AngularJS and OWIN Authentication on WebApi - angularjs

I have implemented OWIN token based authentication on my WebApi, I have also enabled CORS by calling app.UseCors(Microsoft.Owin.Cors.CorsOptions.AllowAll)
I can access various unsecured portions of my app from an angularjs web client. I have used this http-interceptor , when I try to access a protected resource, I get my login pop.
Now in order to login I have to call http://mywebapi/token with form encoded UserName Password and grant_type, see my header signature below (from chrome)
Request URL:http://mywebapi/token
Request Headers CAUTION: Provisional headers are shown.
Accept:application/json, text/plain, */*
cache:false
Content-Type:application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Origin:http://127.0.0.1:49408
Referer:http://127.0.0.1:49408/
User-Agent:Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.153 Safari/537.36
Form Dataview sourceview URL encoded
grant_type:password
UserName:correctuser
Password:Password
When I use postman to send this request, it comes back fine with the expected accesstoken, however when I try to use angular's $http service, it makes the OPTIONS request (I can see this in Dev tools console) but for some reason I get this error message
No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource. Origin 'http://127.0.0.1:49408' is therefore not allowed access.
NOTE: This only happens for the /token request which is form-url-encoded, for all other json requests the header is added as expected. Can someone please help, I am running out of ideas.
Thanks

I went through the same process and spend (wasted?) the same amount of time as most people, dealing with owin + web api.
A solution which worked for me was to move
app.UseCors(Microsoft.Owin.Cors.CorsOptions.AllowAll);
before everything else in the pipe.
Here is some code:
OwinStartup
[assembly: OwinStartup(typeof(MyApp.Web.Startup))]
namespace MyApp.Web
{
using Owin;
using Microsoft.Owin;
public partial class Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
var config = new System.Web.Http.HttpConfiguration();
ConfigureAuth(app, config);
}
}
}
Startup for OAuth
public partial class Startup
{
public void ConfigureAuth(IAppBuilder app, System.Web.Http.HttpConfiguration config)
{
// app.UseWelcomePage("/");
// app.UseErrorPage();
// Must be the first to be set otherwise it won't work.
app.UseCors(Microsoft.Owin.Cors.CorsOptions.AllowAll);
app.CreatePerOwinContext<ApplicationDatabaseContext>(ApplicationDatabaseContext.Create);
app.CreatePerOwinContext<ApplicationUserManager>(ApplicationUserManager.Create);
app.UseOAuthBearerAuthentication(new OAuthBearerAuthenticationOptions());
var OAuthOptions = new OAuthAuthorizationServerOptions
{
AllowInsecureHttp = true,
TokenEndpointPath = new PathString("/token"),
AccessTokenExpireTimeSpan = TimeSpan.FromDays(1),
Provider = new DaufAuthorizationServerProvider(),
RefreshTokenProvider = new SimpleAuthorizationServerProvider(),
};
app.UseOAuthAuthorizationServer(OAuthOptions);
app.UseWebApi(WebApiConfig.Register(config, logger));
}
}
Web Api
public static class WebApiConfig
{
public static HttpConfiguration Register(System.Web.Http.HttpConfiguration config, ILogger logger)
{
// Web API configuration and services
// Configure Web API to use only bearer token authentication.
// This will used the HTTP header: "Authorization" Value: "Bearer 1234123412341234asdfasdfasdfasdf"
config.SuppressDefaultHostAuthentication();
config.Filters.Add(new HostAuthenticationFilter(OAuthDefaults.AuthenticationType));
// Web API routes
config.MapHttpAttributeRoutes();
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "DefaultApi",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}",
defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
return (config);
}
}

