Re: Adjusting security setting to run an embedded windows control in IE

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Joe Kaplan \(MVP - ADSI\) (joseph.e.kaplan_at_removethis.accenture.com)
Date: 02/02/04 

Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:04:02 -0600

Do you know what code group your code is getting assigned? Also, do you
know specifically what permission is being demanded that is failing your
case?

Joe K.

"Crirus" <Crirus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%231uNsbM6DHA.488@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Well, I'm sure if I grand certain permission to my code it works
> My hope is that client dont need any to set any permission to allow my
> application to connect back to it's origin server... I'm sure I dont
intend
> to harm my own server system so why should a client set special
permissions?
>
> the worse thing is that cant find a good article concerning security and
> what can I do in various permissions groups :(
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cristian
>
>
>
> "Joe Kaplan (MVP - ADSI)" <joseph.e.kaplan@removethis.accenture.com> wrote
> in message news:emxyrE35DHA.504@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > I'm not an expect at all in Java applet security, but I do know that the
> > .NET CAS model is very different.
> >
> > Essentially, code is sorted into membership of different code groups
based
> > on evidence it presents to the system. Evidence can be things like the
> URL
> > it came from, it's strong name, etc. Based on the code groups it is put
> > into, it will be granted certain permissions.
> >
> > Thus in your example, your code is presenting some evidence that gets it
> > included in a certain code group that is not granted the permission it
> needs
> > to run. In order to fix this, you probably need to either:
> > - Get your code to fall into a code group that has the permissions you
> need
> > - Modify the local security policy on the machine to ensure that some
> > evidence you can present will get you into a code group with the correct
> > permissions
> >
> > As I was poking around in the default security policy, it looked to me
> that
> > the Trusted_Zone code group gets special permission to connect back to
its
> > site of origin. Do you know if IE is finding your site to be in Trusted
> > Sites? If so, based on what I can see you should be getting the
> permission
> > you need.
> >
> > If that won't work, then you might need to modify the local security
> policy.
> > You could use a URL membership condition or perhaps a strong name.
> >
> > Joe K.
> >
> > "Crirus" <Crirus@datagroup.ro> wrote in message
> > news:%23PculYw5DHA.1052@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > This is the scenario:
> > > Clinet open the browser, access my server, receive a client app,
> embedded
> > in
> > > IE that start running. Now, the client app need webPermission to
connect
> > > back to the same server and request some data...
> > >
> > > My question is if this is allowed, I see no reason why I cant request
> data
> > > from my own server with my own client application... Any java applet
can
> > do
> > > that
> > >
> > > Java only restrict the acces to server on the same port 80 from where
it
> > was
> > > first downloaded
> > >
> > > I'm kinda lost in the woods with this permissions...
> > > So, do the client need to set some permisions? The permission I need
is
> > > WebPermission but i'm not sure how it works...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Crirus
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > If work were a good thing, the boss would take it all from you
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > "Joe Kaplan (MVP - ADSI)" <joseph.e.kaplan@removethis.accenture.com>
> wrote
> > > in message news:uL%23ooJq5DHA.3308@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Assuming that the code will not execute given the permissions it is
> > > getting
> > > > in the zone it is running in, I'm pretty sure you aren't going to
get
> > this
> > > > to work without changing some kind of security permissions on the
> > client.
> > > >
> > > > The reason is that if that code isn't granted the permission to do
> what
> > it
> > > > needs to do, there is no way for the code to get around that. .NET
> > > security
> > > > policy is administered on the local machine. The idea is that the
> > > > administrator gets to decide which resources get which permissions.
> > Then,
> > > > code is allowed to execute automatically with the permissions it is
> > given.
> > > > This is very different from the downloadable ActiveX control model
> which
> > > > asks the user for permission to install and run and then can do
> anything
> > > the
> > > > user has permissions to do on their machine.
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure you can't make adjustments to the client machine
security
> > > > policy? Are you sure the permission you need isn't already granted
to
> > the
> > > > zone that the code executes in?
> > > >
> > > > Joe K.
> > > >
> > > > "Crirus" <Crirus@datagroup.ro> wrote in message
> > > > news:eCh%23IUm5DHA.2560@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > I have a application, embedded in IE (html assambly).
> > > > > That aplication need to connect back to the server in order to get
> > some
> > > > > data.
> > > > > What are conditions to succeed without requesting any special
> > > permissions
> > > > > from client? As an applet do it....
> > > > > Should I connect back to the server only using port 80?
> > > > > Right now the client app is serverd by Apache and connection back
