We Keep Coding

How do I authenticate a cookie and then redirect to the homepage or the inputted URL if the cookie is correct in ASP.NET Core?

The logic is rather primitive - if a user visits the page and does not have the cookie, which shows that the user accepted/denied cookies he gets redirected to a cookie acceptance page. When he's set the cookie, he gets redirected to the previous inputted URL or the homepage (depending which URL the user inputted).
How do I realize this in ASP.NET Core (I'm using .NET 6 if that matters)
My pseudocode looks like this:
[Route("/*")]
var result = AuthenticateCookie(document.cookie("banneracceptance", true).authenticate());
if (result === true)
Redirect(/Homepage || inputtedURL);
else
throw new Error ("Wrong credentials");
Apparently I'm a beginner with C# so I wrote it in JavaScript style.
P.S. which component do I write this logic in? A controller? Startup.cs?

This would best be solved by using some custom middleware for all requests. You put it in the pipeline and then check for the cookie, then redirect if it is not there or doesn't match the value we want. Perhaps also put a check for the page it is requesting but the pipeline might seems to be smart enough not to put you in a redirect loop.
public class CookieCheckMiddleware
{
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
public CookieCheckMiddleware(RequestDelegate next)
{
_next = next;
}
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext httpContext)
{
if(httpContext.Request.Cookies["MyCookie"] == null && httpContext.Request.Path != "/WhereIShouldGo")
{
httpContext.Response.Redirect("/WhereIShouldGo");
}
await _next(httpContext); // calling next middleware
}
}
// Extension method used to add the middleware to the HTTP request pipeline.
public static class CookieCheckMiddlewareExtensions
{
public static IApplicationBuilder UseCookieCheckMiddleware(this IApplicationBuilder builder)
{
return builder.UseMiddleware<CookieCheckMiddleware>();
}
}
And then in your startup.cs
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IWebHostEnvironment env)
{
...
app.UseCookieCheckMiddleware();
...
}
Just note that where you put that middleware call, it also goes in the request pipeline, so make sure important stuff is in front of it in the configure method, and things that would depend on the redirect go after it.

Set Hangfire succeeded job expiry attribute not working

I am using Hangfire to do jobs, and I'd like to change the behaviour that succeeded jobs are deleted from the database after a day - I'd like them to be stored for a year.
Following the instructions in this thread, which is the same as in this SO question, I have created a class:
public class OneYearExpirationTimeAttribute : JobFilterAttribute, IApplyStateFilter
{
public void OnStateUnapplied(ApplyStateContext context, IWriteOnlyTransaction transaction)
{
context.JobExpirationTimeout = TimeSpan.FromDays(365);
}
public void OnStateApplied(ApplyStateContext context, IWriteOnlyTransaction transaction)
{
context.JobExpirationTimeout = TimeSpan.FromDays(365);
}
}
and I register it in my Asp.net web api startup class as a global filter:
public class Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
// ... other stuff here ...
GlobalJobFilters.Filters.Add(new OneYearExpirationTimeAttribute());
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.UseSqlServerStorage("HangFireDBConnection");
app.UseHangfireDashboard();
}
}
The web api is the place where jobs are posted (i.e., the call to BackgroundJob.Enqueue(() => ...) happens). I have not changed the configuration of the clients that do the actual jobs.
If I now post a job and it succeeds, it still has a expiry of one day as you can see in the screenshot, which shows both the dashboard and the entry in the HangfireDb,
What am I doing wrong or what am I missing?

My mistake in setup was that the attribute was set on the wrong application. As I stated in the question, I added the filter in the startup.cs file of the asp.net web api where jobs are posted.
Instead I should have added the configuration in the Console application where the jobs are being executed, i.e., my console app starts with
static void Main(string[] args)
{
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.UseSqlServerStorage("HangFireDBConnection");
GlobalJobFilters.Filters.Add(new OneYearExpirationTimeAttribute());
// ... more stuff ...
}
Then it works. The Hangfire documentation could be a bit clearer on where the filter should be configured.

