}
}
try
{
context.RouteData = newRouteData;
//Authentication code will go here <-----------
var authenticated = true;
if (!authenticated)
{
context.IsHandled = true;
}
}
finally
{
if (!context.IsHandled)
{
context.RouteData = oldRouteData;
}
}
}
private void EnsureServices(HttpContext context)
{
if (_actionSelector == null)
{
_actionSelector = context.RequestServices.GetRequiredService<IActionSelector>();
}
}
}
And finally, in the Startup.cs file's Configure method at the end of the pipeline I have it setup so that I use the same routing setup (I use attribute routing) for the both my token authentication and mvc router.
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IHostingEnvironment env, ILoggerFactory loggerFactory)
{
//Other middleware delcartions here <----------------
Action<IRouteBuilder> routeBuilder = routes =>
{
routes.MapRoute(
name: "default",
template: "{controller=Home}/{action=Index}/{id?}");
};
app.UseTokenAuthentication(routeBuilder);
//Middleware after this point will be blocked if authentication fails by having the TokenRouteHandler setting context.IsHandled to true
app.UseMvc(routeBuilder);
}
Edit 1:
I should also note that at the moment I am not concerned about the extra time required to select the route twice which is what I think would happen here since both my middleware and the Mvc middleware will be doing that. If that becomes a performance problem then I will build the mvc and authentication in to one handler. That would be best idea performance-wise, but what I have shown here is the most modular approach I think.
Edit 2:
In the end to get the information I needed I had to cast the ActionDescriptor to a ControllerActionDescriptor. I am not sure what other types of actions you can have in ASP.NET but I am pretty sure all my action descriptors should be ControllerActionDescriptors. Maybe the old legacy Web Api stuff needs another type of ActionDescriptor.
My WCF Webservice provide all data manipulation operations and my ASP .Net Web application present the user interface.
I need to pass user information with many wcf methods from ASP .Net app to WCF app.
Which one in is better approach regarding passing user info from web app to web service?
1) Pass user information with SOAP header?
ASP .Net Application has to maintain the number of instances of WCF Webservice client as the number of user logged in with the web application. Suppose 4000 user are concurrently active, Web app has to maintain the 4000 instances of WCF webserice client.
Is it has any performance issue?
2) Pass user information with each method call as an additional parameter?
Every method has to add this addtional paramter to pas the user info which does not seems a elegant solution.
Please suggest.
regards,
Dharmendra
I believe it's better to pass some kind of user ID in a header of every message you send to your WCF service. It's pretty easy to do, and it's a good way to get info about user + authorize users on service-side if needed. And you don't need 4000 instances of webservice client for this.
You just need to create Behavior with Client Message Inspector on client side(and register it in your config). For example:
public class AuthClientMessageInspector: IClientMessageInspector
{
public void AfterReceiveReply(ref Message reply, object correlationState)
{
}
public object BeforeSendRequest(ref Message request, IClientChannel channel)
{
request.Headers.Add(MessageHeader.CreateHeader("User", "app", "John"));
return null;
}
}
public class ClientBehavior : IEndpointBehavior
{
public void AddBindingParameters(ServiceEndpoint endpoint, BindingParameterCollection bindingParameters)
{
}
public void ApplyClientBehavior(ServiceEndpoint endpoint, ClientRuntime clientRuntime)
{
foreach (var operation in endpoint.Contract.Operations)
{
operation.Behaviors.Find<DataContractSerializerOperationBehavior>().MaxItemsInObjectGraph = Int32.MaxValue;
}
var inspector = new AuthClientMessageInspector();
clientRuntime.MessageInspectors.Add(inspector);
}
public void ApplyDispatchBehavior(ServiceEndpoint endpoint, EndpointDispatcher endpointDispatcher)
{
}
public void Validate(ServiceEndpoint endpoint)
{
}
}
And extract it from your service-side:
var headers = OperationContext.Current.IncomingMessageHeaders;
var identity = headers.GetHeader<string>("User", "app");
I am inheriting from System.Web.Http.AuthorizeAttribute to create a custom authorization/authentication routine to meet some unusual requirements for a web application developed using ASP.NET MVC 4. This adds security to the Web API used for Ajax calls from the web client. The requirements are:
The user must logon each time they perform a transaction to verify
someone else has not walked up to the workstation after someone has
logged on and walked away.