So I found the answer but brace yourself 'coz this one's weird!! I read this article on code project which led me to my Owin Authorisation server's GrantResourceOwnerCredentials method to check for this
context.OwinContext.Response.Headers.Add("Access-Control-Allow-Origin", new[] { "*" });
(Mine is a custom Authoris(z)ation server, one I nicked off here)
The shocking thing I found was that it was already there!
So I decided to set a break point on that line and what do you know, that line was failing because (...even more shocking) "Access-Control-Allow-Origin" was already in the headers!!
So I commented that line out and it all worked! But then the caveat, I have no idea how the header got in, so I have no idea if it will be there or not in production so I swapped that line of code with this to check and then add it if it was not already there
var header = context.OwinContext.Response.Headers.SingleOrDefault(h => h.Key == "Access-Control-Allow-Origin");
if (header.Equals(default(KeyValuePair<string, string[]>)))
{
context.OwinContext.Response.Headers.Add("Access-Control-Allow-Origin", new[] { "*" });
}
I hope my labour of love will save a few souls from the excruciating damnation of countless hours of tinkering with nothing to solve this problem. Cheers!

For those curious about the answer and the previous answer, it is indeed strongly related the ordering. Whenever you are adding Owin middleware it is important to note: The order of registration is imperative.
app.useCors(Microsoft.Owin.Cors.CorsOptions.AllowAll)
Having this as the first thing in your auth file, basically registers the Cors handler to occur prior to reaching your OAuthServer and Web Api.
Moving it after the OAuth does the opposite, hence the need to add the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header in the GrantResourceOwnerCredentials.
To answer the other question, the reason the header is already there is if you send a CORS request from the browser and the CorsOptions.AllowAll is specified, it adds one for you so by the time it reaches the /token endpoint on the OAuth server it has already added one. (just means that one was found in the http request and you are allowing all origins).
You can verify the behaviours accordingly,
In Fiddler, send a new request to your Token endpoint with an Origin header included with an arbitrary value. Put a breakpoint on your OAuth server in the GrantResourceOwnerCredentials and then examine context.Response.Headers, it will now contain the origin you passed in. (Remember, the browser must examine it, fiddler will be happy all day long)
If you then tell CORS not to use CorsOptions.AllowAll and set AllowAnyOrigin to false you will notice that the Origin sent from Fiddler is no longer added to the response headers.
The browser in turn will deny the CORS request because the origin was not returned - Origin "" not found in Access-Control-Allow-Origin header.
NOW FOR THE IMPORTANT BIT:
If you set CorsOptions.AllowAll it does exactly what it says it does, allows CORS requests to any method on any middleware that occurs after the CORS registration in the Owin pipeline so make sure that is what you intend to do. IE: If you register CORS first then OAuth and Web API then all your Web API methods will be accessible via CORS if you do not explicitly add code\attributes to prevent it.
If you want to restrict the methods then implement an ICorsPolicyProvider, some portions from http://katanaproject.codeplex.com/(Microsoft.Owin.Cors)
public class MyCorsPolicyProvider : ICorsPolicyProvider
{
public Task<CorsPolicy> GetCorsPolicyAsync(IOwinRequest request)
{
// Grant Nothing.
var policy = new CorsPolicy
{
AllowAnyHeader = false,
AllowAnyMethod = false,
AllowAnyOrigin = false,
SupportsCredentials = false
};
// Now we can get a bit clever: (Awesome, they requested the token endpoint. Setup OAuth options for that.
if (OAuthOptions.TokenEndpointPath.HasValue && OAuthOptions.TokenEndpointPath == request.Path)
{
// Hypothetical scenario, tokens can only be obtained using CORS when the Origin is http://localhost
policy.AllowAnyHeader = true;
policy.AllowAnyMethod = true;
policy.AllowAnyOrigin = false;
policy.SupportsCredentials = true;
policy.Origins.Add("http://localhost");
return Task.FromResult(policy);
}
// No token?, must already have one.... so this must be a WebApi request then.
// From here we could check where the request is going, do some other fun stuff etc... etc...
// Alternatively, do nothing, set config.EnableCors() in WebApi, then apply the EnableCors() attribute on your methods to allow it through.
return null; }
}
The return null; tells Owin to continue to the next middleware and to allow the request through but with no policy thus NO CORS!, allowing you to set appropriate CORS attributes in WebAPI
Now the really important bit, DO NOT add the Access-Control-Allow-Origins header to your response if it is not there unless that is really what you intend as depending on your middleware registration order it will open all the doors for CORS requests unless you explicitly block them elsewhere or remove the header and basically will cause you lots of issues when you try and use CORS with WebApi and want to restrict it.
To block them elsewhere you could add a CorsPolicyProvider (System.Web.Http) for WebApi then set a Context variable in Owin which you can read once the request hits WebApi.
public class WebApiCorsPolicyProvider : System.Web.Http.Cors.ICorsPolicyProvider
{
public Task<CorsPolicy> GetCorsPolicyAsync(HttpRequestMessage request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var policy = new CorsPolicy
{
AllowAnyHeader = false,
AllowAnyMethod = false,
AllowAnyOrigin = false,
SupportsCredentials = false
};
// The benefit of being at this point in the pipeline is we have been authenticated\authorized so can check all our claims for CORS purposes too if needed and set errors etc...
// In an Owin pipeline?
var owinContext = request.GetOwinContext();
if (owinContext != null)
{
// We have an owin pipeline, we can get owin parameters and other things here.
}
else
{
// Write your code here to determine the right CORS options. Non Owin pipeline variant.
}
return Task.FromResult(policy);
}
}
And finally, one other benefit of propagating downwards to a WebApi CORS policy provider is that at that point Authorization will have taken place so you can then apply additional Origin filters at that stage in the CORS policy provider.

