Hi Mike,

You can have a look at the FormAuthentication class in Cactus which does
something similar.

Thanks
-Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 April 2004 13:09
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: NTLMAuthentication
> 
> I've done a fair bit of reading on this and what happens is a 3-stage
> negotiation:
> 
> Step 1 - the request is bounced back with a WWW-Authenticate NTLM
header
> and
> 401 code
> Step 2 - the client responds with a "type 2" message and receives a
> challenge key from the server. The client then hashes the password
using
> this key and ...
> Step 3 - ... Sends a type 3 message containing the LM (or LMv2)
response
> and
> NTLM (or NTLMv2) response accordingly.
> 
> So the key is the passing of the challenge key - if in the configure
> message
> I could perform this three stage handshake I'd be home and dry but I
can't
> see how to do that.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 16 April 2004 11:00
> To: 'Cactus Users List'
> Subject: RE: NTLMAuthentication
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Lenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 16 April 2004 11:36
> > To: Cactus Users List
> > Subject: Re: NTLMAuthentication
> >
> > I would have suggested HttpServletRequestWrapper#setRemoteUser, but
> > that won't work for code that uses getUserPrincipal() :-(
> >
> > We probably should return a simulated user principal object when the
> > remote user name is simulated? But we aren't doing that currently.
> 
> Yes, that could be useful.
> 
> >
> > However, you probably are expecting a specific subtype of Principal
in
> > your code, right?
> 
> Oh, I didn't know it was being implemented this way! This breaks the
> advantage of having an spec and interface...
> 
> >
> > In that case you'd be right that you'd need to create a
> > NTLMAuthentication class and plug it into Cactus. Note that the
> > underlying Commons-HttpClient library does actually support NTLM,
but
> > the HttpClient-API isn't directly exposed in Cactus so accessing the
> > NTLM functionality might require a hack or some refactoring of
Cactus
> > that is actually on the TODO plan.
> 
> It should be relatively easy for someone who knows how NTLM works with
> Commons HttpClient to implement a NTLMAuthentication class for Cactus.
> Cactus now makes available the following objects to authentication
> classes:
> 
>     void configure(HttpState theState, HttpMethod theMethod,
>         WebRequest theRequest, Configuration theConfiguration);
> 
> Thanks
> -Vincent
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
> > Am 16.04.2004 um 10:40 schrieb Vincent Massol:
> > > Hi Mike,
> > >
> > > But you can get this by using any authentication mechanism (for ex
> by
> > > using the BASIC authentication)? From the application's point of
> view
> > > it
> > > would be exactly the same.
> > >
> > > -Vincent
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Sent: 16 April 2004 09:29
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Subject: RE: NTLMAuthentication
> > >>
> > >> Because the application needs to know the identity of the user -
> > > something
> > >> that jCIFS provides via its extended HttpServletRequest class's
> > >> implementation of getUserPrincipal().
> > >>
> > >> There is validation in the application to ensure that only valid
> users
> > >> view
> > >> the resources (ie users in an LDAP group).
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Sent: 15 April 2004 22:01
> > >> To: 'Cactus Users List'
> > >> Subject: RE: NTLMAuthentication
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Mike,
> > >>
> > >> I have personally no knowledge of NTLM. I can only suggest
> disabling
> > > the
> > >> filter.
> > >>
> > >> Could you please elaborate on the reasons why you will not be
able
> to
> > > full
> > >> test your application?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> -Vincent
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>> Sent: 15 April 2004 10:17
> > >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>> Subject: NTLMAuthentication
> > >>>
> > >>> Has anyone managed to write an NTLMAuthentication class
extending
> > >>> AbstractAuthentication? I'm using jCIFS on a corporate intranet
> (so
> > > we
> > >>> have single sign-on) but when running the unit tests
> authentication
> > >>> fails because
> > >>> of the jCIFS filter. I can obviously disable the filter, but
then
> I
> > >> can't
> > >>> fully test other aspects of the application.
> > >>>
> > >>> Alternatively, can anyone suggest to me a better alternative?
> > >>>
> > >>> Mike
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -
> > >>> For more information about Barclays Capital, please
> > >>> visit our web site at http://www.barcap.com.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Internet communications are not secure and therefore the
Barclays
> > >>> Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of
> this
> > >>> message.  Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus
> > > programmes,
> > >>> it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that
> is
> > >>> caused by viruses being passed.  Any views or opinions presented
> are
> > >>> solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those
> of
> > >> the
> > >>> Barclays Group.  Replies to this email may be monitored by the
> > >> Barclays
> > >>> Group for operational or business reasons.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Christopher Lenz
> > /=/ cmlenz at gmx.de
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to