I am working on setting iframe and stuck with local testing. I have my app running on localhost:3000
I have setup Iframe in my app with src url set to localhost:1234 for local testing. I was hoping accessing via local host would resolve the cross origin error but looks like since port numbers are different, this doesn't seem to work
SecurityError: Blocked a frame with origin "http://localhost:3000" from accessing a cross-origin frame.
I have looked into various stack overflow posts and tried disabling chrome web security, even then this doesn't seem to let me do some local testing.
Any suggestions on how to prevent the cross origin error in this case?
Thanks!
Your app (the backend) should send a CORS header (from localhost:3000 if I understand correctly). A different port (just like a different hostname) counts as a different origin, so the same origin policy applies to requests, and you have to explicitly enable cross-origin requests.
The way to do so is your "backend" must send the response header
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: localhost:1234
if that's where your frontend app is running. For development, you can also send
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
Don't do * in later stages of your pipeline and especially not in production as you might open your app to further vulnerabilities (CSRF).
If your frontend app uses cookies to authenticate cross-origin, the backend must also send Access-Control-Allow-Credentials: true, and your frontend javascript must add withCredentials: true to the request. However, it doesn't sound like this is the case for you.
I think this is better than disabling cross-origin restrictions as this would work for any developer without any setup, and without compromising browser security. It gives you full control over which client can access your API, and also allows you to understand cross origin requests better.
I was able to do local testing via Safari following the steps here:
Safari -> Preferences -> Advanced
then at the bottom tick Show Develop Menu in menu bar
then in the Develop Menu tick Disable Cross-Origin Restrictions
Cross-Origin Resource Sharing is disabled on some modern browsers by default. Allow CORS: Access-Control-Allow-Origin plugin for Chrome adds necessary HTTP headers to perform development on localhost without CORS error.
I've created a GAE project and I deployed two services:
default (https://myservice.appspot.com) for the front-end app
backend (https://backend-dot-myservice.appspot.com) for the backend (Node.js)
I've also added a custom domain so that the default service is reachable also at https://myservice.com.
The problem I have is that each AJAX requests performed by the browser is preceded by an OPTIONS request (to handle the CORS).
What's the best solution to avoid this OPTIONS request? It should be fixed if both front-end/backen-end are on the same host, but how can I do it on Google App Engine?
Thank you!
I solved adding a dispatch.yaml file on the default service
dispatch:
- url: "*/api/*"
service: backend
where backend is my backend service.
And I changed my backend in order to listen on addresses like /api/something.
So now the browser has origin https://myservice.com and the url of ajax requests to the beckend are like https://myservice.com/api/something.
Since now client and server have the same origin, the CORS settings is not needed anymore, and the OPTIONS request is not performed by the browser.
I don't know if it's the best solution, but for me it worked.
As it was mentioned in this Stackoverflow post:
OPTIONS requests are pre-flight requests in Cross-origin resource sharing (CORS).
This pre-flight request is made by some browsers as a safety measure to ensure that the request being done is trusted by the server. Meaning the server understands that the method, origin and headers being sent on the request are safe to act upon.
Your server should not ignore but handle these requests whenever you're attempting to do cross origin requests.
CORS Support for Google App Engine in your app.yaml:
One important use of this feature is to support cross-origin resource sharing (CORS), such as accessing files hosted by another App Engine app.
For example, you could have a game app mygame.appspot.com that accesses assets hosted by myassets.appspot.com. However, if mygame attempts to make a JavaScript XMLHttpRequest to myassets, it will not succeed unless the handler for myassets returns an Access-Control-Allow-Origin: response header containing the value http://mygame.appspot.com.
handlers:
- url: /images
static_dir: static/images
http_headers:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://mygame.appspot.com
Note: if you wanted to allow everyone to access your assets, you could use the wildcard '*', instead of http://mygame.appspot.com.