In my opinion it is related to ordering of your statements though I did not investigated further. I faced the same issue and tried all combinations and eventually following worked for me.
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
HttpConfiguration config = new HttpConfiguration();
ConfigureOAuth(app);
WebApiConfig.Register(config);
app.UseCors(Microsoft.Owin.Cors.CorsOptions.AllowAll);
app.UseWebApi(config);
}
I was following Token Based Authentication using ASP.NET Web API 2, Owin, and Identity

This is another version of the code for the Obi Onuorah's response
string corsHeader = "Access-Control-Allow-Origin";
if (!context.Response.Headers.ContainsKey(corsHeader))
{
context.Response.Headers.Add(corsHeader, new[] { "*" });
}

Related

Is there a way to avoid using the redirected form in Spring OAuth2 Authorization server when trying to get Authorization code? [duplicate]

I'm trying to create a local Java-based client that interacts with the SurveyMonkey API.
SurveyMonkey requires a long-lived access token using OAuth 2.0, which I'm not very familiar with.
I've been googling this for hours, and I think the answer is no, but I just want to be sure:
Is it possible for me to write a simple Java client that interacts with the SurveyMonkey, without setting up my own redirect server in some cloud?
I feel like having my own online service is mandatory to be able to receive the bearer tokens generated by OAuth 2.0. Is it possible that I can't have SurveyMonkey send bearer tokens directly to my client?
And if I were to set up my own custom Servlet somewhere, and use it as a redirect_uri, then the correct flow would be as follows:
Java-client request bearer token from SurveyMonkey, with
redirect_uri being my own custom servlet URL.
SurveyMonkey sends token to my custom servlet URL.
Java-client polls custom servlet URL until a token is available?
Is this correct?
Yes, it is possible to use OAuth2 without a callback URL.
The RFC6749 introduces several flows. The Implicit and Authorization Code grant types require a redirect URI. However the Resource Owner Password Credentials grant type does not.
Since RFC6749, other specifications have been issued that do not require any redirect URI:
RFC7522: Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0 Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
RFC7523: JSON Web Token (JWT) Profile for OAuth 2.0 Client Authentication and Authorization Grants
RFC8628: OAuth 2.0 Device Authorization Grant
In any case, if the grant types above do not fit on your needs, nothing prevent you from creating a custom grant type.
Not exactly, the whole point of the OAuth flow is that the user (the client you're accessing the data on behalf of) needs to give you permission to access their data.
See the authentication instructions. You need to send the user to the OAuth authorize page:
https://api.surveymonkey.net/oauth/authorize?api_key<your_key>&client_id=<your_client_id>&response_type=code&redirect_uri=<your_redirect_uri>
This will show a page to the user telling them which parts of their account you are requesting access to (ex. see their surveys, see their responses, etc). Once the user approves that by clicking "Authorize" on that page, SurveyMonkey will automatically go to whatever you set as your redirect URI (make sure the one from the url above matches with what you set in the settings for your app) with the code.
So if your redirect URL was https://example.com/surveymonkey/oauth, SurveyMonkey will redirect the user to that URL with a code:
https://example.com/surveymonkey/oauth?code=<auth_code>
You need to take that code and then exchange it for an access token by doing a POST request to https://api.surveymonkey.net/oauth/token?api_key=<your_api_key> with the following post params:
client_secret=<your_secret>
code=<auth_code_you_just_got>
redirect_uri=<same_redirect_uri_as_before>
grant_type=authorization_code
This will return an access token, you can then use that access token to access data on the user's account. You don't give the access token to the user it's for you to use to access the user's account. No need for polling or anything.
