RE: NTLM question

From: Robert Collins <robert.collins@dont-contact.us>
Date: 21 Aug 2001 21:44:36 +1000

On 21 Aug 2001 10:37:15 +0200, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:

> > As to my mind, it is because of "401" response. In case of
> > "407" all the IE
> > 4+ start NTLM negotiation.
>
> Maybe you are right, it's IIS refusing to negotiate.

401 is the external server equivalent of 407, it is the beginning of
negotiation :}. Get some sleep, or coldral or something.

...
> > should change 401 to 407 and "WWW-Authenticate: NTLM" header line to
> > "Proxy-Authenticate: NTLM". Also, Squid should change
>
> AARGH!

Ditto. Covered in more detail separately.

> > I'am not Squid developer, not even hacker. I've just
> > discovered a lot how
> > NTLM works because of a project I am involved in. And, IMHO, if Basic
> > Authorization could be passed through proxy, why NTLM
> > shouldn't ? Of course,
> > you may say that MS violates the HTTP standard with NTLM, but
> > this scheme
> > works and is in use and becomes popular.
>
> I contend this. It is popular in MS-only or almost-MS-only enterprises
> for intranets because it allows single-sign-on.
> Anybody using it over the internet should be beaten to a bloody pulp. For
> instance
> accessing a site via a transparent proxy (as many ISPs seem to be doing
> currently)
> would not work.

Exactly. NTLM CANNOT reach large popularity on the internet today,
because of it's problem with proxy servers.

Rob
Received on Tue Aug 21 2001 - 05:44:21 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:14 MST