I am trying to enable HTTPS on my Go App deployed to GAE flex environment. I have my custom domain successfully mapped, and am using Google-managed SSL certificates. I have app.yaml configured to redirect HTTP to HTTPS as follows:
handlers:
- url: /.*
script: _go_app
secure: always
Now there are two problems that I haven't been able to resolve so far.
First, the above configuration is supposed to redirect HTTP traffic to HTTPS, but apparently it is not happening.
Second, when I add https:// in the url box, I see three different behavior on Firefox, Chrome, and Edge. Edge identifies the website as secure, Firefox marks the website as secure connection, but says that it "has blocked parts of this page that are not secure", and surprisingly Chrome marks the website as Not secure (though it says certificate is valid!).
With these symptoms I was wondering if I should take additional steps to make redirecting and SSL work for my website? Specifically, I would like to know with App Engine, and managed SSL enabled:
Should I continue serving pages on HTTP using http.ListenAndServe(..), or need to switch to http.ListenAndServeTLS(..)?
In my Go app should I redirect HTTP to HTTPS? or the above setting is expected to work just fine?
Thanks in advance for your help and advice.
PS:
Trying out with different suggestions, I added Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains to handlers' response. Does not seem if this helped with redirection either.
EDIT/PARTIAL ANSWER:
According to this documentation, under Authentication changes, the secure and login handlers are deprecated. The documentation suggests using Strict-Transport-Security or X-Forwarded-Proto instead.
I am using Strict-Transport-Security on the server side to enrich my response header:
func (h *STLHandler) ServeHTTP(w http.ResponseWriter, req *http.Request) {
w.Header().Add("Strict-Transport-Security", "max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains")
h.nextHandler.ServeHTTP(w, req)
}
I was wondering if I am using this header in the right place?
For the second set of my problems I realized I have mixed content on my page. My mixed content was a http link to a set of fonts. When I fixed the mixed content, i.e. changed http to https, both Chrome and Firefox security warnings disappeared. You may also find this page Avoiding the Not Secure Warning in Chrome useful on this matter.
You need to check your app using:
http://[YOUR_PROJECT_ID].appspot.com
Or if you nedd HTTPS:
https://[YOUR_PROJECT_ID].appspot.com
If you want your own certificate you will need to upload it and then be available to use: https://your-domain.tld
From the docs:
For APIs that will be hosted on App Engine flexible environment, you must use the appspot.com domain, and the service name must be in the following format:
YOUR_PROJECT_ID.appspot.com
When you deploy your API to App Engine, a DNS entry with a name in the format YOUR_PROJECT_ID.appspot.com is created automatically.
For APIs that will be hosted on Compute Engine, Kubernetes Engine, or Kubernetes, you must use the cloud.goog domain, and the service name must be in the following format:
YOUR_API_NAME.endpoints.YOUR_PROJECT_ID.cloud.goog
Or you could just put a CDN in front like Cloudflare which will do all the SSL termination for you and if required redirect all HTTP to HTTPS
when trying to $.ajax to fetch some content from other websites in my website, I got the error.
Failed to load https://www.pinterest.com/: No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource. Origin 'http://localhost:8100' is therefore not allowed access.
I knew if the target website didn't allow localhost:8100 to fetch the data, I cannot fetch it in the client side on the web.
However, I found that mobile app (not mobile browser, but android/ios application) does not have the issue, they can simply get the website content by their default mobile built-in HTTP get function.
Do i want to ask why mobile will not encounter CORS issue (mobile can fetch the webcontent simply by the built-in http get function)?
thanks.
CORS is enforced by the browser to fulfill the security standard they have to meet. It does not affect requests made programmatically from any language, like a curl call on bash.
This is how CORS works, based on Wikipedia:
The browser sends the OPTIONS request with an Origin HTTP header. The value of this header is the domain that served the parent page. When a page from http://www.example.com attempts to access a user's data in service.example.com, the following request header would be sent to service.example.com: Origin: http://www.example.com.