If you're just accessing your own account, you can use the access token provided in the settings page of your app. Otherwise there's no way to get an access token for a user without setting up your own redirect server (unless all the users are in the same group as you, i.e. multiple users under the same account; but I won't get into that). SurveyMonkey needs a place to send you the code once the user authorizes, you can't just request one.
You do need to implement something that will act as the redirect_uri, which does not necessarily need to be hosted somewhere else than your client (as you say, in some cloud).
I am not very familiar with Java and Servelets, but if I assume correctly, it would be something that could handle http://localhost:some_port. In that case, the flow that you describe is correct.
I implemented the same flow successfully in C#. Here is the class that implements that flow. I hope it helps.
class OAuth2Negotiator
{
private HttpListener _listener = null;
private string _accessToken = null;
private string _errorResult = null;
private string _apiKey = null;
private string _clientSecret = null;
private string _redirectUri = null;
public OAuth2Negotiator(string apiKey, string address, string clientSecret)
{
_apiKey = apiKey;
_redirectUri = address.TrimEnd('/');
_clientSecret = clientSecret;
_listener = new HttpListener();
_listener.Prefixes.Add(address + "/");
_listener.AuthenticationSchemes = AuthenticationSchemes.Anonymous;
}
public string GetToken()
{
var url = string.Format(#"https://api.surveymonkey.net/oauth/authorize?redirect_uri={0}&client_id=sm_sunsoftdemo&response_type=code&api_key=svtx8maxmjmqavpavdd5sg5p",
HttpUtility.UrlEncode(#"http://localhost:60403"));
System.Diagnostics.Process.Start(url);
_listener.Start();
AsyncContext.Run(() => ListenLoop(_listener));
_listener.Stop();
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(_errorResult))
throw new Exception(_errorResult);
return _accessToken;
}
private async void ListenLoop(HttpListener listener)
{
while (true)
{
var context = await listener.GetContextAsync();
var query = context.Request.QueryString;
if (context.Request.Url.ToString().EndsWith("favicon.ico"))
{
context.Response.StatusCode = (int)HttpStatusCode.NotFound;
context.Response.Close();
}
else if (query != null && query.Count > 0)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(query["code"]))
{
_accessToken = await SendCodeAsync(query["code"]);
break;
}
else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(query["error"]))
{
_errorResult = string.Format("{0}: {1}", query["error"], query["error_description"]);
break;
}
}
}
}
private async Task<string> SendCodeAsync(string code)
{
var GrantType = "authorization_code";
//client_secret, code, redirect_uri and grant_type. The grant type must be set to “authorization_code”
var client = new HttpClient();
client.BaseAddress = new Uri("https://api.surveymonkey.net");
var request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Post, string.Format("/oauth/token?api_key={0}", _apiKey));
var formData = new List<KeyValuePair<string, string>>();
formData.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, string>("client_secret", _clientSecret));
formData.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, string>("code", code));
formData.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, string>("redirect_uri", _redirectUri));
formData.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, string>("grant_type", GrantType));
formData.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, string>("client_id", "sm_sunsoftdemo"));
request.Content = new FormUrlEncodedContent(formData);
var response = await client.SendAsync(request);
if (!response.IsSuccessStatusCode)
{
_errorResult = string.Format("Status {0}: {1}", response.StatusCode.ToString(), response.ReasonPhrase.ToString());
return null;
}
var data = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
if (data == null)
return null;
Dictionary<string, string> tokenInfo = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Dictionary<string, string>>(data);
return(tokenInfo["access_token"]);
}
}

