Search Results

Search found 73134 results on 2926 pages for 'javax net ssl sslpeerunverifiedexception grid control'.

Page 40/2926 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

  • Anti-Forgery Request Helpers for ASP.NET MVC and jQuery AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, this is a little crazy Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Submit token via AJAX The browser side problem is, if server side turns on anti-forgery validation for POST, then AJAX POST requests will fail be default. Problem For AJAX scenarios, when request is sent by jQuery instead of form:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution The tokens are printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token. Here $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is provided:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Which datagrid to use for ASP.NET MVC2 project?

    - by Nick
    Hi, I am developing a commercial MVC2 app that requires a grid that has callback update in some form to support 10,000+ rows. It should also support relatively rich content (icons, multiline descriptions etc). Although it requires the usual paging/scrolling/sorting features it does not need support for grouping. So nothing that special. The commercial grids I looked at were Component Art (http://www.componentart.com/products/aspnetmvc/datagrid/) and Telerik (http://www.telerik.com/products/aspnet-mvc/grid.aspx) which both look pretty good but may be a little OTT for what I need. They are also $800 and $999 respectively (1 developer). I've also looked at jqGrid (http://www.trirand.net/download.aspx) and the grid from MvcContrib. These appear ok but for a commercial app I am concerned that these may be risky options - though could be wrong there. I'd really appreciate any views/exprience on either the above grids or perhaps you can suggest a better option/approach. FYI I am using EF4 and C#. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Asynchronous pages in the ASP.NET framework - where are the other threads and how is it reattached?

    - by rkrauter
    Sorry for this dumb question on Asynchronous operations. This is how I understand it. IIS has a limited set of worker threads waiting for requests. If one request is a long running operation, it will block that thread. This leads to fewer threads to serve requests. Way to fix this - use asynchronous pages. When a request comes in, the main worker thread is freed and this other thread is created in some other place. The main thread is thus able to serve other requests. When the request completes on this other thread, another thread is picked from the main thread pool and the response is sent back to the client. 1) Where are these other threads located? 2) IF ASP.NET likes creating new threads, why not increase the number of threads in the main worker pool - they are all running on the same machine anyway? 3) If the main thread hands off a request to this other thread, why does the request not get disconnected? It magically hands off the request to another worker thread somewhere else and when the long running process completes, it picks a thread from the main worker pool and sends response to the client. I am amazed...but how does that work?

    Read the article

  • How to route tree-structured URLs with ASP.NET Routing?

    - by Venemo
    Hello Everyone, I would like to achieve something very similar to this question, with some enhancements. There is an ASP.NET MVC web application. I have a tree of entities. For example, a Page class which has a property called Children, which is of type IList<Page>. (An instance of the Page class corresponds to a row in a database.) I would like to assign a unique URL to every Page in the database. I handle Page objects with a Controller called PageController. Example URLs: http://mysite.com/Page1/ http://mysite.com/Page1/SubPage/ http://mysite.com/Page/ChildPage/GrandChildPage/ You get the picture. So, I'd like every single Page object to have its own URL that is equal to its parent's URL plus its own name. In addition to that, I also would like the ability to map a single Page to the / (root) URL. I would like to apply these rules: If a URL can be handled with any other route, or a file exists in the filesystem in the specified URL, let the default URL mapping happen If a URL can be handled by the virtual path provider, let that handle it If there is no other, map the other URLs to the PageController class I also found this question, and also this one and this one, but they weren't of much help, since they don't provide an explanation about my first two points. I see the following possible soutions: Map a route for each page invidually. This requires me to go over the entire tree when the application starts, and adding an exact match route to the end of the route table. I could add a route with {*path} and write a custom IRouteHandler that handles it, but I can't see how could I deal with the first two rules then, since this handler would get to handle everything. So far, the first solution seems to be the right one, because it is also the simplest. I would really appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • add elements to WPF Grid

    - by Konrad
    I wanted to make a function that populates a Grid in WPF with pictures. So I did that: private void setCellImage(Grid g, Image img, int column, int row) { Grid.SetColumn(img, column); Grid.SetRow(img, row); if (!g.Children.Contains(img)) g.Children.Add(img); g.UpdateLayout(); } And was using it by calling in that way: for (int i = 0; i < 15; i++) for(int j=0; j<15; j++) setCellImage(gameMap,background, i, j); But it wasn't working. it populated a grid only in cell 14,14 leaving all other cells blank. I thought that it may be my mistake that I should use another instances of Image but it wasn't that: private void setCellImage(Grid g, Image img, int column, int row) { Image _img = new Image(); _img = img; Grid.SetColumn(_img, column); Grid.SetRow(_img, row); if (!g.Children.Contains(_img)) g.Children.Add(_img); g.UpdateLayout(); } This thing is still not working.

