If I make an HTTP request to get index.html on http://www.example.com but that URL has a 302 re-direct in place that points to http://www.foo.com/index.html, what happens if the redirect target (http://www.foo.com/index.html) isn't available? Will the user agent try the original URL (http://www.example.com/index.html) or just return an error?
Background to the question: I manage a legacy site that supports a few existing customers but doesn't allow new signs ups. Pretty much all the pages are redirected (using 302s rather than 301s for some unknown reason...) to a newer site. This includes the sign up page. On one of the pages that isn't redirected there is still a link to the sign up page which itself links through to a third party payment page (i.e. on another domain). Last week our current site went down for a couple of hours and in that period someone successfully signed up through the old site. The only way I can imagine this happened is that if a 302 doesn't find its intended URL some (all?) user agents bypass the redirect and then go to originally requested URL.
By the way, I'm aware there are many better ways to handle the particular situation we're in with the two sites. We're on it! This is just one of those weird situations I want to get to the bottom of.
You should receive a 404 Not Found status code.
Since HTTP is a stateless protocol, there is no real connection between two requests of a user agent. The redirection status codes are just a way for servers to politely tell their clients that the resource they were looking for is somewhere else now. The clients, however, are in no way obliged to actually request the resource from that other URL.
Oh, the signup page is at that URL now? Well then I don't want it anymore... I'll go and look at some kittens instead.
Moreover, even if the client decides to do request the new URL (which it usually does ^^), this can be considered as a completely new communication between server and client. Neither server nor client should remember that there was a previous request which resulted in a redirection status code. Instead, the current request should be treated as if it was the first (and only) request. And what happens when you request a URL that cannot be found? You get a 404 Not Found status code.
is there a way from a asp.net-page code behind with "Request.Redirect()" or another method to redirect to the last page (like Javascript history back)?
You can check the Request.UrlReferrer property, which will be set if the user has navigated to the given page from another one. This is nothing more than the HTTP Referrer header that a browser will set. This will be null if the user navigates to your page directly.
HTTP is stateless, so theres no way of being able to read the browsers history (on the server) in the same way that Javascript can (its client side).
However there are a couple of tricks you can use:
Javascript could write the URL into a textbox which gets submitted to the server
The last URL visited could be stored in session - which can be retreived on a later visit
If using the URL in session method, you'll probably want to code this into a HTTP handler (not module) and this will fire automatically on every request.
Obviously these will only work if the user has previously visited a page, and not directly.
Is there a way to force a non-secure form post to be secure? I understand there are ways to automatically resolve an http URL as an https URL but with form posts, is this type of redirection too late? Will the posted data have already gone through the wire as plain text?
Is there a way to force a non-secure form post to be secure?
Technically, no. You can however make the form's action attribute a fully-qualified HTTPS site, regardless if the protocol that rendered it is secured or not.
Will the posted data have already gone through the wire as plain text?
Yes since a redirect happens on the server by issuing a 301/302 status code in the response.
Generally speaking, the page that serves up the form should be https as well. If it is not, then users have no indication before they submit the form that it will be secure (that is, there'll be no 'lock' icon until after they submit). Also, an attacker could hijack the initial page and still collect responses without any warning to the users.
By setting the 'action' to a full-qualified https URL then the data will be encrypted when it goes to the server, but it is still less secure than doing the whole thing in https from the start.
Here are a few things that come to mind:
As has already been noted, you can just set the URL of the form's action to an HTTPS address.
Change the protocol from HTTP to HTTPS before the page is posted. This would seem to be the most ideal. It also gives your visitors greater sense of security by seeing the secured padlock before entering any info (if this even matters). Three ways to do this come to mind:
Change all links to your form page to be in HTTPS.
Detect when the page is browsed non-securely, and redirect (using client-side scripting)
Do the same thing but on the server, by sending a Location header (a.k.a. Response.Redirect).
An example of this in javascript is simple enough:
if ('https:' != window.location.protocol) {
// This assumes your secured domain is the same as the currently-browsed one...
window.location = String(window.location).replace(/^http:\/\//, 'https://');
}
Good luck!