Forbidden (CSRF cookie not set.): /api/signinUser

The error occurs in this react code
const headers = new Headers({
"X-CSRFToken": Cookies.get('csrftoken')
});
const response = await fetch("api/signinUser",
{
method: "POST",
headers: headers,
body: formData
});
Trying to access this Django Api
#ensure_csrf_cookie
def signin(request):
if request.method == 'POST':
auth = False
username = request.POST['username']
password = request.POST['password']
user = authenticate(username=username, password=password)
print("Authenticating User", user)
if user is not None:
auth = True
login(request, user) # Does this return anything?
ret = {
"auth": auth
}
print("RET", ret)
return JsonResponse(ret)
I have django.middleware.csrf.CsrfViewMiddleware in my MIDDLEWARE variable
I'm running my Django server in an AWS EC2 instance that I access with http://<my public ip>:8000/
headers: {
'X-Requested-With': 'XMLHttpRequest',
'csrftoken': Cookies.get('csrftoken'),
},
As you are accessing using HTTP (and not https) you need to ensure the cookies are not https only (i.e. "Secure").
The "easiest" for this it to changes your settings to ensure that http cookies will work (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/settings/#csrf-cookie-httponly, https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/settings/#csrf-cookie-secure and https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/settings/#session-cookie-httponly).
However, as you're on AWS, it's fairly easy and cheap to access over HTTPS with a valid certificate if you have a (sub)domain name you can use.
Create yourself a Load Balancer (in the EC2) panel). That prompts you to...
Create a "Target Group". The target group contains the instance above
Set it so that a listener on "443" will redirect traffic to "80" on your instance (so your instance does not need a certificate). In doing this, you'll be prompted to create a certificate within AWS.
Point your DNS to the load balancer.
Please check costs, but the normally-expensive part (the certificate) is free, and you can set security groups to lock users our of having direct access to your EC2.
You should check out the docs.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/csrf/
A hidden form field with the name ‘csrfmiddlewaretoken’, must be present in all outgoing POST forms.
They are referring to a hidden input field within your form.
For all incoming requests that are not using HTTP GET, HEAD, OPTIONS or TRACE, a CSRF cookie must be present, and the ‘csrfmiddlewaretoken’ field must be present and correct. If it isn’t, the user will get a 403 error.