Roles cannot be assigned to the web service methods at program time.
They must be assigned at run time so that an administrator can
configure this. This information is stored in the system database.
The web client is a single page application (SPA) so the typical forms authentication does not work so well, but I am trying reuse as much of the ASP.NET security framework as I can to meet the requirements. The customized AuthorizeAttribute works great for requirement 2 on determining what roles are associated with a web service method. I accept three parameters, application name, resource name and operation to determine which roles are associated with a method.
public class DoThisController : ApiController
{
[Authorize(Application = "MyApp", Resource = "DoThis", Operation = "read")]
public string GetData()
{
return "We did this.";
}
}
I override the OnAuthorization method to get the roles and authenticate the user. Since the user has to be authenticated for each transaction I reduce the back and forth chatter by performing authentication and authorization in the same step. I get the users credentials from the web client by using basic authentication which passes the encrypted credentials in the HTTP header. So my OnAuthorization method looks like this:
public override void OnAuthorization(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
string username;
string password;
if (GetUserNameAndPassword(actionContext, out username, out password))
{
if (Membership.ValidateUser(username, password))
{
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(username, false);
base.Roles = GetResourceOperationRoles();
}
else
{
FormsAuthentication.SignOut();
base.Roles = "";
}
}
else
{
FormsAuthentication.SignOut();
base.Roles = "";
}
base.OnAuthorization(actionContext);
}
GetUserNameAndPassword retrieves the credentials from the HTTP header. I then use the Membership.ValidateUser to validate the credentials. I have a custom membership provider and role provider plugged in to hit a custom database. If the user is authenticated I then retrieve the roles for the resource and operation. From there I use the base OnAuthorization to complete the authorization process. Here is where it breaks down.
If the user is authenticated I use the standard forms authentication methods to log the user in (FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie) and if they fail I log them out (FormsAuthentication.SignOut). But the problem seems to be that base OnAuthorization class does not have access to Principal that is updated so that IsAuthenticated is set to the correct value. It is always one step behind. And my guess is that it is using some cached value that does not get updated until there is a round trip to the web client.
So all of this leads up to my specific question which is, is there another way to set IsAuthenticated to the correct value for the current Principal without using cookies? It seems to me that cookies do not really apply in this specific scenario where I have to authenticate every time. The reason I know IsAuthenticated is not set to the correct value is I also override the HandleUnauthorizedRequest method to this:
protected override void HandleUnauthorizedRequest(HttpActionContext filterContext)
{
if (((System.Web.HttpContext.Current.User).Identity).IsAuthenticated)
{
filterContext.Response = new HttpResponseMessage(System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Forbidden);
}
else
{
base.HandleUnauthorizedRequest(filterContext);
}
}
This allows me to return a status code of Forbidden to the web client if the failure was because of authorization instead of authentication and it can respond accordingly.
So what is the proper way to set IsAuthenticated for the current Principle in this scenario?
The best solution for my scenario appears to be bypass the base OnAuthorization completely. Since I have to authenticate each time cookies and caching the principle are not of much use. So here is the solution I came up with:
public override void OnAuthorization(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
string username;
string password;
if (GetUserNameAndPassword(actionContext, out username, out password))
{
if (Membership.ValidateUser(username, password))
{
if (!isUserAuthorized(username))
actionContext.Response =
new HttpResponseMessage(System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Forbidden);
}
else
{
actionContext.Response =
new HttpResponseMessage(System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized);
}
}
else
{
actionContext.Response =
new HttpResponseMessage(System.Net.HttpStatusCode.BadRequest);
}
}
I developed my own method for validating the roles called isUserAuthorized and I am not using the base OnAuthorization any more since it checks the current Principle to see if it isAuthenticated. IsAuthenticated only allows gets so I am not sure how else to set it, and I do not seem to need the current Principle. Tested this out and it works fine.
