Not getting SPRING.SESSION.ID from headers - spring-websocket

I'm using spring session and AbstractSessionWebSocketMessageBrokerConfigurer and am trying to create a STOMP Websocket with support for Spring Security and Spring Session. I can't seem to get my session activated. I use webstomp-client to connect (https://github.com/JSteunou/webstomp-client)
AbstractSessionWebSocketMessageBrokerConfigurer creates
#Bean
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public SessionRepositoryMessageInterceptor<S> sessionRepositoryInterceptor() {
return new SessionRepositoryMessageInterceptor<S>(this.sessionRepository);
}
I pass as header to both the connect event and every message
SPRING.SESSION.ID:<My session id>
When I check the processing in SessionRepositoryMessageInterceptor, I see that it is trying to retrieve the session id through SimpMessageHeaderAccessor that expects the header to contain an object under header key simpSessionAttributes.
Map<String, Object> sessionHeaders = SimpMessageHeaderAccessor
.getSessionAttributes(message.getHeaders());
String sessionId = sessionHeaders == null ? null
: (String) sessionHeaders.get(SPRING_SESSION_ID_ATTR_NAME);
All the attributes that SimpMessageHeaderAccessor seems to expect are not present in the stomp client and just seem to belong to a different protocol.
How do I deal with activating a session under Stomp, Spring WebSocket, Spring Security and Spring Session? Or more specifically:
Why does SessionRepositoryMessageInterceptor use SimpleHeaderAccessor in stead of StompHeaderAcessor?
What headers do I need to pass from a javascript client to create a session (assuming I received the session id through traditional login)?

I don't know what the issue is but I can explain a few things to help you debug the issue.
Spring supports WebSocket-scoped attributes. Those are attributes that exist for as long as the session exists. The SessionRepositoryMessageInterceptor, as a HandshakeInterceptor, hooks into the initial HTTP handshake request and saves the SPRING.SESSION.ID as a WebSocket-scoped attribute. Then after the handshake, when STOMP messages start to flow, it intercepts every incoming message, and retrieves the SPRING.SESSION.ID in the websocket attributes. So I am not sure why you're trying to pass SPRING.SESSION.ID as a header. That's all managed for you as I just explained and associated with the WebSocket session.
As for the question about SimpHeaderAccessor vs StompHeaderAcessor, the former is a more generalized version. It's not wrong to use it as long it gives you enough information. In this case Spring Session doesn't care for STOMP specific details.
I don't understand your second question about what headers need to be passed from a javascript client to create a session. As long as the HTTP handshake is made within the same HTTP session it should just work. There is nothing different here from how you would do any HTTP call.

Related

Is there any way, how to get the redirect uri?

Background:
Let's have a WebAssembly (wasm) originating from .net code.
This wasm uses HttpClient and HttpClientHandler to access a backend API at https://api.uri.
The actual backend API location might change in time (like https://api.uri/version-5), but there is still this fixed endpoint, which provides redirection (3xx response) to the current location (which is in the same domain).
The API allows CORS, meaning it sends e.g. Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers in the responses.
In the normal (non-wasm) world, one just:
Plainly GETs the https://api.uri with no additional headers (CORS safe).
Retrieve the Location: header (containing e.g. https://api.uri/version-5) from the 3xx response as the final URI.
GETs/POSTs the final URI with additional headers (as needed, e.g. custom, auth, etc.).
Note: In ideal world, the redirection is handled transparently and the first two steps can just be omitted.
Although in the wasm world:
You are not allowed to (let the wasm/browser) send the OPTIONS pre-flight requests to a redirecting endpoint (https://api.uri).
You can't send any non-cors headers, when wanting to prevent pre-flight requests (reason for two stages, plain and full, described above).
You can't see the Location: header value (like https://api.uri/version-5) when trying the manual redirection (HttpClientHandler.AllowAutoRedirect = false), because the response is just artificially crafted with HTTP status code of 0 and ReasonPhrase == "opaqueredirect" - adoption to browser's Fetch API. What a nonsense! #1...
You can't see the auto-followed Location: header value in response.RequestMessage?.RequestUri, when trying the (default) automatic redirection (HttpClientHandler.AllowAutoRedirect = true), because there is still the original URI (https://api.uri) instead of the very expected auto-followed one (https://api.uri/version-5). What a nonsense! #2...
You can't send the full blown request with all the headers and rely on the automatic redirection, because it would trigger pre-flight, which is sill not allowed on redirecting endpoint.
So, the obvious question is:
Is there ANY way, how to handle such simple scenario from the Web Assembly?
(and not crash on CORS)
GET https://api.uri => 3xx, Location: https://api.uri/version-5
GET https://api.uri/version-5, Authorization: Basic BlaBlaBase64= ; Custom: Cool-Value => 200
Note: All this has been discovered within the Uno Platform wasm head, but I believe it applies for any .net wasm.
Note: I also guess "disabled" CORS (on the request side, via Sec-Fetch-Mode: no-cors) wouldn't help either, as then such request is not allowed to have additional headers/methods, right?