    Read the article

  • WPF Grid Column MaxWidth not enforced

    - by Trevor Hartman
    This problem stems from not being able to get my TextBlock to wrap. Basically as a last-ditch attempt I am setting MaxWidth on my container grid's columns. I was surprised to find that my child label and textbox still do whatever they want (bad children, BAD) and are not limited by my grid column's MaxWidth="200". What I'm really trying to do is let my TextBlock fill available width and wrap if necessary. So far after trying many variations of HorizontalAlignment="Stretch" on every known parent in the universe, nothing works, except setting an explicit MaxWidth="400" or whatever number on the TextBlock. This is not good because I need the TextBlock to fill available width, not be limited by some fixed number. Thanks! <ItemsControl> <ItemsControl.ItemsPanel> <ItemsPanelTemplate> <StackPanel /> </ItemsPanelTemplate> </ItemsControl.ItemsPanel> <ItemsControl.ItemTemplate> <DataTemplate> <Grid> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition MaxWidth="200" SharedSizeGroup="A" /> <ColumnDefinition MaxWidth="200" SharedSizeGroup="B" /> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <Label VerticalAlignment="Top" Margin="0 5 0 0" Grid.Column="0" Style="{StaticResource LabelStyle}" Width="Auto" Content="{Binding Value.Summary}" /> <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Margin="5,8,5,8" FontWeight="Normal" Background="AliceBlue" Foreground="Black" Text="{Binding Value.Description}" HorizontalAlignment="Stretch" TextWrapping="Wrap" Height="Auto" /> </Grid> </DataTemplate> </ItemsControl.ItemTemplate> </ItemsControl>