Using version:
// Type: Hangfire.JobStorage
// Assembly: Hangfire.Core, Version=1.7.11.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null
This can be done directly (apparently)
JobStorage.Current.JobExpirationTimeout = TimeSpan.FromDays(6 * 7);

ValidateAntiForgeryToken in Ajax request with AspNet Core MVC

I have been trying to recreate an Ajax version of the ValidateAntiForgeryToken - there are many blog posts on how to do this for previous versions of MVC, but with the latest MVC 6, none of the code is relevant. The core principle that I am going after, though, is to have the validation look at the Cookie and the Header for the __RequestVerificationToken, instead of comparing the Cookie to a form value. I am using MVC 6.0.0-rc1-final, dnx451 framework, and all of the Microsoft.Extensions libraries are 1.0.0-rc1-final.
My initial thought was to just inherit ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute, but looking at the source code, I would need to return my own implementation of an an Authorization Filter to get it to look at the header.
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
public class ValidateAjaxAntiForgeryTokenAttribute : Attribute, IFilterFactory, IFilterMetadata, IOrderedFilter
{
public int Order { get; set; }
public bool IsReusable => true;
public IFilterMetadata CreateInstance(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
return serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<ValidateAjaxAntiforgeryTokenAuthorizationFilter>();
}
}
As such, I then made my own version of ValidateAntiforgeryTokenAuthorizationFilter
public class ValidateAjaxAntiforgeryTokenAuthorizationFilter : IAsyncAuthorizationFilter, IAntiforgeryPolicy
{
private readonly IAntiforgery _antiforgery;
private readonly ILogger _logger;
public ValidateAjaxAntiforgeryTokenAuthorizationFilter(IAntiforgery antiforgery, ILoggerFactory loggerFactory)
{
if (antiforgery == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(antiforgery));
}
_antiforgery = antiforgery;
_logger = loggerFactory.CreateLogger<ValidateAjaxAntiforgeryTokenAuthorizationFilter>();
}
public async Task OnAuthorizationAsync(AuthorizationContext context)
{
if (context == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(context));
}
if (IsClosestAntiforgeryPolicy(context.Filters) && ShouldValidate(context))
{
try
{
await _antiforgery.ValidateRequestAsync(context.HttpContext);
}
catch (AjaxAntiforgeryValidationException exception)
{
_logger.LogInformation(1, string.Concat("Ajax Antiforgery token validation failed. ", exception.Message));
context.Result = new BadRequestResult();
}
}
}
protected virtual bool ShouldValidate(AuthorizationContext context)
{
if (context == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(context));
}
return true;
}
private bool IsClosestAntiforgeryPolicy(IList<IFilterMetadata> filters)
{
// Determine if this instance is the 'effective' antiforgery policy.
for (var i = filters.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
var filter = filters[i];
if (filter is IAntiforgeryPolicy)
{
return object.ReferenceEquals(this, filter);
}
}
Debug.Fail("The current instance should be in the list of filters.");
return false;
}
}
However, I cannot find the proper Nuget package and namespace that contains IAntiforgeryPolicy. While I found the interface on GitHub - what package do I find it in?
My next attempt was to instead go after the IAntiforgery injection, and replace the DefaultAntiforgery with my own AjaxAntiforgery.
public class AjaxAntiforgery : DefaultAntiforgery
{
private readonly AntiforgeryOptions _options;
private readonly IAntiforgeryTokenGenerator _tokenGenerator;
private readonly IAntiforgeryTokenSerializer _tokenSerializer;
private readonly IAntiforgeryTokenStore _tokenStore;
private readonly ILogger<AjaxAntiforgery> _logger;
public AjaxAntiforgery(
IOptions<AntiforgeryOptions> antiforgeryOptionsAccessor,
IAntiforgeryTokenGenerator tokenGenerator,
IAntiforgeryTokenSerializer tokenSerializer,
IAntiforgeryTokenStore tokenStore,
ILoggerFactory loggerFactory)
{
_options = antiforgeryOptionsAccessor.Value;
_tokenGenerator = tokenGenerator;
_tokenSerializer = tokenSerializer;
_tokenStore = tokenStore;
_logger = loggerFactory.CreateLogger<AjaxAntiforgery>();
}
}
I got this far before I stalled out because there is no generic method on ILoggerFactory for CreateLogger<T>(). The source code for DefaultAntiforgery has Microsoft.Extensions.Options, but I cannot find that namespace in any Nuget package. Microsoft.Extensions.OptionsModel exists, but that just brings in the IOptions<out TOptions> interface.
To follow all of this up, once I do get the Authorization Filter to work, or I get a new implementation of IAntiforgery, where or how do I register it with the dependency injection to use it - and only for the actions that I will be accepting Ajax requests?

I had similar issue. I don't know if any changes are coming regarding this in .NET but, at the time, I added the following lines to ConfigureServices method in Startup.cs, before the line services.AddMvc(), in order to validate the AntiForgeryToken sent via Ajax:
services.AddAntiforgery(options =>
{
options.CookieName = "yourChosenCookieName";
options.HeaderName = "RequestVerificationToken";
});
The AJAX call would be something like the following:
var token = $('input[type=hidden][name=__RequestVerificationToken]', document).val();
var request = $.ajax({
data: { 'yourField': 'yourValue' },
...
headers: { 'RequestVerificationToken': token }
});
Then, just use the native attribute [ValidadeAntiForgeryToken] in your Actions.