The server at service.example.com may respond with:
An Access-Control-Allow-Origin (ACAO) header in its response indicating which origin sites are allowed. For example Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://www.example.com
An error page if the server does not allow the cross-origin request
An Access-Control-Allow-Origin (ACAO) header with a wildcard that allows all domains: Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
The way CORS works means it is optional. Browsers enforce it to prevent Javascript AJAX calls to perform malicious calls. But other types of consumers built by hand don't need to enforce CORS.
Think in this example:
You are the owner of somesite.com
Users authenticate to your site using the traditional cookie method
User logins into anothersite.com, built by an attacker. This site has the following code:
<script>fetch('http://somesite.com/posts/1', { method: 'DELETE' });</script>
... effectively performing a request to your site and doing bad things.
Happily, the browser will perform a preflight request when it sees a cross-domain request, and if your site does not respond saying that requests coming from anothersite.com are OK, you will be covered by default from a potential attack
This is why CORS only makes sense in the context of a browser. Javascript you send to the browser can not (at least easily) circumvent CORS because the only API that allows you to perform requests from the browser is written in stone. Additionally, there are no local storage or cookies outside of the browser.
Corolarium: Enforcing CORS is a deliberate action from the requester, or whoever is making the requests for you, not the sender. Javascript APIs in browsers enforce it. Other languages don't have the need for the reasons explained.
When running on a device, your files are served over the file:// protocol, not http://, and your origin will therefore not exist. That's why the request from the native device does not trigger CORS.
tl;dr; About the Same Origin Policy
I have a Grunt process which initiates an instance of express.js server. This was working absolutely fine up until just now when it started serving a blank page with the following appearing in the error log in the developer's console in Chrome (latest version):
XMLHttpRequest cannot load https://www.example.com/
No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested
resource. Origin 'http://localhost:4300' is therefore not allowed access.
What is stopping me from accessing the page?
tl;dr — When you want to read data, (mostly) using client-side JS, from a different server you need the server with the data to grant explicit permission to the code that wants the data.
There's a summary at the end and headings in the answer to make it easier to find the relevant parts. Reading everything is recommended though as it provides useful background for understanding the why that makes seeing how the how applies in different circumstances easier.
About the Same Origin Policy
This is the Same Origin Policy. It is a security feature implemented by browsers.
Your particular case is showing how it is implemented for XMLHttpRequest (and you'll get identical results if you were to use fetch), but it also applies to other things (such as images loaded onto a <canvas> or documents loaded into an <iframe>), just with slightly different implementations.
The standard scenario that demonstrates the need for the SOP can be demonstrated with three characters:
Alice is a person with a web browser
Bob runs a website (https://www.example.com/ in your example)
Mallory runs a website (http://localhost:4300 in your example)
Alice is logged into Bob's site and has some confidential data there. Perhaps it is a company intranet (accessible only to browsers on the LAN), or her online banking (accessible only with a cookie you get after entering a username and password).
Alice visits Mallory's website which has some JavaScript that causes Alice's browser to make an HTTP request to Bob's website (from her IP address with her cookies, etc). This could be as simple as using XMLHttpRequest and reading the responseText.
The browser's Same Origin Policy prevents that JavaScript from reading the data returned by Bob's website (which Bob and Alice don't want Mallory to access). (Note that you can, for example, display an image using an <img> element across origins because the content of the image is not exposed to JavaScript (or Mallory) … unless you throw canvas into the mix in which case you will generate a same-origin violation error).
Why the Same Origin Policy applies when you don't think it should
For any given URL it is possible that the SOP is not needed. A couple of common scenarios where this is the case are:
Alice, Bob, and Mallory are the same person.
Bob is providing entirely public information
… but the browser has no way of knowing if either of the above is true, so trust is not automatic and the SOP is applied. Permission has to be granted explicitly before the browser will give the data it has received from Bob to some other website.
Why the Same Origin Policy applies to JavaScript in a web page but little else
Outside the web page
Browser extensions*, the Network tab in browser developer tools, and applications like Postman are installed software. They aren't passing data from one website to the JavaScript belonging to a different website just because you visited that different website. Installing software usually takes a more conscious choice.