    Read the article

  • Anti-Forgery Request Recipes For ASP.NET MVC And AJAX

    - by Dixin
    Background To secure websites from cross-site request forgery (CSRF, or XSRF) attack, ASP.NET MVC provides an excellent mechanism: The server prints tokens to cookie and inside the form; When the form is submitted to server, token in cookie and token inside the form are sent in the HTTP request; Server validates the tokens. To print tokens to browser, just invoke HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken():<% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> <%: this.Html.AntiForgeryToken(Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)%> <%-- Other fields. --%> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> <% } %> This invocation generates a token then writes inside the form:<form action="..." method="post"> <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP" /> <!-- Other fields. --> <input type="submit" value="Submit" /> </form> and also writes into the cookie: __RequestVerificationToken_Lw__= J56khgCvbE3bVcsCSZkNVuH9Cclm9SSIT/ywruFsXEgmV8CL2eW5C/gGsQUf/YuP When the above form is submitted, they are both sent to server. In the server side, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute is used to specify the controllers or actions to validate them:[HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult Action(/* ... */) { // ... } This is very productive for form scenarios. But recently, when resolving security vulnerabilities for Web products, some problems are encountered. Specify validation on controller (not on each action) The server side problem is, It is expected to declare [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] on controller, but actually it has be to declared on each POST actions. Because POST actions are usually much more then controllers, the work would be a little crazy. Problem Usually a controller contains actions for HTTP GET and actions for HTTP POST requests, and usually validations are expected for HTTP POST requests. So, if the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] is declared on the controller, the HTTP GET requests become invalid:[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller // One [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Index() cannot work. { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } If browser sends an HTTP GET request by clicking a link: http://Site/Some/Index, validation definitely fails, because no token is provided. So the result is, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute must be distributed to each POST action:public class SomeController : Controller // Many [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes. { [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index() // Works. { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction1(/* ... */) { // ... } [HttpPost] [ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt = Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public ActionResult PostAction2(/* ... */) { // ... } // ... } This is a little bit crazy, because one application can have a lot of POST actions. Solution To avoid a large number of [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attributes (one for each POST action), the following ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute wrapper class can be helpful, where HTTP verbs can be specified:[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)] public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) : this(verbs, null) { } public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } When this attribute is declared on controller, only HTTP requests with the specified verbs are validated:[ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper(HttpVerbs.Post, Constants.AntiForgeryTokenSalt)] public class SomeController : Controller { // GET actions are not affected. // Only HTTP POST requests are validated. } Now one single attribute on controller turns on validation for all POST actions. Maybe it would be nice if HTTP verbs can be specified on the built-in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute, which is easy to implemented. Specify Non-constant salt in runtime By default, the salt should be a compile time constant, so it can be used for the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] or [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute. Problem One Web product might be sold to many clients. If a constant salt is evaluated in compile time, after the product is built and deployed to many clients, they all have the same salt. Of course, clients do not like this. Even some clients might want to specify a custom salt in configuration. In these scenarios, salt is required to be a runtime value. Solution In the above [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] and [ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapper] attribute, the salt is passed through constructor. So one solution is to remove this parameter:public class ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute : FilterAttribute, IAuthorizationFilter { public ValidateAntiForgeryTokenWrapperAttribute(HttpVerbs verbs) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = AntiForgeryToken.Value }; } // Other members. } But here the injected dependency becomes a hard dependency. So the other solution is moving validation code into controller to work around the limitation of attributes:public abstract class AntiForgeryControllerBase : Controller { private readonly ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute _validator; private readonly AcceptVerbsAttribute _verbs; protected AntiForgeryControllerBase(HttpVerbs verbs, string salt) { this._verbs = new AcceptVerbsAttribute(verbs); this._validator = new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute() { Salt = salt }; } protected override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext) { base.OnAuthorization(filterContext); string httpMethodOverride = filterContext.HttpContext.Request.GetHttpMethodOverride(); if (this._verbs.Verbs.Contains(httpMethodOverride, StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) { this._validator.OnAuthorization(filterContext); } } } Then make controller classes inheriting from this AntiForgeryControllerBase class. Now the salt is no long required to be a compile time constant. Submit token via AJAX For browser side, once server side turns on anti-forgery validation for HTTP POST, all AJAX POST requests will fail by default. Problem In AJAX scenarios, the HTTP POST request is not sent by form. Take jQuery as an example:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 // Token is not posted. }, callback); This kind of AJAX POST requests will always be invalid, because server side code cannot see the token in the posted data. Solution Basically, the tokens must be printed to browser then sent back to server. So first of all, HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() need to be called somewhere. Now the browser has token in both HTML and cookie. Then jQuery must find the printed token in the HTML, and append token to the data before sending:$.post(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1, __RequestVerificationToken: getToken() // Token is posted. }, callback); To be reusable, this can be encapsulated into a tiny jQuery plugin:/// <reference path="jquery-1.4.2.js" /> (function ($) { $.getAntiForgeryToken = function (tokenWindow, appPath) { // HtmlHelper.AntiForgeryToken() must be invoked to print the token. tokenWindow = tokenWindow && typeof tokenWindow === typeof window ? tokenWindow : window; appPath = appPath && typeof appPath === "string" ? "_" + appPath.toString() : ""; // The name attribute is either __RequestVerificationToken, // or __RequestVerificationToken_{appPath}. tokenName = "__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath; // Finds the <input type="hidden" name={tokenName} value="..." /> from the specified. // var inputElements = $("input[type='hidden'][name='__RequestVerificationToken" + appPath + "']"); var inputElements = tokenWindow.document.getElementsByTagName("input"); for (var i = 0; i < inputElements.length; i++) { var inputElement = inputElements[i]; if (inputElement.type === "hidden" && inputElement.name === tokenName) { return { name: tokenName, value: inputElement.value }; } } return null; }; $.appendAntiForgeryToken = function (data, token) { // Converts data if not already a string. if (data && typeof data !== "string") { data = $.param(data); } // Gets token from current window by default. token = token ? token : $.getAntiForgeryToken(); // $.getAntiForgeryToken(window). data = data ? data + "&" : ""; // If token exists, appends {token.name}={token.value} to data. return token ? data + encodeURIComponent(token.name) + "=" + encodeURIComponent(token.value) : data; }; // Wraps $.post(url, data, callback, type). $.postAntiForgery = function (url, data, callback, type) { return $.post(url, $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data), callback, type); }; // Wraps $.ajax(settings). $.ajaxAntiForgery = function (settings) { settings.data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(settings.data); return $.ajax(settings); }; })(jQuery); In most of the scenarios, it is Ok to just replace $.post() invocation with $.postAntiForgery(), and replace $.ajax() with $.ajaxAntiForgery():$.postAntiForgery(url, { productName: "Tofu", categoryId: 1 }, callback); // Token is posted. There might be some scenarios of custom token, where $.appendAntiForgeryToken() is useful:data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, token); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); And there are scenarios that the token is not in the current window. For example, an HTTP POST request can be sent by an iframe, while the token is in the parent window. Here, token's container window can be specified for $.getAntiForgeryToken():data = $.appendAntiForgeryToken(data, $.getAntiForgeryToken(window.parent)); // Token is already in data. No need to invoke $.postAntiForgery(). $.post(url, data, callback); If you have better solution, please do tell me.

