We are working on hosting a REST API in APIC.
I am able to test the API using APIC endpoint by turning off the security. But when I enabled the security (using API Key) I am facing problem. In fact, I am able to pass the api key in the query and able to run GET operations successfully.
However, we really want to pass the API key (X-IBM-Client-Id) in the header for Authorization. when I pass the API key in the header, I get 500 Internal Server
Error (Headers:
content-type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" x-backside-transport: FAIL FAIL). *Any idea why I am not able to pass the client ID in the header successfully? *
When you are on the API Security Definition page, and the Type entry is API key, there is a drop-down list with a choice of 'Header' or 'Query'.
My guess is that you have chosen 'Query'. Change it to 'Header' and you should be OK.
Related
First off, I apologize if I use any incorrect terminology. I'm familiar with calling internal apis, but this a side project and new territory for me.
I've been using chrome debugger and powershell to write some scripts against the api of a public site. I was able to retrieve the JWT token, however after a few minutes my calls will start to fail with a 403 error. To get around this I've been exporting all the request headers from chrome and storing those locally for my script to pass whenever my call to the api fails. I narrowed it down to 4 headers that must be present, the one that is most suspect seems to be "cookie".
I then removed all key value pairs in the cookie header until I found the one that makes it fail. It's named "__cf_bm". A quick google says it's some kind of cloudflare bot management data. I don't see any of the data present in the __cf_bm cookie being sent in a response during authentication, I only see it in request headers. Is it not possible to construct this value? Does this essentially prevent me from interacting with the site's api?
I have recorded a login flow of an application and found some URIs like below:
/api/oauth2/initiate GET
/oauth2/authorize GET
/api/v1/oauth2/authorize GET
/api/v1/oauth2/authenticate POST
{"username":"${Username}","password":"${Password}","client_id":"${client_Id}","response_type":"code","redirect_uri":"${scheme}://${host}/api/oauth2/callback","server_id":"${server_Id}"}
When I am hitting above in sequence via JMeter I am getting 200 response. Just like JMeter I tried recording in Postman and it worked same, but instead of JSON it gave response in XML format.
It doesn't generate a access_token, it works via session cookies.
My question is - Do I really have API access or it is just browser record n play? If Yes, Does this mean I can get access to any API, if I am a registered user of that application? For ex: Facebook, YouTube or any startup website.
JMeter works on the protocol level. This means that whatever request you are generating. Say a simple browser request or an API call, you can do that easily.
Now the thing is replicating requests. You don't need to record the requests necessarily using the browser. You need to analyze the few things that are required. Say Postman is generating a request. You specify the things you want to send and you use the API Token there. The same things can be specified there as well. It all depends on how you are understanding the concept of request generation.
You simply need to replicate the samplers and the parameters. And the request headers in postman can be replicated here in the same way.
For each HTTP Request Sampler make sure you add a corresponding child HTTP Header Manager config element.
Headers basically tell the server that what client we are using and in what form data is being sent and then server responds accordingly with the information.
What you're recorded is OAuth2 flow and you won't be able to replay it without correlating the dynamic values.
You can have access to Google API or Facebook Graph API given you have proper access_token but I don't think you should be testing them directly, you should focus on solely your application.
I am trying to utilize the OroCommerce Web API which was introduced to interact with my clients.
The first step of oauth2-token seems to be working well, but he consequent requests to the api's such as customers GET, customerusers GET etc all end up with 401-Unauthorized Error.
I am trying to test the whole flow through the POSTMAN.
I have checked the Web API access is enabled and also verified that the guest users are enabled.
What's strange is the the /api/doc seems to be working well, but when I try to mimic the same via POSTMAN, it always ends up with 401 -Unauthorized Access.
Any idea why it could be failing?
Make sure you included Content-Type and Bearer prefixed Authorization headers in the request built using POSTMAN. Like explained in the OroCommerce documentation.
The authentication with Bearer header also explained in POSTMAN documentation.
While I was reading about interaction with Amazon S3, I came to know that request authentication with Amazon AWS is done in 2 ways
HTTP Authorization:
Using the HTTP Authorization header is the most common method of providing authentication information
Query string parameters:
Using query parameters to authenticate requests is useful when you want to express a request entirely in a URL. This method is also referred as presigning a URL.
