Re: AAAGGGHHH!!! Why is updating DLL's so frustrating?

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

OK I know I'm beating a dead horse here and don't want to drag this on. I'm
not real familiar with how authentication works on a website but I do know
they are doing forms based auth and we do have a certificate and use SSL.
Also, the webservers are multihomed. The NIC with the public address serves
the public....the other NIC has a private address and that is where the
traffic to my services will be....

Sorry if these are dumb or off topic but I've got this working well now and
it serves our purposes well, I think. But if I'm going to approach the team
I need to have my ducks in a row....

One other thing...can these dll's hosted in IIS still provide "singleton"
support?

"Chris Yager" <cyager@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u$2p37JBGHA.312@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Casual users of your web site will only have access to those very specific
> programmed functions exposed in your remoted object. If the remote object
> can perform sensitive functions that you would not want the anonymous user
> from your public web site to do then you may have an issue and you should
> implement some form of security on your web site to make sure anonymous
> users cannot access your remote object. Forms-based security would be a
> good solution here.
>
> You can also use SSL on your remote object if it is hosted in IIS but if
> calls are limited to being inside your corporate network to the remote
> object, this may be unneccessary.
>
> -chris
>
>
> "Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:u1IsqyCBGHA.1216@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Thanks so much man!!! I'm getting successful results here now. the
>> useDefaultCredentials cleared it right up for me. I have one issue with
>> using that though. While most apps hitting these are going to be
>> in-house windows apps, there will be portions of our website accessing
>> them as well. I'm sure they are going to be a little uncomfortable
>> putting the useDefaultCredentials into their web.config file and allowing
>> anonymous authentication from our public website. Wouldn't this create a
>> security risk? Or, is it sufficient that our services will be hosted in
>> IIS on a different machine that is NOT public?
>>
>> Again, many thanks. You've been so helpful, I feel like I should be the
>> one out christmas shopping for you <VBG>
>>
>>
>> "Chris Yager" <chris.yager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Ov0xmyqAGHA.3708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Yes! If you allow Anonymous access on your virtual root through IIS
>>> Admin Console, you will clear that error. OR specify a setting in the
>>> client config file to useDefaultCredentials. No time - going christmas
>>> shopping so look it up!
>>>
>>> -chris
>>>
>>> "Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood A-T yahoo D-O-T com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23kpZHOoAGHA.1032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Thanks for all this help!! Really....
>>>>
>>>> I think this got me somewhere. Now I get an exception:
>>>>
>>>> The remote server returned an error: (401) Unauthorized.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chris Yager" <chris.yager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:eEJG8cdAGHA.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Use this on the server:
>>>>> (you can't specify the port or the application since iis listens on
>>>>> whatever port it is set up for and the application name is the virtual
>>>>> root name)
>>>>>
>>>>> <system.runtime.remoting>
>>>>> <application>
>>>>> <service>
>>>>> <wellknown mode="SingleCall" type="eoffice.Orders, Orders"
>>>>> objectUri="Orders.rem" />
>>>>> </service>
>>>>> <channels>
>>>>> <channel ref="http">
>>>>> <serverProviders>
>>>>> <formatter ref="binary"/>
>>>>> </serverProviders>
>>>>> </channel>
>>>>> </channels>
>>>>> </application>
>>>>> </system.runtime.remoting>
>>>>>
>>>>> This on the client based on the above
>>>>>
>>>>> <system.runtime.remoting>
>>>>> <application name="eoffice">
>>>>> <client>
>>>>> <wellknown type="eoffice.Orders, Orders"
>>>>> url="http://servername/servervirtualrootname/Orders.rem"; />
>>>>> </client>
>>>>> <channels>
>>>>> <channel ref="http">
>>>>> <clientProviders>
>>>>> <formatter ref="binary"/>
>>>>> </clientProviders>
>>>>> </channel>
>>>>> </channels>
>>>>> </application>
>>>>> </system.runtime.remoting>
>>>>>
>>>>> -chris
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood A-T yahoo D-O-T com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:O3JJ0FdAGHA.832@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> I've made some updates and get a different message now
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <system.runtime.remoting>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <application name="eoffice">
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <service>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <wellknown mode="SingleCall" type="eoffice.Orders, Orders"
>>>>>> objectUri="Orders.rem" />
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </service>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <channels>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <channel port="8000"
>>>>>> type="System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Http.HttpChannel,
>>>>>> System.Runtime.Remoting">
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <clientProviders>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <formatter ref="binary"/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </clientProviders>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </channel>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </channels>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </application>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> </system.runtime.remoting>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> results in the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System.Runtime.Remoting.RemotingException: Remoting configuration
>>>>>> failed with the exception System.Runtime.Remoting.RemotingException:
>>>>>> The remoting application name, eoffice, had already been set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Tim Greenwood" <tim_greenwood A-T yahoo D-O-T com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eReBjtcAGHA.3872@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> OK...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <configuration>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <system.runtime.remoting>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <application name="EOFFICE">
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <service>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <client url="http://daw1:16800/EOFFICE";>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <wellknown type="eoffice.Orders", "Orders"
>>>>>>> url="http://localhost:16800/EOFFICE/Orders.soap"; />
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <activated type="eoffice.Orders, Orders"/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </client>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </service>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <channels>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <channel port="16800"
>>>>>>> type="System.Runtime.Remoting.Channels.Http.HttpChannel,
>>>>>>> System.Runtime.Remoting" />
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </channels>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </application>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </system.runtime.remoting>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> </configuration>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I use the browser to go to http://localhost/eoffice/Orders.soap
>>>>>>> I get the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> System.ArgumentNullException: No message was deserialized prior to
>>>>>>> calling the DispatchChannelSink.
>>>>>>> Parameter name: requestMsg
>>>>>>> "Chris Yager" <chris.yager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:eFFDi$bAGHA.532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> Yes - good question. I dont' know for sure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd rather talk about IIS because it is a much better and more
>>>>>>>> scaleable way to host remote objects. I know I can help you get a
>>>>>>>> test bed up and running.
>>>>>>>> There are some metrics that prove that using http with the binary
>>>>>>>> formatter is almost as fast as tcp and when you consider the
>>>>>>>> clustering and failover you get "out of the box" with iis, it can't
>>>>>>>> be beat. You also have the in-place update issue handled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Post your web.config file and lets see...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Strange IIS Server behavior
    ... Well what i ment was in IIS for this virtual directory, ... In the website internally, we have a login module which is ... Due to Server Configuration with No Authentication) ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.security)
  • RE: Windows Authentication on iis new website not working (fine on
    ... Is the server a MS or a SA server? ... If authentication baffles you ... Trying to move the contents on the default website onto a new website ... Full IIS running on a domain network. ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.security)
  • Re: IIS 6 fails anonymous connection
    ... > I have a newly built Windows Server 2003, with IIS 6 installed. ... > NTFS for website folders is set to IUSR RO, ... Integrated authentication, I can view it. ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.security)
  • RE: Windows Authentication on iis new website not working (fine on def
    ... If you're being met with an authentication window then it's definitely IIS ... Port numbers have nothing with authentication - just where ... > Trying to move the contents on the default website onto a new website ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.iis.security)
  • Re: Permission Problems SBS2003 R1
    ... website on the SBS server? ... Default permissions and user rights for IIS 6.0 ... Step 3: Please check the permissions in IIS manager: ... Step 4: Re-running CEICW on SBS server: ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)