how to get SAMLResponse from request

Can any body help me how to capture the SAMLResponse.I am using Spring SAML.
I have used below snipet in the custom filter where the authenticatinSuccesshandler sends. but getting a null.
String responseMessage = httpServletRequest.getParameter("SAMLResponse");
please advice me.
The typical use-case is to get access to the SAML assertion and this can be achieved as is described in this response. The assertion is also available in the Authentication object, you can load it using the following piece of code, for example from your authentication success handler:
Authentication authentication = SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication();
SAMLCredential credential = (SAMLCredential) authentication.getCredentials();
String assertion = XMLHelper.nodeToString(SAMLUtil.marshallMessage(credential.getAuthenticationAssertion();
The assertion is stored as an unmarshalled java object which doesn't keep all the details as received. In case you need to keep the value in exactly the same format as received (including white spaces, ...), make sure to set releaseDOM to false on WebSSOProfileConsumerImpl bean.
You can access the SAML Response object e.g. by overriding classes in bean WebSSOProfileConsumerImpl, where it's being processed inside the SAMLMessageContext object.

Thinktecture.Identity SAML token unauthorized

I am using the Thinktecture.IdentityModel 4.0 samples for WebApiSecurity. I've modified the AdfsSamlClient to use our ADFS Server. I am able to get a SAML token from out ADFS Server using
var channel = factory.CreateChannel();
var token = channel.Issue(rst) as GenericXmlSecurityToken;
Then I try to make the service call
var client = new HttpClient { BaseAddress = _baseAddress };
client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Authorization =
new AuthenticationHeaderValue("AdfsSaml", saml);
var response = client.GetAsync("identity").Result;
And get a 401 - Not Authorized call.
I am not sure how to debug this. I have tracing for Microsoft.IdentityModel, but it is only information level trace, no errors or warnings, and nothing I am able to use to debug.
The interesting part of the service trace:
1.
Description OnEndRequest is redirection to IdentityProvider '/WebHost/api/identity'
2.
Description CreateSignInRequest
BaseUri https://[ADFS...]/adfs/ls/
wa wsignin1.0
wtrealm https://[WorkStation...]/WebHost/
wctx rm=0&id=passive&ru=%2fWebHost%2fapi%2fidentity
3.
Description Redirecting to IdentityProvider: 'https://[ADFS...]/adfs/ls/?wa=wsignin1.0&wtrealm=https%3a%2f%2f[WorkStation...]%2fWebHost%2f&wctx=rm%3d0%26id%3dpassive%26ru%3d%252fWebHost%252fapi%252fidentity&wct=2013-09-30T17%3a35%3a04Z'
Thanks for any insight.
Main thing that springs to mind is to make sure the server knows how to handle the "AdfsSaml" scheme that you're using, so you'll want to make sure that your mapping is correct to your token handler.
One thing I tried was to create my own token handler, and mapped that as the token handler for the header. If you want, you can start with Thinktecture's own HttpSamlSecurityTokenHandler, and debug your way through that. Obviously, if it never hits it, then you've got a mapping issue somewhere.
I also found that if an exception was thrown in the ClaimsAuthenticationManager, it would report as unauthorized - even though the exception being thrown was something completely unrelated (in my case, an InvalidCastException). That stumped me for a while, because I hadn't realise that authentication had gotten so far down the pipeline and that validation of the token had actually been successful - I was just checking the HTTP response, which kept saying unauthorised - so make sure you're not being misled by anything trivial like that.