Symfony2 processing PUT cross-domain request via forms

I have two separate projects: UI(AngularJS) and Server(Symfony2).
I need to send cross-domain PUT request from AngularJS application to the Symfony2 app.
In the Symfony controller I passed $request to the form->handleRequest(); and debug showed me, that form using this way is not submitted.
So, next I tried to pass $request to the form->submit() and got error "Invalid CSRF Token".
How can I correctly process cross-domain data via Symfony forms?
I've read that passing $request to the submit() method is
depricated.
How can I pass CSRF token to the form if I send it from UI via
headers ? (I add csrf field to the request but it not processing at back-end)
EDITED: Currently I see that issue is related to CSRF token. No matter how I sending this token from UI, it's not processed on back-end and I always get "Invalid CSRF token" error.
I tried to add _token field directly to json object and set field name to _token via csrf_field_name option into my formtype class.
I also tried to pass json_decode($request->getContent(), true) to my form submit() method, but after debugging I see, that submittedData is changing in next code :
// Symfony/Component/Form/Form.php, submit() method
if ($dispatcher->hasListeners(FormEvents::PRE_SUBMIT)) {
// here submittedData has csrf _token key/value
$event = new FormEvent($this, $submittedData);
$dispatcher->dispatch(FormEvents::PRE_SUBMIT, $event);
$submittedData = $event->getData();
// now submittedData without _token key/value
}
EDITED2: more details. CsrfValidationListener that using by Symfony Form component call $this->tokenManager->isTokenValid(new CsrfToken($this->tokenId, $data[$this->fieldName])) and this return false, the issue in next code:
// Symfony/Component/Security/Csrf/CsrfTokenManager.php
public function isTokenValid(CsrfToken $token)
{
if (!$this->storage->hasToken($token->getId())) {
return false;
}
return StringUtils::equals($this->storage->getToken($token->getId()), $token->getValue());
}
It seems csrf token is stored into session, so isTokenValid() method return false.
I continue to debug.
EDITED3:
as I can see, session is empty on calling $this->storage->hasToken($token->getId()) from CsrfTokenManager.php.
This is very strange, because I generate csrf token from my controller in next way:
$csrfToken = $this->get('security.csrf.token_manager')->refreshToken('Symfony');
And as I can see, refreshToken() method save csrf token into db:
// Csrf/CsrfTokenManager.php
public function refreshToken($tokenId)
{
$value = $this->generator->generateToken();
$this->storage->setToken($tokenId, $value);
return new CsrfToken($tokenId, $value);
}
// Csrf/TokenStorage/SessionTokenStorage.php
public function setToken($tokenId, $token)
{
if (!$this->session->isStarted()) {
$this->session->start();
}
$this->session->set($this->namespace.'/'.$tokenId, (string) $token);
}
But when I send data to the form, $this->tokenManager->isTokenValid(new CsrfToken($this->tokenId, $data[$this->fieldName])) that calls from preSubmit() method of CsrfValidationListener return empty session.
just in case I add my security.yml settings, maybe I have missed something:
main:
pattern: ^/(?!login).+
stateless: true
simple_preauth:
authenticator: app_bundle.api_key_authenticator
provider: api_key_user_provider
anonymous: ~
logout: ~
login:
pattern: ^/login
stateless: false
simple_preauth:
authenticator: app_bundle.email_password_authenticator
provider: email_user_provider
anonymous: ~
Notice: I generate csrf-token under login firewall and try to access it from main firewall!
But I also tried to generate csrf-token in the same firewall. Nothing changed.
EDITED4:
I have configured custom session dir for tracking session creation. So, I can see, that on login I have session with all attributes, but when I doing PUT request, I notice that new session file is created and it contains something like this:
_sf2_attributes|a:0:{}_sf2_flashes|a:0:{}_sf2_meta|a:3:{s:1:"u";i:1449700968;s:1:"c";i:1449700968;s:1:"l";s:1:"0";}
Just empty session.
So, I have found the reason of csrf error behavior.
When csrf token created, it stored into session. Because of my api firewall is stateless, it can't store csrf token. And also on each authentication session is drop and has only current authentication token.
Properly configured CORS help to protect from csrf attack.
See also this answer about CORS headers.
Hope, this will be helpful for somebody.