    Read the article

  • Can static methods be called using object/instance in .NET

    Ans is Yes and No   Yes in C++, Java and VB.NET No in C#   This is only compiler restriction in c#. You might see in some websites that we can break this restriction using reflection and delegates, but we can’t, according to my little research J I shall try to explain you…   Following is code sample to break this rule using reflection, it seems that it is possible to call a static method using an object, p1 using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {             var p1 = new Person() { Name = "Smith" };             typeof(Person).GetMethod("TestStatMethod").Invoke(p1, new object[] { });                     }         class Person         {             public string Name { get; set; }             public static void TestStatMethod()             {                 Console.WriteLine("Hello");             }         }     } } but I do not think so this method is being called using p1 rather Type Name “Person”. I shall try to prove this… look at another example…  Test2 has been inherited from Test1. Let’s see various scenarios… Scenario1 using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {             Test1 t = new Test1();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                                  new object[] { });         }     }     class Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method1");         }     }       class Test2 : Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method2");         }     } } Output:   At test1::Method2 Scenario2         static void Main()         {             Test2 t = new Test2();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                                          new object[] { });         }   Output:   At test1::Method2   Scenario3         static void Main()         {             Test1 t = new Test2();            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").Invoke(t,                             new object[] { });         }   Output: At test1::Method2 In all above scenarios output is same, that means, Reflection also not considering the object what you pass to Invoke method in case of static methods. It is always considering the type which you specify in typeof(). So, what is the use passing instance to “Invoke”. Let see below sample using System; namespace T {     class Program     {         static void Main()         {            typeof(Test2).GetMethod("Method1").                Invoke(null, new object[] { });         }     }       class Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method1");         }     }     class Test2 : Test1     {         public static void Method1()         {             Console.WriteLine("At test1::Method2");         }     } }   Output is   At test1::Method2   I was able to call Invoke “Method1” of Test2 without any object.  Yes, there no wonder here as Method1 is static. So we may conclude that static methods cannot be called using instances (only in c#) Why Microsoft has restricted it in C#? Ans: Really there Is no use calling static methods using objects because static methods are stateless. but still Java and C++ latest compilers allow calling static methods using instances. Java sample class Test {      public static void main(String str[])      {            Person p = new Person();            System.out.println(p.GetCount());      } }   class Person {   public static int GetCount()   {      return 100;   } }   Output          100 span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • J2EE or .Net Framework [closed]

    - by Kevino
    I want to learn JAVA or C#... tell me the strength and weakness of each platforms J2EE and .Net Framework today in 2012 and which is safer for the future jobs wise? I tend to prefer Java because here (Montreal, Toronto) there is like 6 Java jobs for each C# jobs and some experienced programmers advised me to go with Java because they say JVM languages are winning in the cloud and the rise of Android can't do anything except help Java in the long run. Is that true today with the release of windows 8 soon and ios devices? On the other side 1 of these programmers told me that corporation love Asp.Net Mvc3 for intranet and web dev and that tomcat/apache java jsp adoption is slowing down compared to Asp.net and ruby on rails & html5 etc. He told me too since I have a good background in system admins & networking C# would be better for me because I'll be able to do more things in the microsoft world with powershell automation and creating my own apps for all the networking stuffs (windows server, dns,dhcp, active directory, sharepoint etc). But what if windows 8 flop java and android aren't safer in the long run? because he told me mono was a joke compared to Java/android or native objective-c on ios devices. (I plan to do a full time study of 10hr's / 15hr's a day for the next 9 months of either Java or C# that's why I ask this)

    Read the article

  • ViewStateMode in ASP.Net 4.0

    - by sreejukg
    When asp.net introduced the concept of viewstate, it changed the way how developers maintain the state for the controls in a web page. Until then to keep the track of the control(in classic asp), it was the developer responsibility to manually assign the posted content before rendering the control again. Viewstate made allowed the developer to do it with ease. The developers are not bothered about how controls keep there state on post back. Viewstate is rendered to the browser as a hidden variable __viewstate. Since viewstate stores the values of all controls, as the number of controls in the page increases, the content of viewstate grows large. It causes some websites to load slowly. As developers we need viewstate, but actually we do not want this for all the controls in the page. Till asp.net 3.5, if viewstate is disabled from web.config (using <pages viewstate=”false”/> ..</pages>), then you can not enable it from the control level/page level. Both <%@ Page EnableViewState=”true”…. and <asp:textbox EnableViewState=”true” will not work in this case. Lot of developers demands for more control over viewstate. It will be useful if the developers are able to disable it for the entire page and enable it for only those controls that needed viewstate. With ASP.NET 4.0, this is possible, a happy news for the developers. This is achieved by introducing a new property called ViewStateMode. Let us see, What is ViewStateMode – Is a new property in asp.net 4.0, that allows developers to enable viewstate for individual control even if the parent has disabled it. This ViewStateMode property can contain either of three values Enabled- Enable view state for the control even if the parent control has view state disabled. Disabled - Disable view state for this control even if the parent control has view state enabled Inherit - Inherit the value of ViewStateMode from the parent, this is the default value. To disable view state for a page and to enable it for a specific control on the page, you can set the EnableViewState property of the page to true, then set the ViewStateMode property of the page to Disabled, and then set the ViewStateMode property of the control to Enabled. Find the example below. Page directive - <%@ Page Language="C#"  EnableViewState="True" ViewStateMode="Disabled" .......... %> Code for the control  - <asp:TextBox runat="server" ViewStateMode="Enabled" ............../> Now the viewstate will be disabled for the whole page, but enabled for the TextBox. ViewStateMode gives developers more control over the viewstate.