Still interested if anyone has a better solution or can see any issues with this this one.
To add to the already accepted answer: Checking current sourcecode (aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com) for System.Web.Http.AuthorizeAttribute, it looks like the documentation is out of date. Base OnAuthorization() just calls/checks private static SkipAuthorization() (which just checks if AllowAnonymousAttribute is used in context to bypass the rest of the authentication check). Then, if not skipped, OnAuthorization() calls public IsAuthorized() and if that call fails, it then calls protected virtual HandleUnauthorizedRequest(). And that's all it does...
public override void OnAuthorization(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
if (actionContext == null)
{
throw Error.ArgumentNull("actionContext");
}
if (SkipAuthorization(actionContext))
{
return;
}
if (!IsAuthorized(actionContext))
{
HandleUnauthorizedRequest(actionContext);
}
}
Looking inside IsAuthorized(), that's where Principle is checked against roles and users. So, overriding IsAuthorized() with what you have above instead of OnAuthorization() would be the way to go. Then again, you'd still have to probably override either OnAuthorization() or HandleUnauthorizedRequest() anyway to decide when to return a 401 vs a 403 response.
To add to the absolutely correct answer by Kevin, I'd like to say that I may slightly modify it to leverage the existing .NET framework path for the response object to ensure downstream code in the framework (or other consumers) is not adversely affected by some weird idiosyncrasy that can't be predicted.
Specifically this means using this code:
actionContext.Response = actionContext.ControllerContext.Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized, REQUEST_NOT_AUTHORIZED);
rather than:
actionContext.Response = new HttpResponseMessage(System.Net.HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized);
Where REQUEST_NOT_AUTHORIZED is:
private const string REQUEST_NOT_AUTHORIZED = "Authorization has been denied for this request.";
I pulled that string from the SRResources.RequestNotAuthorized definition in the .NET framework.
Great answer Kevin! I implemented mine the very same way because executing OnAuthorization in the base class made no sense because I was verifying an HTTP Header that was custom to our application and didn't actually want to check the Principal at all because there wasn't one.
I'm using the SignalR Javascript client and ASP.NET ServiceHost. I need the SignalR hubs and callbacks to only be accessible to logged in users. I also need to be able to get the identity of the currently logged in user from the Hub using the FormsIdentity from HttpContext.Current.User.
How do I secure the hub's so that only authenticated users can use SignalR?
How do I get the identity of the currently logged in user from the Hub?
You should use the this.Context.User.Identity that is available from the Hub. See a related question
EDIT: To stop unauthenticated users:
public void ThisMethodRequiresAuthentication()
{
if(!this.Context.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
// possible send a message back to the client (and show the result to the user)
this.Clients.SendUnauthenticatedMessage("You don't have the correct permissions for this action.");
return;
}
// user is authenticated continue
}
EDIT #2:
This might be better, just return a message
public string ThisMethodRequiresAuthentication()
{
if(!this.Context.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
// possible send a message back to the client (and show the result to the user)
return "You don't have the correct permissions for this action.");
// EDIT: or throw the 403 exception (like in the answer from Jared Kells (+1 from me for his answer), which I actually like better than the string)
throw new HttpException(403, "Forbidden");
}
// user is authenticated continue
return "success";
}
You can lock down the SignalR URL's using the PostAuthenticateRequest event on your HttpApplication. Add the following to your Global.asax.cs
This will block requests that don't use "https" or aren't authenticated.
public override void Init()
{
PostAuthenticateRequest += OnPostAuthenticateRequest;
}
private void OnPostAuthenticateRequest(object sender, EventArgs eventArgs)
{
if (Context.Request.Path.StartsWith("/signalr", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
if(Context.Request.Url.Scheme != "https")
{
throw new HttpException(403, "Forbidden");
}
if (!Context.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
throw new HttpException(403, "Forbidden");
}
}
}
Inside your hub you can access the current user through the Context object.