Override binding of Authentication class in Shiro with Guice

The problem I encountered is connected with message of a type:
OPTIONS http://localhost:8080
XMLHttpRequest cannot load http://localhost:8080/. No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource. Origin 'http://localhost:3000' is therefore not allowed access. The response had HTTP status code 401.
So basically it is an issue of our Angular JS 1.4.3 frontend sending OPTIONS request to the server before actual request. Problem occurs, because there is no way to add authentication data to this request and it is being blocked by Apache Shiro as it tries to access protected address.
Since I can not fix it on Angular side, I thought it would be easy on the server side. Would be, but we use Guice 4.
In Guice config we properly set up Shiro:
install(new EEShiroModule(getServletContext()));
filter("/services/*").through(GuiceShiroFilter.class);
so far so good. But now I want to make a hole in the system, allowing the OPTIONS request not to be authenticated. I have found a similar approach here: http://blog.awolski.com/cors-dart-dropwizard-and-shiro/.
At the end I am supposed to override the BasicHttpAuthenticationFilter but it is not so simple as it would be in Spring or Ini configuration because I can not override class binding.
What would be the best approach? Thanks!
Today I meet similar problem here. For CORS requests, the OPTIONS pre-flight request will be regarded as unauthenticated by Apache Shiro since the browser won't add custom headers to the OPTIONS request.
To solve this problem. I overrode the AuthenticatingFilter's isAccessAllowed method to make it always return true when the request's method is OPTIONS.
public class CORSAuthenticationFilter extends AuthenticatingFilter {
#Override
protected boolean isAccessAllowed(ServletRequest request, ServletResponse response, Object mappedValue) {
//Always return true if the request's method is OPTIONS
if(request instanceof HttpServletRequest){
if(((HttpServletRequest) request).getMethod().toUpperCase().equals("OPTIONS")){
return true;
}
}
return super.isAccessAllowed(request, response, mappedValue);
}
}
If you are using PermissionsAuthorizationFilter, you need to override it too.
public class CORSPermissionAuthorizationFilter extends PermissionsAuthorizationFilter {
#Override
public boolean isAccessAllowed(ServletRequest request, ServletResponse response, Object mappedValue) throws IOException {
if(request instanceof HttpServletRequest){
if(((HttpServletRequest) request).getMethod().toUpperCase().equals("OPTIONS")){
return true;
}
}
return super.isAccessAllowed(request, response, mappedValue);
}
}
After having these filters overridden. They should be declared to be the running implementation in shiro's config file.
That is how i get things to work. Hope it helps, a little bit late though.

Only one auth mechanism allowed; only the X-Amz-Algorithm query parameter..?