    Read the article

  • Development processes, the use of version control, and unit-testing

    - by ct01
    Preface I've worked at quite a few "flat" organizations in my time. Most of the version control policy/process has been "only commit after it's been tested". We were constantly committing at each place to "trunk" (cvs/svn). The same was true with unit-testing - it's always been a "we need to do this" mentality but it never really materializes in a substantive form b/c there is no institutional knowledge base to do it - no mentorship. Version Control The emphasis for version control management at one place was a very strict protocol for commit messages (format & content). The other places let employees just do "whatever". The branching, tagging, committing, rolling back, and merging aspect of things was always ill defined and almost never used. This sort of seems to leave the version control system in the position of being a fancy file-storage mechanism with a meta-data component that never really gets accessed/utilized. (The same was true for unit testing and committing code to the source tree) Unit tests It seems there's a prevailing "we must/should do this" mentality in most places I've worked. As a policy or standard operating procedure it never gets implemented because there seems to be a very ill-defined understanding about what that means, what is going to be tested, and how to do it. Summary It seems most places I've been to think version control and unit testing is "important" b/c the trendy trade journals say it is but, if there's very little mentorship to use these tools or any real business policies, then the full power of version control/unit testing is never really expressed. So grunts, like myself, never really have a complete understanding of the point beyond that "it's a good thing" and "we should do it". Question I was wondering if there are blogs, books, white-papers, or online journals about what one could call the business process or "standard operating procedures" or uses cases for version control and unit testing? I want to know more than the trade journals tell me and get serious about doing these things. PS: @Henrik Hansen had a great comment about the lack of definition for the question. I'm not interested in a specific unit-testing/versioning product or methodology (like, XP) - my interest is more about work-flow at the individual team/developer level than evangelism. This is more-or-less a by product of the management situation I've operated under more than a lack of reading software engineering books or magazines about development processes. A lot of what I've seen/read is more marketing oriented material than any specifically enumerated description of "well, this is how our shop operates".

    Read the article

  • Unable to regress web application from AJAX Control Toolkit 3.0 back to 1.0

    - by David Neale
    I was recently asked to stop using the Ajax Control Toolkit 3.0 in my application and need to go back to 1.0. Luckily I only have one calendar control which I don't believe will be affected by this. I have removed the reference to the 3.0 .dll and added a reference to the 1.0 .dll. These are the assemblies in web.config: <assemblies> <add assembly="System.Core, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/> <add assembly="System.Data.DataSetExtensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/> <add assembly="System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add assembly="System.Xml.Linq, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/> <add assembly="System.Web.Extensions.Design, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add assembly="System.Design, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B03F5F7F11D50A3A"/> <add assembly="System.Windows.Forms, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/></assemblies> and this also also there: <runtime> <assemblyBinding xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1"> <dependentAssembly> <assemblyIdentity name="System.Web.Extensions" publicKeyToken="31bf3856ad364e35"/> <bindingRedirect oldVersion="1.0.0.0-1.1.0.0" newVersion="3.5.0.0"/> </dependentAssembly> <dependentAssembly> <assemblyIdentity name="System.Web.Extensions.Design" publicKeyToken="31bf3856ad364e35"/> <bindingRedirect oldVersion="1.0.0.0-1.1.0.0" newVersion="3.5.0.0"/> </dependentAssembly> </assemblyBinding> </runtime> I get a compile error of: Could not load file or assembly 'AjaxControlToolkit, Version=3.0.30930.28736, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=28f01b0e84b6d53e' or one of its dependencies. The located assembly's manifest definition does not match the assembly reference. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80131040)

    Read the article

  • Why won't my WPF XAML Grid TranslateTransform.X ?

    - by George
    I'm able to change the width/height of the grid using this, so why won't it work when I use (Grid.RenderTransform).TranslateTransform.X as such: <Window.Triggers> <EventTrigger RoutedEvent="Button.Click" SourceName="button"> <BeginStoryboard> <Storyboard> <DoubleAnimation Storyboard.TargetProperty="(Grid.RenderTransform).(TranslateTransform.X)" From="0" To="200" Storyboard.TargetName="grid" Duration="0:0:2" /> </Storyboard> </BeginStoryboard> </EventTrigger> </Window.Triggers> The application loads etc, but nothing happens when the button is clicked. Here is the XAML for my grid: <Grid x:Name="grid" Height="714" Canvas.Left="240" Canvas.Top="8" Width="360" RenderTransformOrigin="0.5,0.5"> <Grid.Background> <LinearGradientBrush EndPoint="0.5,1" StartPoint="0.5,0"> <GradientStop Color="Black" Offset="0"/> <GradientStop Color="White" Offset="1"/> </LinearGradientBrush> </Grid.Background> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition Width="0*"/> <ColumnDefinition/> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> </Grid> Note that I've tried many different Canvas.Left values, to no avail.