At http://localhost/tmp/ I have a form that asks for the user and password (authentication).
After the user posts (hits OK) I want to redirect the user to http://localhost/test/ which uses Apache's Basic AuthType. Happens that the user and password just typed in the form are exactly the credentials to authenticate at http://localhost/test/
What I want is the solution so that the user is not asked for the password in the second address. So far I was able to pass the 'Authorization: Basic "base64_encoded user and password"' with CURL (using GET), and get the response I want (contents of test/index.html, for example). However, that's curl getting the info instead of my browser redirecting there with preauthorization. That is, if I type http://localhost/test/ in the address bar it asks for the password again. Any ideas? Any clarification needed?
The problem is that the authorization state is maintained in the browser, and there's no real way to tell the browser it's authorized.
Most systems rely on a Cookie system, but BASIC/DIGEST HTTP AUTH are HTTP headers. So, only the browser can set those.
I should say, for normal every day requests -- you might (I'm not sure) be able to set the headers in an XHR.
Could you simply set the form submit location to the redirect destionation http://localhost/test/ and take care fo the authentication here?
As an aside, Fiddler is a great tool for debugging this sort of thing
Will's answer points you in the right direction.
In IE at least, it works to send an XHR request (to some throwaway page) with the Username/Password parameters (in the Open() call) set. Doing that will cache this username and password internally for the browser session, and so when you subsequently visit other pages on the server, the authentication SHOULD automatically happen for those pages.
I can't say if this trick works in other browsers or not.
What is difference between Server.Transfer and Response.Redirect?
What are advantages and disadvantages of each?
When is one appropriate over the other?
When is one not appropriate?
Response.Redirect simply sends a message (HTTP 302) down to the browser.
Server.Transfer happens without the browser knowing anything, the browser request a page, but the server returns the content of another.
Response.Redirect() will send you to a new page, update the address bar and add it to the Browser History. On your browser you can click back.
Server.Transfer() does not change the address bar. You cannot hit back.
I use Server.Transfer() when I don't want the user to see where I am going. Sometimes on a "loading" type page.
Otherwise I'll always use Response.Redirect().
To be Short: Response.Redirect simply tells the browser to visit another page. Server.Transfer helps reduce server requests, keeps the URL the same and, with a little bug-bashing, allows you to transfer the query string and form variables.
Something I found and agree with (source):
Server.Transfer is similar in that it sends the user to another page
with a statement such as Server.Transfer("WebForm2.aspx"). However,
the statement has a number of distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Firstly, transferring to another page using Server.Transfer
conserves server resources. Instead of telling the browser to
redirect, it simply changes the "focus" on the Web server and
transfers the request. This means you don't get quite as many HTTP
requests coming through, which therefore eases the pressure on your
Web server and makes your applications run faster.
But watch out: because the "transfer" process can work on only those
sites running on the server; you can't use Server.Transfer to send
the user to an external site. Only Response.Redirect can do that.
Secondly, Server.Transfer maintains the original URL in the browser.
This can really help streamline data entry techniques, although it may
make for confusion when debugging.
That's not all: The Server.Transfer method also has a second
parameter—"preserveForm". If you set this to True, using a statement
such as Server.Transfer("WebForm2.aspx", True), the existing query
string and any form variables will still be available to the page you
are transferring to.
For example, if your WebForm1.aspx has a TextBox control called
TextBox1 and you transferred to WebForm2.aspx with the preserveForm
parameter set to True, you'd be able to retrieve the value of the
original page TextBox control by referencing
Request.Form("TextBox1").
Response.Redirect() should be used when:
we want to redirect the request to some plain HTML pages on our server or to some other web server
we don't care about causing additional roundtrips to the server on each request
we do not need to preserve Query String and Form Variables from the original request
we want our users to be able to see the new redirected URL where he is redirected in his browser (and be able to bookmark it if its necessary)
Server.Transfer() should be used when:
we want to transfer current page request to another .aspx page on the same server
we want to preserve server resources and avoid the unnecessary roundtrips to the server
we want to preserve Query String and Form Variables (optionally)
we don't need to show the real URL where we redirected the request in the users Web Browser
Response.Redirect redirects page to another page after first page arrives to client. So client knows the redirection.