There isn't a third party (Mallory) who is considered a risk.
* Browser extensions do need to be written carefully to avoid cross-origin issues. See the Chrome documentation for example.
Inside the webpage
Most of the time, there isn't a great deal of information leakage when just showing something on a webpage.
If you use an <img> element to load an image, then it gets shown on the page, but very little information is exposed to Mallory. JavaScript can't read the image (unless you use a crossOrigin attribute to explicitly enable request permission with CORS) and then copy it to her server.
That said, some information does leak so, to quote Domenic Denicola (of Google):
The web's fundamental security model is the same origin policy. We
have several legacy exceptions to that rule from before that security
model was in place, with script tags being one of the most egregious
and most dangerous. (See the various "JSONP" attacks.)
Many years ago, perhaps with the introduction of XHR or web fonts (I
can't recall precisely), we drew a line in the sand, and said no new
web platform features would break the same origin policy. The existing
features need to be grandfathered in and subject to carefully-honed
and oft-exploited exceptions, for the sake of not breaking the web,
but we certainly can't add any more holes to our security policy.
This is why you need CORS permission to load fonts across origins.
Why you can display data on the page without reading it with JS
There are a number of circumstances where Mallory's site can cause a browser to fetch data from a third party and display it (e.g. by adding an <img> element to display an image). It isn't possible for Mallory's JavaScript to read the data in that resource though, only Alice's browser and Bob's server can do that, so it is still secure.
CORS
The Access-Control-Allow-Origin HTTP response header referred to in the error message is part of the CORS standard which allows Bob to explicitly grant permission to Mallory's site to access the data via Alice's browser.
A basic implementation would just include:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
… in the response headers to permit any website to read the data.
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://example.com
… would allow only a specific site to access it, and Bob can dynamically generate that based on the Origin request header to permit multiple, but not all, sites to access it.
The specifics of how Bob sets that response header depend on Bob's HTTP server and/or server-side programming language. Users of Node.js/Express.js should use the well-documented CORS middleware. Users of other platforms should take a look at this collection of guides for various common configurations that might help.
NB: Some requests are complex and send a preflight OPTIONS request that the server will have to respond to before the browser will send the GET/POST/PUT/Whatever request that the JS wants to make. Implementations of CORS that only add Access-Control-Allow-Origin to specific URLs often get tripped up by this.
Obviously granting permission via CORS is something Bob would only do only if either:
The data was not private or
Mallory was trusted
How do I add these headers?
It depends on your server-side environment.
If you can, use a library designed to handle CORS as they will present you with simple options instead of having to deal with everything manually.
Enable-Cors.org has a list of documentation for specific platforms and frameworks that you might find useful.
But I'm not Bob!
There is no standard mechanism for Mallory to add this header because it has to come from Bob's website, which she does not control.
If Bob is running a public API then there might be a mechanism to turn on CORS (perhaps by formatting the request in a certain way, or a config option after logging into a Developer Portal site for Bob's site). This will have to be a mechanism implemented by Bob though. Mallory could read the documentation on Bob's site to see if something is available, or she could talk to Bob and ask him to implement CORS.
Error messages which mention "Response for preflight"
Some cross-origin requests are preflighted.
This happens when (roughly speaking) you try to make a cross-origin request that:
Includes credentials like cookies
Couldn't be generated with a regular HTML form (e.g. has custom headers or a Content-Type that you couldn't use in a form's enctype).
If you are correctly doing something that needs a preflight
In these cases then the rest of this answer still applies but you also need to make sure that the server can listen for the preflight request (which will be OPTIONS (and not GET, POST, or whatever you were trying to send) and respond to it with the right Access-Control-Allow-Origin header but also Access-Control-Allow-Methods and Access-Control-Allow-Headers to allow your specific HTTP methods or headers.