is
> > > tryed
> > > > > to another aplication on port 9500
> > > > >
> > > > > Changing security permission by the client is not an option
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Crirus
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > If work were a good thing, the boss would take it all from you
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > "Joe Kaplan (MVP - ADSI)"
<joseph.e.kaplan@removethis.accenture.com>
> > > wrote
> > > > > in message news:OUVp7Zb5DHA.2764@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > The best way to do this is to give just the assemblies that need
> > Full
> > > > > Trust
> > > > > > that permission.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason it doesn't work in your situation is that when IE
> creates
> > > the
> > > > > > AppDomain that it runs your code in, that AppDomain is created
> based
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > URL which will have some sort of partial trust (unless that URL
or
> > the
> > > > > whole
> > > > > > zone has been given Full Trust).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Two things happen after that:
> > > > > > - If your assembly is not marked with the
> > > > > > AllowPartiallyTrustedCallersAttribute, the partially trusted
> > AppDomain
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it is running in will not be able to call it.
> > > > > > - Any code that requires a permission will hit your assembly,
> where
> > > it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be granted due to your Full Trust, but will likely fail when the
> > stack
> > > > > gets
> > > > > > up to the partially trusted AppDomain since the AppDomain may
not
> > have
> > > > > that
> > > > > > permission.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have basically two options to solve this:
> > > > > > - Make the AppDomain have Full Trust with something like a URL
> > > > membership
> > > > > > condition. This is the easiest thing to do, but is not very
> secure,
> > > > > > especially if the URL is not very specific.
> > > > > > - Add the AllowPartiallyTrustedCallersAttribute and use Assert
on
> > the
> > > > > > Permissions that you need when you need them to prevent the
stack
> > walk
> > > > > into
> > > > > > the containing AppDomain. This is more work, but is vastly more
> > > secure
> > > > > and
> > > > > > is the recommended approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There have been some good articles on implementing the second
> > > approach.
> > > > I
> > > > > > believe Ivan Medvedev has some good info on his website. You
> might
> > > > start
> > > > > > there:
> > > > > > http://www.dotnetthis.com/Articles/WritingForSEE.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe K.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Marina" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:Os5oCLb5DHA.2572@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am trying to find the minimum security settings to allow a
> > windows
> > > > > > control
> > > > > > > embedded in IE have full trust.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I give the entire Intranet zone full trust, this works.
> > However,
> > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > very broad and gives the entire zone high privleges.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I tried giving just the assembly full trust (using the full
URL
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > DLL), but this doesn't seem to work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any direction in how to accomplish this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Creating code groups | Setup project
    ... add a class lib to the installer project - and include its primary output ... throw new ApplicationException("Failed to find the machine policy ... // add our named permission set to the machine policy level ... // now we need to create a code group that matches all assemblies ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.security)
  • Re: CAS Policy issue
    ... If enterprise-specified CAS restrictions are set at the enterprise policy level, neither the machine nor user levels will be able to override the restrictions to grant additional permissions. ... Any given code group can be marked as exclusive, which will prevent code that meets the code group membership conditions from being granted any additional permissions via other groups. ... I'd really like the option to prevent the control from loading at child B level, but it seems with child C full trust, this is not possible. ... If you're trying to troubleshoot CAS permission problems, I'd recommend resetting your CAS policy. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.security)
  • Re: CAS Policy issue
    ... Any given code group can be marked as exclusive ... the managed user control always runs. ... The default permission set for this code group is ... If you're trying to troubleshoot CAS permission problems, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.security)
  • Re: transform problem with evidence
    ... permissions for Security, ... it is under Runtime Security ... >properties for the code group, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.security)
  • Re: transform problem with evidence
    ... You won't be able to change the default permissions for the permission set. ... it is under Runtime Security ... >>properties for the code group, ... >>>> ControlEvidence is actually just a flag on the ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.security)