Server.Transfer quits current execution of the page. Client does not know the redirection. It allows you to transfer the query string and form variables.
So it depends to your needs to choose which is better.
"response.redirect" and "server.transfer" helps to transfer user from one page to other page while the page is executing. But the way they do this transfer / redirect is very different.
In case you are visual guy and would like see demonstration rather than theory I would suggest to see the below facebook video which explains the difference in a more demonstrative way.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=762186150488997
The main difference between them is who does the transfer. In "response.redirect" the transfer is done by the browser while in "server.transfer" it’s done by the server. Let us try to understand this statement in a more detail manner.
In "Server.Transfer" following is the sequence of how transfer happens:-
1.User sends a request to an ASP.NET page. In the below figure the request is sent to "WebForm1" and we would like to navigate to "Webform2".
2.Server starts executing "Webform1" and the life cycle of the page starts. But before the complete life cycle of the page is completed “Server.transfer” happens to "WebForm2".
3."Webform2" page object is created, full page life cycle is executed and output HTML response is then sent to the browser.
While in "Response.Redirect" following is the sequence of events for navigation:-
1.Client (browser) sends a request to a page. In the below figure the request is sent to "WebForm1" and we would like to navigate to "Webform2".
2.Life cycle of "Webform1" starts executing. But in between of the life cycle "Response.Redirect" happens.
3.Now rather than server doing a redirect , he sends a HTTP 302 command to the browser. This command tells the browser that he has to initiate a GET request to "Webform2.aspx" page.
4.Browser interprets the 302 command and sends a GET request for "Webform2.aspx".
In other words "Server.Transfer" is executed by the server while "Response.Redirect" is executed by thr browser. "Response.Redirect" needs to two requests to do a redirect of the page.
So when to use "Server.Transfer" and when to use "Response.Redirect" ?
Use "Server.Transfer" when you want to navigate pages which reside on the same server, use "Response.Redirect" when you want to navigate between pages which resides on different server and domain.
Below is a summary table of which chalks out differences and in which scenario to use.
The beauty of Server.Transfer is what you can do with it:
TextBox myTxt = (TextBox)this.Page.PreviousPage.FindControl("TextBoxID");
You can get anything from your previous page using the above method as long as you use Server.Transfer but not Response.Redirect
In addition to ScarletGarden's comment, you also need to consider the impact of search engines and your redirect. Has this page moved permanently? Temporarily? It makes a difference.
see: Response.Redirect vs. "301 Moved Permanently":
We've all used Response.Redirect at
one time or another. It's the quick
and easy way to get visitors pointed
in the right direction if they somehow
end up in the wrong place. But did you
know that Response.Redirect sends an
HTTP response status code of "302
Found" when you might really want to
send "301 Moved Permanently"?
The distinction seems small, but in
certain cases it can actually make a
big difference. For example, if you
use a "301 Moved Permanently" response
code, most search engines will remove
the outdated link from their index and
replace it with the new one. If you
use "302 Found", they'll continue
returning to the old page...
There are many differences as specified above. Apart from above all, there is one more difference. Response.Redirect() can be used to redirect user to any page which is not part of the application but Server.Transfer() can only be used to redirect user within the application.
//This will work.
Response.Redirect("http://www.google.com");
//This will not work.
Server.Transfer("http://www.google.com");
Transfer is entirely server-side. Client address bar stays constant. Some complexity about the transfer of context between requests. Flushing and restarting page handlers can be expensive so do your transfer early in the pipeline e.g. in an HttpModule during BeginRequest. Read the MSDN docs carefully, and test and understand the new values of HttpContext.Request - especially in Postback scenarios. We usually use Server.Transfer for error scenarios.
Redirect terminates the request with a 302 status and client-side roundtrip response with and internally eats an exception (minor server perf hit - depends how many you do a day) Client then navigates to new address. Browser address bar & history updates etc. Client pays the cost of an extra roundtrip - cost varies depending on latency. In our business we redirect a lot we wrote our own module to avoid the exception cost.