If you are triggering a preflight by mistake
Sometimes people make mistakes when trying to construct Ajax requests, and sometimes these trigger the need for a preflight. If the API is designed to allow cross-origin requests but doesn't require anything that would need a preflight, then this can break access.
Common mistakes that trigger this include:
trying to put Access-Control-Allow-Origin and other CORS response headers on the request. These don't belong on the request, don't do anything helpful (what would be the point of a permissions system where you could grant yourself permission?), and must appear only on the response.
trying to put a Content-Type: application/json header on a GET request that has no request body the content of which to describe (typically when the author confuses Content-Type and Accept).
In either of these cases, removing the extra request header will often be enough to avoid the need for a preflight (which will solve the problem when communicating with APIs that support simple requests but not preflighted requests).
Opaque responses (no-cors mode)
Sometimes you need to make an HTTP request, but you don't need to read the response. e.g. if you are posting a log message to the server for recording.
If you are using the fetch API (rather than XMLHttpRequest), then you can configure it to not try to use CORS.
Note that this won't let you do anything that you require CORS to do. You will not be able to read the response. You will not be able to make a request that requires a preflight.
It will let you make a simple request, not see the response, and not fill the Developer Console with error messages.
How to do it is explained by the Chrome error message given when you make a request using fetch and don't get permission to view the response with CORS:
Access to fetch at 'https://example.com/' from origin 'https://example.net' has been blocked by CORS policy: No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource. If an opaque response serves your needs, set the request's mode to 'no-cors' to fetch the resource with CORS disabled.
Thus:
fetch("http://example.com", { mode: "no-cors" });
Alternatives to CORS
JSONP
Bob could also provide the data using a hack like JSONP which is how people did cross-origin Ajax before CORS came along.
It works by presenting the data in the form of a JavaScript program that injects the data into Mallory's page.
It requires that Mallory trust Bob not to provide malicious code.
Note the common theme: The site providing the data has to tell the browser that it is OK for a third-party site to access the data it is sending to the browser.
Since JSONP works by appending a <script> element to load the data in the form of a JavaScript program that calls a function already in the page, attempting to use the JSONP technique on a URL that returns JSON will fail — typically with a CORB error — because JSON is not JavaScript.
Move the two resources to a single Origin
If the HTML document the JS runs in and the URL being requested are on the same origin (sharing the same scheme, hostname, and port) then the Same Origin Policy grants permission by default. CORS is not needed.
A Proxy
Mallory could use server-side code to fetch the data (which she could then pass from her server to Alice's browser through HTTP as usual).
It will either:
add CORS headers
convert the response to JSONP
exist on the same origin as the HTML document
That server-side code could be written & hosted by a third party (such as CORS Anywhere). Note the privacy implications of this: The third party can monitor who proxies what across their servers.
Bob wouldn't need to grant any permissions for that to happen.
There are no security implications here since that is just between Mallory and Bob. There is no way for Bob to think that Mallory is Alice and to provide Mallory with data that should be kept confidential between Alice and Bob.
Consequently, Mallory can only use this technique to read public data.
Do note, however, that taking content from someone else's website and displaying it on your own might be a violation of copyright and open you up to legal action.
Writing something other than a web app
As noted in the section "Why the Same Origin Policy only applies to JavaScript in a web page", you can avoid the SOP by not writing JavaScript in a webpage.
That doesn't mean you can't continue to use JavaScript and HTML, but you could distribute it using some other mechanism, such as Node-WebKit or PhoneGap.
Browser extensions
It is possible for a browser extension to inject the CORS headers in the response before the Same Origin Policy is applied.
These can be useful for development but are not practical for a production site (asking every user of your site to install a browser extension that disables a security feature of their browser is unreasonable).
They also tend to work only with simple requests (failing when handling preflight OPTIONS requests).
Having a proper development environment with a local development server
is usually a better approach.
Other security risks
Note that SOP / CORS do not mitigate XSS, CSRF, or SQL Injection attacks which need to be handled independently.