    Read the article

  • New January 2013 Release of the Ajax Control Toolkit

    - by Stephen.Walther
    I am super excited to announce the January 2013 release of the Ajax Control Toolkit! I have one word to describe this release and that word is “Charts” – we’ve added lots of great new chart controls to the Ajax Control Toolkit. You can download the new release directly from http://AjaxControlToolkit.CodePlex.com – or, just fire the following command from the Visual Studio Library Package Manager Console Window (NuGet): Install-Package AjaxControlToolkit You also can view the new chart controls by visiting the “live” Ajax Control Toolkit Sample Site. 5 New Ajax Control Toolkit Chart Controls The Ajax Control Toolkit contains five new chart controls: the AreaChart, BarChart, BubbleChart, LineChart, and PieChart controls. Here is a sample of each of the controls: AreaChart: BarChart: BubbleChart: LineChart: PieChart: We realize that people love to customize the appearance of their charts so all of the chart controls include properties such as color properties. The chart controls render the chart on the browser using SVG. The chart controls are compatible with any browser which supports SVG including Internet Explorer 9 and new and recent versions of Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Apple Safari. (If you attempt to display a chart on a browser which does not support SVG then you won’t get an error – you just won’t get anything). Updates to the HTML Sanitizer If you are using the HtmlEditorExtender on a public-facing website then it is really important that you enable the HTML Sanitizer to prevent Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The HtmlEditorExtender uses the HTML Sanitizer by default. The HTML Sanitizer strips out any suspicious content (like JavaScript code and CSS expressions) from the HTML submitted with the HtmlEditorExtender. We followed the recommendations of OWASP and ha.ckers.org to identify suspicious content. We updated the HTML Sanitizer with this release to protect against new types of XSS attacks. The HTML Sanitizer now has over 220 unit tests. The Ajax Control Toolkit team would like to thank Gil Cohen who helped us identify and block additional XSS attacks. Change in Ajax Control Toolkit Version Format We ran out of numbers. The Ajax Control Toolkit was first released way back in 2006. In previous releases, the version of the Ajax Control Toolkit followed the format: Release Year + Date. So, the previous release was 60919 where 6 represented the 6th release year and 0919 represent September 19. Unfortunately, the AssembyVersion attribute uses a UInt16 data type which has a maximum size of 65,534. The number 70123 is bigger than 65,534 so we had to change our version format with this release. Fortunately, the AssemblyVersion attribute actually accepts four UInt16 numbers so we used another one. This release of the Ajax Control Toolkit is officially version 7.0123. This new version format should work for another 65,000 years. And yes, I realize that 7.0123 is less than 60,919, but we ran out of numbers. Summary I hope that you find the chart controls included with this latest release of the Ajax Control Toolkit useful. Let me know if you use them in applications that you build. And, let me know if you run into any issues using the new chart controls. Next month, back to improving the File Upload control – more exciting stuff.

    Read the article

  • IE8 HTTPs Download Issue

    - by Jon Egerton
    I have a problem with a system I develop related to IE8 downloading over SSL (ie on sites using https://...) and is described on this MS kb article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/323308 We use the HTTPCacheability.NoCache option as the data being downloaded is sensitive, and is downloaded from a secured site. I don't want that data to be cached on any of the proxies etc that the response passes through back to the client. The article describing the issue details a fix to the client side registry changing a BypassSSLNoCacheCheck setting. I don't want to loosen the system security just for IE8, as the system works fine on anything more upto date. Getting all the clients to apply the hotfix is difficult at best, and impossible at worst. We need to support IE8 in the system, at least for now. So: 1: Does the detailed hotfix have any implications for the security at the browser end in IE8 - does it mean the file will be cached? (in a place other than where the user saves the file). 2: Is there some way I can get these files downloadable with a change at the server end that doesn't break the security side of things?

    Read the article

  • Setting up a transparent SSL proxy

    - by badunk
    I've got a linux box set up with 2 network cards to inspect traffic going through port 80. One card is used to go out to the internet, the other one is hooked up to a networking switch. The point is to be able to inspect all HTTP and HTTPS traffic on devices hooked up to that switch for debugging purposes. I've written the following rules for iptables: nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.2.1:1337 -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 1337 -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.2.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE On 192.168.2.1:1337, I've got a transparent http proxy using Charles (http://www.charlesproxy.com/) for recording. Everything's fine for port 80, but when I add similar rules for port 443 (SSL) pointing to port 1337, I get an error about invalid message through Charles. I've used SSL proxying on the same computer before with Charles (http://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/ssl-proxying/), but have been unsuccessful with doing it transparently for some reason. Some resources I've googled say its not possible - I'm willing to accept that as an answer if someone can explain why. As a note, I have full access to the described set up including all the clients hooked up to the subnet - so I can accept self-signed certs by Charles. The solution doesn't have to be Charles-specific since in theory, any transparent proxy will do. Thanks! Edit: After playing with it a little, I was able to get it working for a specific host. When I modify my iptables to the following (and open 1338 in charles for reverse proxy): nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.2.1:1337 -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 1337 -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.2.1:1338 -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 1338 -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.2.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE I am able to get a response, but with no destination host. In the reverse proxy, if I just specify that everything from 1338 goes to a specific host that I wanted to hit, it performs the hand shake properly and I can turn on SSL proxying to inspect the communication. The setup is less than ideal because I don't want to assume everything from 1338 goes to that host - any idea why the destination host is being stripped? Thanks again