Response.Redirect is more costly since it adds an extra trip to the server to figure out where to go.
Server.Transfer is more efficient however it can be a little mis-leading to the user since the Url doesn't physically change.
In my experience, the difference in performance has not been significant enough to use the latter approach
Server.Transfer doesn't change the URL in the client browser, so effectively the browser does not know you changed to another server-side handler. Response.Redirect tells the browser to move to a different page, so the url in the titlebar changes.
Server.Transfer is slightly faster since it avoids one roundtrip to the server, but the non-change of url may be either good or bad for you, depending on what you're trying to do.
Response.Redirect: tells the browser that the requested page can be found at a new location. The browser then initiates another request to the new page loading its contents in the browser. This results in two requests by the browser.
Server.Transfer: It transfers execution from the first page to the second page on the server. As far as the browser client is concerned, it made one request and the initial page is the one responding with content.
The benefit of this approach is one less round trip to the server from the client browser. Also, any posted form variables and query string parameters are available to the second page as well.
Just more details about Transfer(), it's actually is Server.Execute() + Response.End(), its source code is below (from Mono/.net 4.0):
public void Transfer (string path, bool preserveForm)
{
this.Execute (path, null, preserveForm, true);
this.context.Response.End ();
}
and for Execute(), what it is to run is the handler of the given path, see
ASP.NET does not verify that the current user is authorized to view the resource delivered by the Execute method. Although the ASP.NET authorization and authentication logic runs before the original resource handler is called, ASP.NET directly calls the handler indicated by the Execute method and does not rerun authentication and authorization logic for the new resource. If your application's security policy requires clients to have appropriate authorization to access the resource, the application should force reauthorization or provide a custom access-control mechanism.
You can force reauthorization by using the Redirect method instead of the Execute method. Redirect performs a client-side redirect in which the browser requests the new resource. Because this redirect is a new request entering the system, it is subjected to all the authentication and authorization logic of both Internet Information Services (IIS) and ASP.NET security policy.
-from MSDN
Response.Redirect involves an extra round trip and updates the address bar.
Server.Transfer does not cause the address bar to change, the server responds to the request with content from another page
e.g.
Response.Redirect:-
On the client the browser requests a page http://InitiallyRequestedPage.aspx
On the server responds to the request with 302 passing the redirect address http://AnotherPage.aspx.
On the client the browser makes a second request to the address http://AnotherPage.aspx.
On the server responds with content from http://AnotherPage.aspx
Server.Transfer:-
On the client browser requests a page http://InitiallyRequestedPage.aspx
On the server Server.Transfer to http://AnotherPage.aspx
On the server the response is made to the request for http://InitiallyRequestedPage.aspx passing back content from http://AnotherPage.aspx
Response.Redirect
Pros:-
RESTful - It changes the address bar, the address can be used to record changes of state inbetween requests.
Cons:-
Slow - There is an extra round-trip between the client and server. This can be expensive when there is substantial latency between the client and the server.
Server.Transfer
Pros:-
Quick.
Cons:-
State lost - If you're using Server.Transfer to change the state of the application in response to post backs, if the page is then reloaded that state will be lost, as the address bar will be the same as it was on the first request.
Response.Redirect
Response.Redirect() will send you to a new page, update the address bar and add it to the Browser History. On your browser you can click back.
It redirects the request to some plain HTML pages on our server or to some other web server.
It causes additional roundtrips to the server on each request.
It doesn’t preserve Query String and Form Variables from the original request.
It enables to see the new redirected URL where it is redirected in the browser (and be able to bookmark it if it’s necessary).
Response. Redirect simply sends a message down to the (HTTP 302) browser.
Server.Transfer
Server.Transfer() does not change the address bar, we cannot hit back.One should use Server.Transfer() when he/she doesn’t want the user to see where he is going. Sometime on a "loading" type page.
It transfers current page request to another .aspx page on the same server.
It preserves server resources and avoids the unnecessary roundtrips to the server.
It preserves Query String and Form Variables (optionally).
It doesn’t show the real URL where it redirects the request in the users Web Browser.
Server.Transfer happens without the browser knowing anything, the browser request a page, but the server returns the content of another.