I've been wrestling with a similar situation, interfacing angular POSTs with MVC6, and came up with the following.
There are two problems that need to be addressed: getting the security token into MVC's antiforgery validation subsystem, and translating angular's JSON-formatted postback data into an MVC model.
I handle the first step via some custom middleware inserted in Startup.Configure(). The middleware class is pretty simple:
public static class UseAngularXSRFExtension
{
public const string XSRFFieldName = "X-XSRF-TOKEN";
public static IApplicationBuilder UseAngularXSRF( this IApplicationBuilder builder )
{
return builder.Use( next => context =>
{
switch( context.Request.Method.ToLower() )
{
case "post":
case "put":
case "delete":
if( context.Request.Headers.ContainsKey( XSRFFieldName ) )
{
var formFields = new Dictionary<string, StringValues>()
{
{ XSRFFieldName, context.Request.Headers[XSRFFieldName] }
};
// this assumes that any POST, PUT or DELETE having a header
// which includes XSRFFieldName is coming from angular, so
// overwriting context.Request.Form is okay (since it's not
// being parsed by MVC's internals anyway)
context.Request.Form = new FormCollection( formFields );
}
break;
}
return next( context );
} );
}
}
You insert this into the pipeline with the following line inside the Startup.Configure() method:
app.UseAngularXSRF();
I did this right before the call to app.UseMVC().
Note that this extension transfers the XSRF header on any POST, PUT or DELETE where it exists, and it does so by overwriting the existing form field collection. That fits my design pattern -- the only time the XSRF header will be in a request is if it's coming from some angular code I've written -- but it may not fit yours.
I also think you need to configure the antiforgery subsystem to use the correct name for the XSRF field name (I'm not sure what the default is). You can do this by inserting the following line into Startup.ConfigureServices():
services.ConfigureAntiforgery( options => options.FormFieldName = UseAngularXSRFExtension.XSRFFieldName );
I inserted this right before the line services.AddAntiforgery().
There are several ways of getting the XSRF token into the request stream. What I do is add the following to the view:
...top of view...
#inject Microsoft.AspNet.Antiforgery.IAntiforgery af
...rest of view...
...inside the angular function...
var postHeaders = {
'X-XSRF-TOKEN': '#(af.GetTokens(this.Context).FormToken)',
'Content-Type': 'application/json; charset=utf-8',
};
$http.post( '/Dataset/DeleteDataset', JSON.stringify({ 'siteID': siteID }),
{
headers: postHeaders,
})
...rest of view...
The second part -- translating the JSON data -- is handled by decorating the model class on your action method with [FromBody]:
// the [FromBody] attribute on the model -- and a class model, rather than a
// single integer model -- are necessary so that MVC can parse the JSON-formatted
// text POSTed by angular
[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public IActionResult DeleteDataset( [FromBody] DeleteSiteViewModel model )
{
}
[FromBody] only works on class instances. Even though in my case all I'm interested in is a single integer, I still had to dummy up a class, which only contains a single integer property.
Hope this helps.

Using a anti forgery token in a Ajax call is possible but if you are trying to secure a Api I really would suggest using a Access Token instead.
If you are relying on a identity token stored in a cookie as authentication for your Api, you will need to write code to compensate for when your cookie authentication times out, and your Ajax post is getting redirected to a login screen. This is especially important for SPAs and Angular apps.
Using a Access Token implementation instead, will allow you to refresh you access token (using a refresh token), to have long running sessions and also stop cookie thiefs from accessing your Apis.. and it will also stop XSRF :)
A access token purpose is to secure resources, like Web Apis.

Owin SelfHosted WebApp does not fulfill HEAD requests

I'm self hosting a web app using Microsoft.Owin.Hosting.WebApp, but after making a HEAD request to the server, it throws a 500 error. When trying to pull a JSON file, the error changes to 504.
I've seen many solutions, but none applying to WebApp. If hosting with NancyFX, I could set AllowChunkedEncoding to false to make it work. But that doesn't seems like a good option.
Code snippet:
var options = new StartOptions("http://localhost:8080")
{
ServerFactory = "Microsoft.Owin.Host.HttpListener"
};
WebApp.Start<Startup>(options);
Implementation of Startup:
public class Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
app.UseNancy();
}
}
Both calling the browser or using Fiddle causes a failure:
I haven't added the Nancy Module implementation here because it's not where the problem should be fixed, as I also want to serve static content, but allowing HEAD request on them.
Does anyone knows how to serve HEAD verbs from a Self Hosted OWIN?