    Read the article

  • ISAPI filter with LDAP over SSL only works as administrator

    - by Zac
    I have created an ISAPI filter for IIS 6.0 that tries to authenticate against Active directory using LDAP. The filter works fine when authenticating regularly over port 389, but when I try to use SSL, I always get the 0x51 Server Down error at the ldap_connect() call. Even skipping the connect call and using ldap_simple_bind_s() results in the same error. The weird thing is that if I change the app pool identity to the local admin account, then the filter works fine and LDAP over SSL is successful. I created an exe with the same code below and ran it on the server as admin and it works. Using the default NETWORK SERVICE identity for the site's app pool is what seems to be the problem. Any thoughts as to what is happening? I want to use the default identity since I don't want the website to have elevated admin privileges. The server is in a DMZ outside the network and domain where our DCs are that run AD. We have a valid certificate on our DCs for AD as well. Code: // Initialize LDAP connection LDAP * ldap = ldap_sslinit(servers, LDAP_SSL_PORT, 1); ULONG version = LDAP_VERSION3; if (ldap == NULL) { strcpy(error_msg, ldap_err2string(LdapGetLastError())); valid_user = false; } else { // Set LDAP options ldap_set_option(ldap, LDAP_OPT_PROTOCOL_VERSION, (void *) &version); ldap_set_option(ldap, LDAP_OPT_SSL, LDAP_OPT_ON); // Make the connection ldap_response = ldap_connect(ldap, NULL); // <-- Error occurs here! // Bind and continue... } UPDATE: I created a new user without admin privileges and ran the test exe as the new user and I got the same Server Down error. I added the user to the Administrators group and got the same error as well. The only user that seems to work with LDAP over SSL authentication on this particular server is administrator. The web server with the ISAPI filter (and where I've been running the test exe) is running Windows Server 2003. The DCs with AD on them are running 2008 R2. Also worth mentioning, we have a WordPress site on the same server that authenticates against LDAP over SSL using PHP (OpenLDAP) and there's no problem there. I have an ldap.conf file that specifies TLS_REQCERT never and the user running the PHP code is IUSR.

    Read the article

  • Nginx $scheme doesn't always work while using SSL for one specific page

    - by jjiceman
    I read and followed this question in order to configure nginx to force SSL for one page (admin.php for XenForo), and it is working well for a few of the site administrators but is not for myself. I was wondering if anyone has any advice on how to improve this configuration: ... ssl_certificate example.net.crt; ssl_certificate_key example.key; server { listen 80 default; listen 443 ssl; server_name www.example.net example.net; access_log /srv/www/example.net/logs/access.log; error_log /srv/www/example.net/logs/error.log; root /srv/www/example.net/public_html; index index.php index.html; location / { if ( $scheme = https ){ rewrite ^ http://example.net$request_uri? permanent; } try_files $uri $uri/ /index.php?$uri&$args; index index.php index.html; } location ^~ /admin.php { if ( $scheme = http ) { rewrite ^ https://example.net$request_uri? permanent; } try_files $uri /index.php; include fastcgi_params; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_param HTTPS on; } location ~ \.php$ { try_files $uri /index.php; include fastcgi_params; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_param HTTPS off; } } ... It seems that the extra information in the location ^~ /admin.php block is unecessary, does anyone know of an easy way to avoid duplicate code? Without it it skips the php block and just returns the php files. Currently it applies https correctly in Firefox when I navigate to admin.php. In Chrome, it downloads the admin.php page. When returning to the non-https website in Firefox, it does not correctly return to http but stays as SSL. Like I said earlier, this only happens for me, the other admins can go back and forth without a problem. Is this an issue on my end that I can fix? And does anyone know of any ways I could reduce duplicate configuration options in the configuration? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • nginx crashes on ssl after about a minute

    - by Scott
    Here are my configuration files ssl.conf # HTTPS server # server { listen 443 ssl; server_name api.domain.com; error_log /var/log/nginx/api.error.log; location / { root /var/www/api.domain.com; index index.html index.php index.php; try_files $uri $uri/ /index.php?$args; } ssl on; ssl_certificate /etc/nginx/api.domain.com.crt; ssl_certificate_key /etc/nginx/api.domain.com.key; ssl_session_timeout 5m; ssl_protocols SSLv2 SSLv3 TLSv1; ssl_ciphers HIGH:!aNULL:!MD5; ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on; # pass the PHP scripts to FastCGI server listening on 127.0.0.1:9000 location ~ \.php$ { # root html; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000; fastcgi_index index.php; fastcgi_split_path_info ^(.+\.php)(.*)$; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME /var/www/api.domain.com$fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_param HTTPS on; include fastcgi_params; } location ~ /\.ht { deny all; } } nginx.conf user nginx; worker_processes 1; error_log /var/log/nginx/error.log; pid /var/run/nginx.pid; events { worker_connections 1024; } http { include /etc/nginx/mime.types; default_type application/octet-stream; log_format main '$remote_addr - $remote_user [$time_local] "$request" ' '$status $body_bytes_sent "$http_referer" ' '"$http_user_agent" "$http_x_forwarded_for"'; access_log /var/log/nginx/access.log main; sendfile on; #tcp_nopush on; #keepalive_timeout 0; keepalive_timeout 65; gzip on; include /etc/nginx/conf.d/*.conf; } I have a server running on port 80 that runs with no issues. As soon as I turn on this api server running on ssl, it works for about a minute and then crashes and gives a 504 Gateway Time-out. Running nginx/1.2.3