The question is in which situation should I prefer one method over the other. Do these two authentication methods have their own advantages and disadvantages? As a developer, by using query string parameters method I can presign the URL which enables the end users to temporarily access the Amazon S3 resources by entering the presigned URL in the web browser. Can I use HTTP Authorization method to achieve the same thing? If so which method is better to use and what are their respective limitations?
Can I use HTTP Authorization method to achieve the same thing?
Sometimes. The key difference is that, as a developer, you don't always have enough control over the user agent to inject a header. The most obvious example of this is a simple GET request launched by a web browser in response to the user clicking a link. In that situation, you don't have the a ability to inject an Authorization: header for the browser to send ... so pre-signing the URL is all you can do.
Importantly, there's no information in a signed URL that is considered sensitive, so there's no particularly strong motivation to use the header instead of a signed URL. Your AWS Access Key ID is not secret, and your AWS Secret can't be derived from the other elements and the signature in a computationally-feasible time frame, particularly if you use Signature Version 4, which you should. Signature Version 2 is not officially deprecated in older regions, but newer S3 never supported it and likely never will.
When you do control the user agent, such as in back-end server code, adding the header may be preferable, because you don't need to do any manipulation of the URL string you already have in-hand.
The overview in the first AWS page says what the difference is:
Except for POST requests and requests that are signed by using query parameters, all Amazon S3 bucket operations and object operations use the Authorization request header to provide authentication information.
Basically a POST is used for HTML forms (discussed at length in the Mozilla page). You would use forms whenever the request involves passing data to the remote server, versus just checking status. As noted in HTML method Attribute (W3Schools),
Never use GET to send sensitive data! (will be visible in the URL)
as distinguished from POST:
Appends form-data inside the body of the HTTP request (data is not shown is in URL)
Using WSO2 API Manager 1.3.1. Trying to use the API Manager to proxy to a REST service. I have set up the service in API Mgr and can successfully post and get responses, typically json, though some are text.
However, when I try to GET a resource that returns binary content (a zip "file", content-type:application/octet-stream), the API Manager does not seem to respond and I can see an error in the console window (i'm running wso2server.bat in console):
[2013-07-03 11:52:05,048] WARN - SourceHandler Connection time out
while writing the response: 173.21.1.22:1268->173.21.1.22:8280
I have an HTTPModule on my internal service and it seems to be responding with the appropriate content (I can see the GET and response data logged). I can also call to the internal service directly and get a response, so that end of things seems OK. But going through the API Manager seems to fail.
I found information on enabling other content-types:
WSO2 API Manager - Publishing API with non-XML response
http://wso2.com/library/articles/binary-relay-efficient-way-pass-both-xml-non-xml-content-through-apache-synapse
Using that information I tried to enable the application/octet-stream for messageFormatter and messageBuilder using the binary relay and it did not help (or seem to make a difference). I have even disabled all other content-types and use the binary relay for all content-types and it does not help.
Currently, I'm running with just the following in both axis2.xml and axis2_client.xml (in their appropriate sections):
<messageBuilder contentType=".*" class="org.wso2.carbon.relay.BinaryRelayBuilder"/
<messageFormatter contentType=".*" class="org.wso2.carbon.relay.ExpandingMessageFormatter"/>
I still get my json and text responses, but WSO2 times out getting the zip content. I saw the JIRA referenced in axis2.xml about enabling the ".*" relay, but as the other requests seem to work, I'm not sure it's an issue for me. I did try adding
'format="rest"' to the API definition, but it seemed to break all operations even the ones that worked prior so I've pulled it back out.
Any ideas on what is happening or how to dig in and debug this will help. Thanks!
After working with this for much too long, it turns out that my WSO2 configuration was correct, using the Message Relay and BinaryRelayBuilder, etc. While my REST service could reply immediately, I was setting a HTTP header that I assume WSO2 does not like, because when i removed it WSO2 would reply at an expected rate (instantly).
I was setting the header:
Transfer-Encoding: binary
When I removed that header from my service reply, then WSO2 operated as expected. I don't know if that's a "bug" in WSO2 or if I was implementing incorrectly, but I do have what seems like a "workaround" by omitting that header from my service response.