Context.User.Identity.Name
For part 1. of your question you could use annotations like below (This worked with SignalR 1.1):
[Authorize]
public class MyHub : Hub
{
public void MarkFilled(int id)
{
Clients.All.Filled(id);
}
public void MarkUnFilled(int id)
{
Clients.All.UnFilled(id);
}
}
Something missing from the other answers is the ability to use SignalR's built in custom auth classes. The actual SignalR documentation on the topic is terrible, but I left a comment at the bottom of the page detailing how to actually do it (Authentication and Authorization for SignalR Hubs).
Basically you override the Provided SignalR AuthorizeAttribute class
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class, Inherited = false, AllowMultiple = false)]
public class CustomAuthAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
Then you decorate your hubs with [CustomAuth] above the class declaration. You can then override the following methods to handle auth:
bool AuthorizeHubConnection(HubDescriptor hubDesc, IRequest request);
bool AuthorizeHubMethodInvocation(IHubIncomingInvokerContext hubContext, bool appliesToMethod);
Since I'm on IIS servers and have a custom auth scheme, I simply return true from the AuthorizeHubConnection method, because in my Auth HttpModule I already authenicate the /signalr/connect and /signalr/reconnect calls and save user data in an HttpContext item. So the module handles authenticating on the initial SignalR connection call (a standard HTTP call that initiates the web socket connection).
To authorize calls on specific hub methods I check method names against permissions saved in the HttpContext (it is the same HttpContext saved from the initial connect request) and return true or false based on whether the user has permission to call a certain method.
In your case you might be able to actually use the AuthorizeHubConnection method and decorate your hub methods with specific roles, because it looks like you are using a standardized identity system, but if something isn't working right you can always revert to brute force with HttpModule (or OWIN) middle-ware and looking up context data in on subsequent websocket calls with AuthorizeHubMethodInvocation.
I am making our large set of web services available to AJAX calls. I have added the [System.Web.Script.Services.ScriptService] to each service. We have a registered HttpModule that initializes some objects we use regularly for logging and internationalization in the IHttpModule.Init override. It appears that the IHttpModule.Init is called when I make a SOAP request to any web method, but not when I make a JSON request to any web method. I've confirmed this by writing to a file when it's called.
Are HttpModules utilized when a .Net web service is called through the javascript proxy (AJAX)? If so, am I lacking some sort of configuration? Relevant code bits included below.
-colin-
Web.config:
<httpModules><add name="GlobalApplicationModule" type="Common.GlobalApplicationModule, Common"/></httpModules>
HTTPModules.cs:
class GlobalApplicationModule : IHttpModule
{
public void Dispose()
{
Internationalization.LanguageProvider.ReleaseAllResources();
}
public void Init(HttpApplication application)
{
// DEBUG: Confirm that this method is called
StreamWriter writer = new StreamWriter("c:\\deleteme-HTTP_module_test.txt");
writer.WriteLine("Init called.");
writer.Close();
// Initialize logger
Common.Logger.Initialize("LogAssemblyPath", "LogClassName");
Common.CentralConfiguration.CreateConfiguration(new Common.CentralizedStrategy());
// Initialize language provider
if (!Internationalization.LanguageProvider.Initialized)
{
try
{
string debug = System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["debugInternationalization"];
string languageAssemblyLocation = System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["LanguageAssemblyLocation"];
string languageAssemblyBaseName = System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["LanguageAssemblyBaseName"];
languageAssemblyLocation = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Server.MapPath(languageAssemblyLocation);
Internationalization.LanguageProvider.Init(languageAssemblyLocation, languageAssemblyBaseName, false);
if (debug != null && bool.Parse(debug))
{
Internationalization.LanguageProvider.PrefixText = "*";
}
}
catch (Exception x)
{
Common.Logger.Instance.LogError("Could not intialize assembly language provider. Error: " + x.Message);
}
}
}
}
That's a very odd debug logging method... Your problem is most likely due to your IIS configuration. It sounds like IIS is not handing off the request to ASP.NET at all. Check your mappings.