Invoke WCF Data Services Service Operation from iOS

How do I invoke a Service Operation in WCF from iOS?
I have a Service Operation defined in my WCF Data Service (tied to a stored procedure in my DB schema) that I need to invoke from iOS. Say I've got the following declaration in my .svc.cs file:
[WebInvoke(RequestFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, BodyStyle = WebMessageBodyStyle.WrappedRequest)]
public IQueryable<Foo> GetFoos(int param1, DateTime param2, string param3)
{
return CurrentDataSource.GetFoos(param1, param2, param3).AsQueryable();
}
And I've got it set up with the proper rights in InitializeService:
config.SetServiceOperationAccessRule("GetFoos", ServiceOperationRights.AllRead);
When I try to invoke this via HTTP POST from iOS, I get back an error wrapped in JSON:
Bad Request - Error in query syntax.
It seems like it doesn't like how I'm passing my parameters. I'm passing them JSON-encoded (using NSJSONSerialization to turn an NSDictionary into a JSON string) in the request body of a POST request. The same method works on another web service (.svc) not connected to WCF that has operations annotated the same way.
An answer to another question of mine in a similar vein suggests that data formats can be negotiated between client and server, and I've read that dates are a pain to format, so maybe it's my DateTime parameter that's a problem. But I've tried both the JSON format (\/Date(836438400000)\/ and /Date(836438400000)/) and the JSON Light format (1996-07-16T00:00:00) to no avail.
So my question is this: what is the proper way to invoke this operation? If I need to have my app tell the server what format to expect, how do I do that?
Update: I tried using the format datetime'1996-07-16T00:00:00' as mentioned in this question. Same error.
Update 2: The MSDN page for Service Operations seems to suggest that nothing besides Method = "POST" is supported when annotating the WebInvoke for a Service Operation. I tried removing everything from what is quoted in the above code and setting the method to POST. Same error.
Update 3: On Pawel's suggestion, I made a new Service Operation on my Data Service just like this:
[WebInvoke(Method = "POST")]
public IQueryable<string> GetFoos()
{
List<string> foos = new List<string>();
foos.Add("bar");
return foos.AsQueryable();
}
I was able to make it work in Fiddler's Composer pane by setting the method to POST, adding accept:application/json;charset=utf-8 and Content-Length:0 to the headers. Then I added a single int parameter to the operation (called param1). I set the body of my request in Fiddler to {"param1":"1"} and ran it (and Fiddler automatically updated my content-length header), and got the same error. I changed the type of my parameter to string and ran my request again and it worked. So my problem seems to be non-string types.
You need to send parameters in the Url and not in the request body.

Supporting the "Expect: 100-continue" header with ASP.NET MVC

I'm implementing a REST API using ASP.NET MVC, and a little stumbling block has come up in the form of the Expect: 100-continue request header for requests with a post body.
RFC 2616 states that:
Upon receiving a request which
includes an Expect request-header
field with the "100-continue" expectation, an origin server MUST
either respond with 100 (Continue) status and continue to read
from the input stream, or respond with a final status code. The
origin server MUST NOT wait for the request body before sending
the 100 (Continue) response. If it responds with a final status
code, it MAY close the transport connection or it MAY continue
to read and discard the rest of the request. It MUST NOT
perform the requested method if it returns a final status code.
This sounds to me like I need to make two responses to the request, i.e. it needs to immediately send a HTTP 100 Continue response, and then continue reading from the original request stream (i.e. HttpContext.Request.InputStream) without ending the request, and then finally sending the resultant status code (for the sake of argument, lets say it's a 204 No Content result).
So, questions are:
Am I reading the specification right, that I need to make two responses to a request?
How can this be done in ASP.NET MVC?
w.r.t. (2) I have tried using the following code before proceeding to read the input stream...
HttpContext.Response.StatusCode = 100;
HttpContext.Response.Flush();
HttpContext.Response.Clear();
...but when I try to set the final 204 status code I get the error:
System.Web.HttpException: Server cannot set status after HTTP headers have been sent.
The .NET framework by default always sends the expect: 100-continue header for every HTTP 1.1 post. This behavior can be programmatically controlled per request via the System.Net.ServicePoint.Expect100Continue property like so:
HttpWebRequest httpReq = GetHttpWebRequestForPost();
httpReq.ServicePoint.Expect100Continue = false;
It can also be globally controlled programmatically:
System.Net.ServicePointManager.Expect100Continue = false;
...or globally through configuration:
<system.net>
<settings>
<servicePointManager expect100Continue="false"/>
</settings>
</system.net>
Thank you Lance Olson and Phil Haack for this info.
100-continue should be handled by IIS. Is there a reason why you want to do this explicitly?
IIS handles the 100.
That said, no it's not two responses. In HTTP, when the Expect: 100-continue comes in as part of the message headers, the client should be waiting until it receives the response before sending the content.
Because of the way asp.net is architected, you have little control over the output stream. Any data that gets written to the stream is automatically put in a 200 response with chunked encoding whenever you flush, be it that you're in buffered mode or not.
Sadly all this stuff is hidden away in internal methods all over the place, and the result is that if you rely on asp.net, as does MVC, you're pretty much unable to bypass it.
Wait till you try and access the input stream in a non-buffered way. A whole load of pain.
Seb

Resources