I just ran into a very similar issue like this. I learned that HEAD method responses should be identical to GET responses but with no content.
Here's the relevant RFC: https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html
Example I have for my self-hosted Web api app:
[HttpHead]
[HttpGet]
[ResponseType(typeof(string))]
public HttpResponseMessage LiveCheck(HttpRequestMessage request)
{
HttpResponseMessage response;
response = request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK);
if (request.Method == HttpMethod.Get)
{
response.Content = new StringContent("OK", System.Text.Encoding.UTF8, "text/plain");
}
return response;
}

I had a similar issue with a self-hosted SignalR app where HEAD requests caused an app crash and returned error code 500. The solution I found was to write a custom OWIN middleware layer to intercept HEAD requests and return code 200.
Create a new class in your project called HeadHandler.cs
using Microsoft.Owin;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace YourProject
{
public class HeadHandler : OwinMiddleware
{
public HeadHandler(OwinMiddleware next) : base(next)
{
}
public override async Task Invoke(IOwinContext context)
{
if (context.Request.Method == "HEAD")
{
context.Response.StatusCode = 200;
}
else
{
await Next.Invoke(context);
}
}
}
}
In your OWIN Startup class, add a line before mapping any other middleware to use the new HeadHandler middleware.
public class Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
app.Use<HeadHandler>();
//The rest of your original startup class goes here
//app.UseWebApi()
//app.UseSignalR();
}
}

Self-Hosted SignalR app refusing CORS requests

I am working on an MVC 5 application that uses a windows service to perform some processing; I am using signal R so that I can show if the windows service is working on the UI and also allow the user to manually start processing (as opposed to running on a schedule).
On the server side I have the following config:
public class SignalRStartup
{
public static IAppBuilder App = null;
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
app.Map("/signalr", map =>
{
map.UseCors(CorsOptions.AllowAll);
var hubConfiguration = new HubConfiguration
{
EnableDetailedErrors = true,
};
map.RunSignalR(hubConfiguration);
});
}
}
Which is used like so:
SignalR = WebApp.Start<SignalRStartup>(_settings.LoaderServiceUrl);
Right now the loader service url is: http://localhost:8080
Then on the client side:
var adminHubProxy = $.connection.adminHub;
adminHubProxy.client.updateProcessing = function(status) {
if (status === true) {
$('#processing').show();
} else {
$('#processing').hide();
}
};
$.connection.hub.url = 'http://localhost:8080/signalr';
$.connection.hub.start();
$('#startProcessingLink').on('click', function() {
adminHubProxy.server.startProcessing();
});
And if it matters the code that includes the generated proxy:
<script src="http://localhost:8080/signalr/hubs"></script>
So the problem I'm having is that when I trigger the startProcessing function the server throws back this error message:
XMLHttpRequest cannot load http://localhost:8080/signalr/send?transport=serverSentEvents&connectionTok…Pp7JqCJOnkJEA%3D%3D&connectionData=%5B%7B%22name%22%3A%22adminhub%22%7D%5D.
No 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' header is present on the requested resource. Origin 'http://localhost' is therefore not allowed access.
From all the reading I've done my configuration should be resolving this issue by allowing all CORS requests but it isn't and I can't see why.
Edit
After some more debugging I pulled up the details of the response on the negotiate call and am seeing the following headers:
Access-Control-Allow-Credentials:true
Access-Control-Allow-Origin:http://localhost
I'm not sure why the credentials header is being added at all, but the origin header again makes me believe that this should be working.

I figured out the problem, first off the error message has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on.
TL;DR;
The problem was that the AdminHub could not be resolved on the server side because of my dependency injection setup
I am using Castle Windsor for dependency injection and originally the AdminHub looked like this:
public class AdminHub : Hub
{
private readonly IMyService _myService;
public AdminHub(IMyService myService)
{
_myService= myService;
_myService.OnProcessingUpdate += (sender, args) => UpdateProcessingStatus();
}
public void UpdateProcessingStatus()
{
Clients.All.updateProcessing(_myService.IsProcessing);
}
public void GetProcessingStatus()
{
Clients.Caller.updateProcessing(_myService.IsProcessing);
}
public void StartProcessing()
{
_myService.Process();
}
}
The default dependency resolver cannot resolve this as it requires a parameterless constructor. This answer both served to point out what was happening and provide the basis for a solution.