This is a discussion on Reverse Proxy with 2 Levels of Authentication within the Apache Web Server forums, part of the Web Server and Related Forums category; Hi, I'm trying to setup Apache2 as a reverse proxy for an Exchange 2003 server. For a number of ...
|
|||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|||
|
Hi,
I'm trying to setup Apache2 as a reverse proxy for an Exchange 2003 server. For a number of reasons (beyond my control) not all Exchange users have strong passwords. In an ideal world, I'd simply disable their Exchange "Outlook Web Access" privileges and get on with it. Unfortunately, I am required to permit weak-password web access from within our organisation. What I would like to do is have Apache sit in front of my Exchange server and perform a first level authentication with a strong UserName/Password that I can dictate. Once this has happened, users can access Exchange simply by entering their weak UserName/Password as they would were they in the office. On top of this, the system should also be secure enough so that a carefully-formed URL can not bypass first level authentication. Finally, access to Apache (from the outside world) must be SSL, but access to the Exchange Server must be non-SSL. I have been experimenting with Apache running on a SuSe box. I can get directory authentication working OK. I can even get authentication to a VirtualHost "Location" that acts as a proxy to the root of my Exchange Servers; IIS. My problems is that when I try authentication to a VirtualHost Location(s) that acts as proxy to the 3 required Exchange directories (Exchange, ExchWeb & Public), second layer authentication fails on the Exchange server. Even though I get 2 authentication prompts and provide first and second level credential respectively, the Exchange server log shows that I am attempting to authenticate to Exchange using my first level credentials rather than my second level credentials. I think that my problem lies in the fact that I'm using the same AuthName parameter for my first level authentication and then also my Exchange "location". The reason that I have done this is to prevent external users simply typing in the Exchange URL, thus bypassing first level authentication. Is there a way of password-protecting the WHOLE server without passing those credentials to a proxied host? I don't see this as an Exchange-specific issue. I suspect that this will happen to any back-end web sever that requires independent authentication. I've read quite a few posts about the SSL/non-SSL aspect of my requirement and am confident that portion can be made to work. Any ideas or suggestions are welcome. |
|
|||
|
Davide,
Thanks for your response. I'm going to try another approach. Exchange 2003 has a new feature called "Forms-Based Authentication", that does not rely on browser authentication. I am going to try and configure layer 1 authentication to be Apache using browser-based and layer 2 authentication to be Exchange using forms-based. On the down side, I have to tackle SSL sooner rather than later as FBA requires SSL. Regards, Dean. "Davide Bianchi" <davideyeahsure@onlyforfun.net> wrote in message news:slrnd717g3.168.davideyeahsure@fogg.onlyforfun .net... > On 2005-04-28, NoSpam <me@here.com> wrote: > > Even though I get 2 authentication prompts and provide first and second > > level credential respectively, the Exchange server log shows that I am > > attempting to authenticate to Exchange using my first level credentials > > rather than my second level credentials. > > Yes, that's the way the browser works. When Apache return the > 'authentication required' error, the browser ask for authentication, then > he sends the credentials provided by the user along with every subsequent > request. So the same credentials are transferred trought the proxy to > Exchange. > > > Any ideas or suggestions are welcome. > > The only solution I can think of would be to use a "local" page on the > proxy with a frameset requesting the content to the exchange server, and > then rewriting the content on the fly to avoid the 'direct url' approach > (this is also know as http-screening). But I'm not sure how effective would > that be. > > Davide > > -- > Linux - It is now safe to turn on your computer. > -- From a Slashdot.org post |