Summary
There is nothing you can do in your client-side code that will enable CORS access to someone else's server.
If you control the server the request is being made to: Add CORS permissions to it.
If you are friendly with the person who controls it: Get them to add CORS permissions to it.
If it is a public service:
Read their API documentation to see what they say about accessing it with client-side JavaScript:
They might tell you to use specific URLs
They might support JSONP
They might not support cross-origin access from client-side code at all (this might be a deliberate decision on security grounds, especially if you have to pass a personalized API Key in each request).
Make sure you aren't triggering a preflight request you don't need. The API might grant permission for simple requests but not preflighted requests.
If none of the above apply: Get the browser to talk to your server instead, and then have your server fetch the data from the other server and pass it on. (There are also third-party hosted services that attach CORS headers to publically accessible resources that you could use).
Target server must allowed cross-origin request. In order to allow it through express, simply handle http options request :
app.options('/url...', function(req, res, next){
res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', "*");
res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Methods', 'POST');
res.header("Access-Control-Allow-Headers", "accept, content-type");
res.header("Access-Control-Max-Age", "1728000");
return res.sendStatus(200);
});
As this isn't mentioned in the accepted answer.
This is not the case for this exact question, but might help others that search for that problem
This is something you can do in your client-code to prevent CORS errors in some cases.
You can make use of Simple Requests.
In order to perform a 'Simple Requests' the request needs to meet several conditions. E.g. only allowing POST, GET and HEAD method, as well as only allowing some given Headers (you can find all conditions here).
If your client code does not explicit set affected Headers (e.g. "Accept") with a fix value in the request it might occur that some clients do set these Headers automatically with some "non-standard" values causing the server to not accept it as Simple Request - which will give you a CORS error.
This is happening because of the CORS error. CORS stands for Cross Origin Resource Sharing. In simple words, this error occurs when we try to access a domain/resource from another domain.
Read More about it here: CORS error with jquery
To fix this, if you have access to the other domain, you will have to allow Access-Control-Allow-Origin in the server. This can be added in the headers. You can enable this for all the requests/domains or a specific domain.
How to get a cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) post request working
These links may help
This CORS issue wasn't further elaborated (for other causes).
I'm having this issue currently under different reason.
My front end is returning 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header error as well.
Just that I've pointed the wrong URL so this header wasn't reflected properly (in which i kept presume it did). localhost (front end) -> call to non secured http (supposed to be https), make sure the API end point from front end is pointing to the correct protocol.
I got the same error in Chrome console.
My problem was, I was trying to go to the site using http:// instead of https://. So there was nothing to fix, just had to go to the same site using https.
This bug cost me 2 days. I checked my Server log, the Preflight Option request/response between browser Chrome/Edge and Server was ok. The main reason is that GET/POST/PUT/DELETE server response for XHTMLRequest must also have the following header:
access-control-allow-origin: origin
"origin" is in the request header (Browser will add it to request for you). for example:
Origin: http://localhost:4221
you can add response header like the following to accept for all:
access-control-allow-origin: *
or response header for a specific request like:
access-control-allow-origin: http://localhost:4221
The message in browsers is not clear to understand: "...The requested resource"
note that:
CORS works well for localhost. different port means different Domain.
if you get error message, check the CORS config on the server side.
In most housing services just add in the .htaccess on the target server folder this:
Header set Access-Control-Allow-Origin 'https://your.site.folder'
I had the same issue. In my case i fixed it by adding addition parameter of timestamp to my URL. Even this was not required by the server I was accessing.
Example yoururl.com/yourdocument?timestamp=1234567
Note: I used epos timestamp
"Get" request with appending headers transform to "Options" request. So Cors policy problems occur. You have to implement "Options" request to your server. Cors Policy about server side and you need to allow Cors Policy on your server side. For Nodejs server:details
app.use(cors)
For Java to integrate with Angular:details
#CrossOrigin(origins = "http://localhost:4200")
You should enable CORS to get it working.