views:

37

answers:

1

Does anyone have any experience of supporting multiple realms in HTTP Authentication?

The Microsoft website states:

Each authenticate response header contains an available authentication scheme and a realm. If multiple authentication schemes are supported, the server returns multiple authenticate response headers. The realm value is case-sensitive and defines a protection space on the proxy or server. For example, the header "WWW-Authenticate: Basic Realm="example"" would be an example of a header returned when server authentication is required.

This suggests that different areas of a website can be secured using different authentication methods. What we are confused about is how to determine what realm should be stated in the server response to a client request.

Does anyone have any examples of how multiple realms work?

+1  A: 

The HTTP specification allows for multiple WWW-Authenticate challenges to be present in a response, either within the same WWW-Authenticate header or using multiple WWW-Authenticate headers within the same response.

There are problems associated with this, as described in RFC 2617, section 4.6. In theory, the client must choose the strongest authentication mechanism available, however, defining which one is the strongest is not always obvious.

I've never tried with multiple realms (and the same scheme, for example Basic), but I'm not aware of anything disallowing it. The main problem with multiple realms and the same scheme is that the browser is likely to be confused in terms of user-interface, in particular which realm it challenges the user with.

Bruno
Regarding multiple WWW-Authenticate challenges, is there a consensus on whether use multiple WWW-Authenticate headers or to have multiple challenges within the same WWW-Authenticate header?
S0rin
According to the specification, it's supposed to be equivalent, so conforming user-agents should support both. Whether they do it in practice, I'm not sure.
Bruno