    Read the article

  • Multiple SSL Certificates Running on Mac OS X 10.6

    - by frodosghost.mp
    I have been running into walls with this for a while, so I posted at stackoverflow, and I was pointed over here... I am attempting to setup multiple IP addresses on Snow Leopard so that I can develop with SSL certificates. I am running XAMPP - I don't know if that is the problem, but I guess I would run into the same problems, considering the built in apache is turned off. So first up I looked into starting up the IPs on start up. I got up an running with a new StartupItem that runs correctly, because I can ping the ip address: ping 127.0.0.2 ping 127.0.0.1 And both of them work. So now I have IP addresses, which as you may know are not standard on OSx. I edited the /etc/hosts file to include the new sites too: 127.0.0.1 site1.local 127.0.0.2 site2.local I had already changed the httpd.conf to use the httpd-vhosts.conf - because I had a few sites running on the one IP address. I have edited the vhosts file so a site looks like this: <VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80> DocumentRoot "/Users/jim/Documents/Projects/site1/web" ServerName site1.local <Directory "/Users/jim/Documents/Projects/site1"> Order deny,allow Deny from All Allow from 127.0.0.1 AllowOverride All </Directory> </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:443> DocumentRoot "/Users/jim/Documents/Projects/site1/web" ServerName site1.local SSLEngine On SSLCertificateFile "/Applications/XAMPP/etc/ssl-certs/myssl.crt" SSLCertificateKeyFile "/Applications/XAMPP/etc/ssl-certs/myssl.key" SetEnvIf User-Agent ".*MSIE.*" nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown <Directory "/Users/jim/Documents/Projects/site1"> Order deny,allow Deny from All Allow from 127.0.0.1 AllowOverride All </Directory> </VirtualHost> In the above code, you can change the 1's to 2's and it is the setup for the second site. They do use the same certificate, which is why they are on different IP addresses. I also included the NameVirtualHost information at the top of the file: NameVirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80 NameVirtualHost 127.0.0.2:80 NameVirtualHost 127.0.0.1:443 NameVirtualHost 127.0.0.2:443 I can ping site1.local and site2.local. I can use telnet ( telnet site2.local 80 ) to get into both sites. But in Safari I can only get to the first site1.local - navigating to site2.local gives me either the localhost main page (which is included in the vhosts) or gives me a Access forbidden!. I am usure what to do, any suggestions would be awesome.

    Read the article

  • DNS CNAME - SSL-certificate issue.

    - by Phoibe
    Hey, I have obtained an SSL certificate by Thawte for domain.com Now my infrastructure changed due to heavy load I have mx.domain.com as SMTP relay storage.domain.com as Mail-Storage and domain.com pointing at Web-Server Every server is hosted on another dedicated/virtual server with individual IP. I do not want to put the Web-Server on the Mail-Storage for security reasons but I do want to use my SSL-Certificate for the Mail-Storage(POP3S/IMAPS). Is that possible or how do I solve that issue?

    Read the article

  • IE and Google Chrome timeout on an IIS6 hosted SSL page that Firefox handles well

    - by Thomas
    Ok, here's the scenario: Up until a few weeks ago, none of us noticed anything wrong with the corporate website. People were using it without complaint. Then, a client complained that a specific page on the site was timing out for him, and only when he committed a POST action on a form filled with data. I checked it out, and it timed out for me, too. But, it only timed out in Google Chrome and IE, not in Firefox. Additionally, the same page, on the same server, but served from a different domain name (one not under the protection of SSL, either) does not time out under any browser. To clarify: https://www.mysite.com/changes.php times out on POST, but the same with http works fine. That distinction (SSL vs. Non-SSL) seems to be important, as nothing else has changed. Our certificate is valid, and Firefox detects no errors thrown by the page. I've looked at the Request and Response headers from the page, and they all follow the correct formats. Then, after wandering through the site, I noticed a few other things. Both IE and Chrome will frequently time out on any page that is PHP-based. They never time out on static images or html files. I've looked at the site from a variety of different servers, my home and work workstations, and my netbook. Because of that, I've discounted a viral infection, as I highly doubt a virus is going to hit every one of the machines to which I have access in exactly the same manner. My setup is: Server: Win2k3, II6, PHP 5.2.9-1. Clients: IE7, IE8, Chrome (regular and dev channel): Frequent timeouts on PHP pages. Firefox 2, Firefox 3: No timeouts. Firebug shows no errors or even lengthy periods serving the pages. I've spent 2 days searching for any tech knowledge that I can find, and my search parameters are all too general. Everyone has problems loading SSL pages in IE and Chrome for a wide variety of reasons. The infrequent nature of the timeouts and the fact that there are no errors being reported anywhere is starting to drive me insane. Does anyone have any insight on a problem like this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >