Yes. That would be an alternative approach.
However, I want to use CMS (Container Managed Security) to protect direct
access to .jsp pages.
This should be possible as per the Servlet specification.
/robert
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Souther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:16 PM
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: RE: [newbie] Container Managed Security - preventing direct
> accessto .jsp
>
>
> Filters are portable.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 12:32, Robert Taylor wrote:
> > Ping...
> >
> > Please let me know if this questions is just too obvious
> > and I'll gladly RTFM...even more. And yes, I know this list
> > is not here just to serve _my_ interests.
> >
> > It just seems like a common idiom to provide a portable mechanism
> > for protecting direct access to .jsp so as to enforce access through
> > some controller. I have in the past placed .jsp files "behind" WEB-INF,
> > but I don't believe that is portable and would like to use CMS to achieve
> > this.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > /robert
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Robert Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:59 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [newbie] Container Managed Security - preventing direct access
> > > to .jsp
> > >
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I'm new to Tomcat and this mailing list, and have a question
> > > regarding configuring Tomcat to simply disallow access to .jsp pages
> > > which I have been protected via the in my web app
> > > web.xml file.
> > >
> > > >From what I understand, the following should do the trick and cause
> > > a 403 error to be sent to the browser by the container. I would like
> > > to trap that error code and display a user friendly page (I chose any page
> > > so I would know it's working).
> > >
> > > I've simply modified the Tomcat jsp-examples web app. Here's a snippet
> > > of the necessary artifacts in the web.xml file.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 403
> > > /dates/date.jsp
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Example Security Constraint
> > >
> > > Protected Area
> > > /security/protected/*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe the constraint is working, but I don't think the
> > > is "catching" the 403 status code. This is probably
> > > because a 403 status code is not returned, but rather a 200 (I verified
> > > this by looking at the response headers).
> > >
> > > Anyhow, the content of the returned page is below within the :
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You are logged in as remote user null in session
> > > D97EE937BEC953A7E82E42B3956AED86
> > >
> > > No user principal could be identified.
> > >
> > > To check whether your username has been granted a particular role, enter
> > > it here:
> > >
> > >
> > > If you have configured this app for form-based authentication, you can
> > > log off by
> > > clicking here. This should cause you to be returned to the logon page
> > > after the
> > > redirect that is performed.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sure this has happened to someone else, I just cannot find where.
> > > I googled and didn't come up with much. I searched the archives using
> > > "You are logged in as remote user null in session" and no matches were
> > > found.
> > >
> > > Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > /robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > 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]