I am trying to send a PUT request to an amazonS3 presigned URL. My request seems to be called twice even if I only have one PUT request. The first request returns 200 OK, the second one returns 400 Bad Request.
Here is my code:
var req = {
method: 'PUT',
url: presignedUrl,
headers: {
'Content-Type': 'text/csv'
},
data: <some file in base64 format>
};
$http(req).success(function(result) {
console.log('SUCCESS!');
}).error(function(error) {
console.log('FAILED!', error);
});
The 400 Bad Request error in more detail:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Error>
<Code>InvalidArgument</Code>
<Message>Only one auth mechanism allowed; only the X-Amz-Algorithm query parameter, Signature query string parameter or the Authorization header should be specified</Message>
<ArgumentName>Authorization</ArgumentName>
<ArgumentValue>Bearer someToken</ArgumentValue>
<RequestId>someRequestId</RequestId>
<HostId>someHostId</HostId>
</Error>
What I don't understand is, why is it returning 400? and What's the workaround?
Your client is probably sending an initial request that uses an Authorization header, which is being responded with a 302. The response includes a Location header which has a Signature parameter. The problem is that the headers from the initial request are being copied into the subsequent redirect request, such that it contains both Authorization and Signature. If you remove the Authorization from the subsequent request you should be good.
This happened to me, but in a Java / HttpClient environment. I can provide details of the solution in Java, but unfortunately not for AngularJS.
For the Googlers, if you're sending a signed (signature v4) S3 request via Cloudfront and "Restrict Bucket Access" is set to "Yes" in your Cloudfront Origin settings, Cloudfront will add the Authorization header to your request and you'll get this error. Since you've already signed your request, though, you should be able to turn this setting off and not sacrifice any security.
I know this may be too late to answer, but like #mlohbihler said, the cause of this error for me was the Authorization header being sent by the http interceptor I had setup in Angular.
Essentially, I had not properly filtered out the AWS S3 domain so as to avoid it automatically getting the JWT authorization header.
Also, the 400 "invalid argument" may surface as a result of wrong config/credentials for your S3::Presigner that is presigning the url to begin with. Once you get past the 400, you may encounter a 501 "not implemented" response like I did. Was able to solve it by specifying a Content-Length header (specified here as a required header). Hopefully that helps #arjuncc, it solved my postman issue when testing s3 image uploads with a presigned url.
The message says that ONLY ONE authentication allowed. It could be that You are sending one in URL as auth parameters, another - in headers as Authorization header.
import 'package:dio/adapter.dart';
import 'package:dio/dio.dart';
import 'package:scavenger_inc_flutter/utils/AuthUtils.dart';
import 'package:scavenger_inc_flutter/utils/URLS.dart';
class ApiClient {
static Dio dio;
static Dio getClient() {
if (dio == null) {
dio = new Dio();
dio.httpClientAdapter = new CustomHttpAdapter();
}
return dio;
}
}
class CustomHttpAdapter extends HttpClientAdapter {
DefaultHttpClientAdapter _adapter = DefaultHttpClientAdapter();
#override
void close({bool force = false}) {
_adapter.close(force: force);
}
#override
Future<ResponseBody> fetch(RequestOptions options,
Stream<List<int>> requestStream, Future<dynamic> cancelFuture) async {
String url = options.uri.toString();
if (url.contains(URLS.IP_ADDRESS) && await AuthUtils.isLoggedIn()) {
options.followRedirects = false;
options.headers.addAll({"Authorization": await AuthUtils.getJwtToken()});
}
final response = await _adapter.fetch(options, requestStream, cancelFuture);
if (response.statusCode == 302 || response.statusCode == 307) {
String redirect = (response.headers["location"][0]);
if(!redirect.contains(URLS.IP_ADDRESS)) {
options.path = redirect;
options.headers.clear();
}
return await fetch(options, requestStream, cancelFuture);
}
return response;
}
}
I disallowed following redirects.
Used the response object to check if it was redirected.
If it was 302, or 307, (HTTP Redirect Codes), I resent the request after clearing the Auth Headers.
I used an additioal check to send the headers only if the path contained my specific domain URL (or IP Address in this example).
All of the above, using a CustomHttpAdapter in Dio. Can also be used for images, by changing the ResponseType to bytes.
Let me know if this helps you!
I was using django restframework. I applied Token authentication in REST API. I use to pass token in request header (used ModHeader extension of Browser which automatically put Token in Authorization of request header) of django API till here every thing was fine.
But while making a click on Images/Files (which now shows the s3 URL). The Authorization automatically get passed. Thus the issue.
Link look similar to this.
https://.s3.amazonaws.com/media//small_image.jpg?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%2F20210317%2Fap-south-XXXXXXXXFaws4_request&X-Amz-Date=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I lock the ModHeader extension to pass Authorization Token only while making rest to REST API and not while making resquest to S3 resources. i.e. do not pass any other Authorization while making request to S3 resource.
It's a silly mistake. But in case it helps.
Flutter: if you experience this with the http dart package, then upgrade to Flutter v2.10!
Related bugs in dart issue tracker:
https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/47246
https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/45410
--> these has been fixed in dart 2.16, which has been shipped with Flutter v2.10!
https://medium.com/dartlang/dart-2-16-improved-tooling-and-platform-handling-dd87abd6bad1

Resources