Hi, I am wondering if a flag can be set in ChallengeResult such that undertow does not try to set the response code on the httpserverexchange before sending the challenge? The reason is that an authentication mechanism may have already utilized the httpservletresponse object to set a response code such as: =========== response.setStatus(HttpServletResponse.SC_MOVED_TEMPORARILY); response.sendRedirect(destination); ============== Now since undertow tries to set a response code on the httpServerExchange, there is an error. Regards, Anil _______________________________________________ undertow-dev mailing list undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev

FYI: For my case at least, I can co-exist with other Auth mechanisms, I just need to be able to abort the sendChallenge loop and make sure I can have my auth mechanism first in the sendChallenge loop (pretty sure that one is already there). On 12/16/2013 11:01 AM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > This may come under the same area as the single challenge I just replied > to Bill about. > > For mechanisms that may behave in this way can we detect that they would > want exclusivity from within the authenticate method? > > On 16/12/13 15:44, Anil Saldhana wrote: >> Hi, >> I am wondering if a flag can be set in ChallengeResult such that >> undertow does not try to set the response code on the httpserverexchange >> before sending the challenge? >> >> The reason is that an authentication mechanism may have already utilized >> the httpservletresponse object to set a response code such as: >> >> =========== >> response.setStatus(HttpServletResponse.SC_MOVED_TEMPORARILY); >> response.sendRedirect(destination); >> ============== >> >> Now since undertow tries to set a response code on the >> httpServerExchange, there is an error. >> >> Regards, >> Anil >> _______________________________________________ >> undertow-dev mailing list >> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > undertow-dev mailing list > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev >

On 12/19/2013 12:13 PM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > Coming back to this topic ;-) > > The reasons I believe it is the authenticate method that should signal a > mechanism wants exclusivity in sending a challenge are: - > > 1 - This method already returns one of three values to indicate it's > authentication state, adding one more value to indicate that a mechanism > has started authentication but wants exclusivity would fit with this. > > 2 - The mechanism doesn't need to be first just to be able to request > exclusivity - also not going to cause a complication if another > mechanism had added it's challenge as that would not be able to happen. > > 3 - In general we should try and avoid writing mechanism that only work > alone (depending on various constraints), having a sendChallenge that > always requested exclusivity would go against this - whereas a mechanism > detecting it wants exclusivity in the authenticate stage would be valid > as remaining mechanisms would still be usable for the times it does not > request exclusivity. > #3 just doesn't work for me. I have two mechanisms for keycloak: A) Bearer token mechanism that uses the Authorization header and challenges with a 401 and WWW-Authenticate B) OAuth browser redirection mechanism, that challenges with a 302 and a Location header. This is a redirect to the authentication server where it will display a login form. Mechanism (B) will not ever request exclusivity during the authenticate phase because keycloak also allows for (A) in the same deployment. Mechanism (B) will not ever be able to challenge if it can't set a 302 response code. I worry that if other mechanisms add WWW-Authenticate headers to a 302 response, it may confuse the user-agent, but this worry might be bogus. So, I don't agree with #3's statement that "having sendChallenge that always requested exclusivity would go against this". Mechanism (B) works with a other mechanisms as long as the user-agent is doing preemptive authentication. Whether Keycloak is successful or not is besides the point. The use case where an auth mechanism needs to redirect to another machine to display a login form is a valid one. Bill

> > 3 - In general we should try and avoid writing mechanism that only work > alone (depending on various constraints), having a sendChallenge that > always requested exclusivity would go against this - whereas a mechanism > detecting it wants exclusivity in the authenticate stage would be valid > as remaining mechanisms would still be usable for the times it does not > request exclusivity. > #3 just doesn't work for me. I have two mechanisms for keycloak: A) Bearer token mechanism that uses the Authorization header and challenges with a 401 and WWW-Authenticate B) OAuth browser redirection mechanism, that challenges with a 302 and a Location header. This is a redirect to the authentication server where it will display a login form. Mechanism (B) will not ever request exclusivity during the authenticate phase because keycloak also allows for (A) in the same deployment. Mechanism (B) will not ever be able to challenge if it can't set a 302 response code. I worry that if other mechanisms add WWW-Authenticate headers to a 302 response, it may confuse the user-agent, but this worry might be bogus. So, I don't agree with #3's statement that "having sendChallenge that always requested exclusivity would go against this". Mechanism (B) works with a other mechanisms as long as the user-agent is doing preemptive authentication. Whether Keycloak is successful or not is besides the point. The use case where an auth mechanism needs to redirect to another machine to display a login form is a valid one.

Bill -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat http://bill.burkecentral.com _______________________________________________ undertow-dev mailing list undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev