Using IIS w/ASP .NET 2.0 Web Application Projects

[Scott M.]

In my ASP .NET 2.0 Web Applicaiton Project, I've changed the server setting
to use IIS. I then created the virtual directory (from the button in VS)
and then went and enabled Integrated Windows Authentication. The site
consists of just a single default.aspx file with nothing in it. When I
attempt to run the project, I get an http 403 access fobidden error.

What am I missing?

Thanks.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> enabled Integrated Windows Authentication
!> When I attempt to run the project, I get an http 403 access fobidden error

When you run ASP.NET with Windows Authentication enabled,
every single account which accesses the application must have
permission to access the app expressly granted.

Have you considered using Anonymous Authentication or Forms Authentication ?
Or, are you set on creating a Windows user account for every single user of your App ?

 

[Scott M.]

re:
!> enabled Integrated Windows Authentication
!> When I attempt to run the project, I get an http 403 access fobidden
error

When you run ASP.NET with Windows Authentication enabled,
every single account which accesses the application must have
permission to access the app expressly granted.

Have you considered using Anonymous Authentication or Forms Authentication
?

Anonymous Access is on by default. I only turned on Integrated Windows
Authentication (in addition to the automatically enabled Anonymous Access)
because Visual Studio complained that Integrated Windows Authentication must
be on in order to debug the application.

Or, are you set on creating a Windows user account for every single user
of your App ?

See above.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> Anonymous Access is on by default. I only turned on Integrated Windows
!> Authentication (in addition to the automatically enabled Anonymous Access)

Integrated Windows Authentication overrides the Anonymous authentication default.

When you "only turned on Integrated Windows Authentication", in effect,
you are requiring *all* clients which access your application to have an
account on the server which is hosting it.

re:
!> Integrated Windows Authentication must be on in order to debug the application

Which OS are you using ? Which version of IIS are you using ?
There's different solutions for different OS/IIS versions.

There's a slew of reports/solutions for the problem you report at :
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=debug+"Visual+Studio"+"Windows+Authentication"

 

[Scott M.]

re:
!> Anonymous Access is on by default. I only turned on Integrated Windows
!> Authentication (in addition to the automatically enabled Anonymous
Access)

Integrated Windows Authentication overrides the Anonymous authentication
default.

I'm not so sure about that since both Anonymous and Integrated Windows are
checked simultaneously. If selecting one disabled the other, I would expect
that you would not be able to select them both together. I believe that
selecting both allows IIS to have the benefits of both. VS needs integrated
Windows authentication to make debugging work.

When you "only turned on Integrated Windows Authentication", in effect,
you are requiring *all* clients which access your application to have an
account on the server which is hosting it.

re:
!> Integrated Windows Authentication must be on in order to debug the
application

Which OS are you using ? Which version of IIS are you using ?

XP Pro. SP2 / IIS 6.0

There's different solutions for different OS/IIS versions.

There's a slew of reports/solutions for the problem you report at :
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=debug+"Visual+Studio"+"Windows+Authentication"

Yes, I've already seen those but that's not really the point of my post.

Even with what you are saying, I should be able to see the page I'm trying
to access since I do, in fact, have a Windows account on the development
server that I'm testing against and even still, I get a 403 error.

 

[Scott M.]

Correction: IIS 5.1

Also, from the IIS documentation:

Once integrated Windows authentication is enabled, your Web server will only
use it under the following conditions:

-Anonymous access is disabled.

-Anonymous access is denied because Windows file system permissions have
been set, requiring the users to provide a Windows user name and password
before establishing a connection with restricted content.

Contrary to your statement that Windows authentication overrides anonymous
authentication, this indicates that Windows authentication will only be used
when anonymous is turned off (which, in my case, it is not) or when
anonymous access is tried but denied.

-Scott

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> I believe that selecting both allows IIS to have the benefits of both. VS needs integrated

If you select Windows Integrated Authentication, anonymous users won't be able to login.

re:
!> Even with what you are saying, I should be able to see the page I'm trying
!> to access since I do, in fact, have a Windows account on the development
!> server that I'm testing against and even still, I get a 403 error.

That depends on how you've configured ASP.NET.

ASP.NET has a *separate* authentication configuration which IIS doesn't interfere with.

In web.config, you must specify <authentication mode="Windows">
if you want Windows Integrated Authentication to work in ASP.NET.

See : http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa478979.aspx#aspnet-jspmig-authentication_topic5

<quote>
"Windows authentication, also called Integrated Windows authentication, uses Windows operating
system accounts to verify a user's credentials. This means that the user must either be logged in
to the domain on which the server is running (in which case they will not be queried for credentials),
or must log in to the domain when they try to access a protected page.

This authentication scheme is part of IIS, and must be configured and executed by IIS;
it is entirely separate from ASP.NET and is not, as such, an ASP.NET authentication mechanism."
</quote>

If you're running an ASP.NET application, you must configure <authentication mode="Windows"> in web.config.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

No matter how much you nitpick my post,
if you enable Windows Integrated Authentication, anonymous access is not allowed.

The info you quoted is quite specific :

!> Anonymous access is denied because Windows file system permissions have
!> been set, requiring the users to provide a Windows user name and password
!> before establishing a connection with restricted content.

See my previous post for more details regarding use of Windows Authentication with ASP.NET.

re:
!> Contrary to your statement that Windows authentication overrides anonymous authentication
!> this indicates that Windows authentication will only be used when anonymous is turned off

Not true.

Once Windows Integrated Authetication is selected, anonymous
authentication is not possible, at least within non-ASP.NET IIS applications.

For ASP.NET, certain special rules apply.

Follow the link I provided in my previous post for details on
how to require Windows Authentication for an ASP.NET app.

 

[Scott M.]

See my last post (which I think you missed).

And, comments here too, inline...

re:
!> I believe that selecting both allows IIS to have the benefits of both.
VS needs integrated

If you select Windows Integrated Authentication, anonymous users won't be
able to login.

Not true - see my other post.

re:
!> Even with what you are saying, I should be able to see the page I'm
trying
!> to access since I do, in fact, have a Windows account on the
development
!> server that I'm testing against and even still, I get a 403 error.

That depends on how you've configured ASP.NET.

ASP.NET has a *separate* authentication configuration which IIS doesn't
interfere with.

I know. If I set it to Form, Windows or None, I get the same results.

In web.config, you must specify <authentication mode="Windows">
if you want Windows Integrated Authentication to work in ASP.NET.

See :
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa478979.aspx#aspnet-jspmig-authentication_topic5

Not quite. As you point out the ASP .NET setting is separate from the IIS
setting (although you can set the ASP .NET setting via the ASP .NET tab in
IIS without having to do it in web config).

Let's be clear here. The only reason I have Windows authentication turned
on in IIS is because VS will not enter debug mode without it. I am not
trying to create a Windows authenticated ASP .NET web site and so I would
not set the ASP .NET setting to Windows authentication.

As I point out in my other post you can have both Anonymous and Windows
authentication turned on at the same time and this solves the VS debugging
error.

<quote>
"Windows authentication, also called Integrated Windows authentication,
uses Windows operating
system accounts to verify a user's credentials. This means that the user
must either be logged in
to the domain on which the server is running (in which case they will not
be queried for credentials),
or must log in to the domain when they try to access a protected page.

This authentication scheme is part of IIS, and must be configured and
executed by IIS;
it is entirely separate from ASP.NET and is not, as such, an ASP.NET
authentication mechanism."
</quote>

If you're running an ASP.NET application, you must configure
<authentication mode="Windows"> in web.config.>

Uh, no that's not true.

 

[Scott M.]

Your trying to solve the wrong problem here Juan.

I'm not "trying" to make a Windows Authenticated ASP .NET web site. I'm
simply trying to make a brand new, one blank page site/project come up using
IIS, rather than the ASP .NET development server.

I'm not looking for documentation on how to use Windows Authentication. I
only turned it on because VS say's it needs it for debugging purposes. I
know that you don't have to convert your site to a Windows Authenticated
site just to test a single, blank page.

I also know that the IIS documentation directly contradicts what you are
saying.

Thanks anyway, but the path you are going down is not the path that relates
to my question.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

I've tried to explain to you the authentication mechanism as well as I can.
If you know so much about this, why are you the one with the problem ?

Go ahead and butt your head against the explanation.

When you're done, you'll see that, if you turn on Windows Authentication.
allegedly in order to debug the app, you're turning Windows Authentication
on for the whole app, and not just for debugging purposes.

That's why you're having problems.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

I've tried to explain to you the authentication mechanism as well as I can.
If you know so much about this, why are you the one with the problem ?

Go ahead and butt your head against the explanation.

When you're done, you'll see that, if you turn on Windows Authentication.
allegedly in order to debug the app, you're turning Windows Authentication
on for the whole app, and not just for debugging purposes.

That's why you're having problems.

 

[Scott M.]

No, you aren't understanding the point of the message.

If I don't turn this on, then VS won't even try to show the page. It must
be turned on in order for VS to debug because VS uses a Windows account to
authenticate the debugger.

As I pointed out earlier turning this on only works when anonymous is either
off or fails.

At any rate, the problem is now solved as the issue was that IIS does not
create a default document of "default.aspx". As soon as I add this, all is
well.

I am able to do this with Windows Authentication AND Anonymous
Authentication both on but with the ASP.NET authentication set to NONE.

-Scott

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> I am able to do this with Windows Authentication AND Anonymous
!> Authentication both on but with the ASP.NET authentication set to NONE.

Yup.

That one of the things I was trying to explain:
there are separate authentication mechanisms for IIS and ASP.NET.

In any case, glad you're up and running again.

 

[Scott M.]

Actually, you said that I must set ASP .NET authentication to Windows - I
said that you didn't have to.

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

re:
!> Actually, you said that I must set ASP .NET authentication to Windows
!> - I said that you didn't have to.

Still nitpicking, huh ?

It was you who said : "I get an http 403 access forbidden error".

To solve that, if that's an authentication error message,
and you have a default document configured, you *must* set Windows Authentication.

Of course, that creates other problems which must be solved
if you want to run IIS with Windows Authentication successfully.

ASP.NET has a *different* authentication method, as I tried to explain to you,
and not having a default document creates a different problem.

When the error message is : "I get an http 403 access forbidden error"
*and you don't have directory browsing turned on*, the most likely culprit
is that you don't have a default document, but you didn't give enough info
to determine whether that was your issue.

If you had had directory browsing turned on, your problem would have never surfaced.

<sigh>

Carry on...but don't expect me to try to help you any more.
A good deed never goes unpunished.

 

[Scott M.]

Carry on...but don't expect me to try to help you any more.
A good deed never goes unpunished.

I think that would be best. Since every interaction I've ever had with you
results in you becomming insulting and combative when I point something out
that you said that was incorrect. I think you call that "nit-picking", but
I hardly see how proving a definitive statement wrong is nit-picking.

Yes, you did say that there are two kinds of authentication: one for IIS and
one for ASP .NET.
- I already knew that and was not asking about that.
- You said flat out that if IIS is set to Windows authentication, then
so must ASP .NET, which is wrong.

The bulk of our discussion was about this, although I continued to try to
tell you that this was not where my issue lies. You continued to go on
about it, so I continued to point out that you are incorrect.

You said flat out that when Anonymous Authentication and Windows
Authentication are both turned on in IIS, that Anonymous Authentication is
ignored. I provided you with Microsoft documentation that directly
contradicts that and your response was that when ASP .NET is involved, it is
a "special" situation. My results, in the end, support Microsoft's
documentation and explanation, not yours.

It was from this incorrect statement on your part that you then proceeded to
lecture me with your next incorrect statement (that I "*must* turn ASP .NET
Windows authentication on in ASP .NET" [your exact words]) - which is also
incorrect and proved by the fact that my, now working, project has the
settings in just the confiugration you said it couldn't have.

Now, you are tryinig to cover your tracks by saying that if I had just told
you in the beginning about my default document, your explanations would
apply and make it sound like it's my fault that your explanations missed the
mark. How could I know to tell you about my default document when it turns
out that this was the answer I was looking for in the first place? And,
quite frankly, none of your explanations left any room open for any other
possible causes. You never said anything like "unless you have not chosen a
default document, you'll have to set your prermissions this way..". You
simply said "you must set your permissions up this way". Wrong.

So, if your idea of providing good deeds is to tell me one incorrect thing
after another and then call me names when I simply point out that your
wrong, then thank you very much.

This is not the first time your "help" has resulted in you acting this way,
which I don't understand. I appreciate your trying to help, but please
don't act like your doing me any great favors by supplying me with incorrect
information and then becomming combative when I point out your wrong.

-Scott