Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Need to support non basic-auth proxies #658

Open
1 task done
ajmas opened this issue Nov 13, 2018 · 3 comments
Open
1 task done

Need to support non basic-auth proxies #658

ajmas opened this issue Nov 13, 2018 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement Added to issues that describes enhancements

Comments

@ajmas
Copy link

ajmas commented Nov 13, 2018

Description of the Issue

The current version of the Box API assumes that the proxy is either unauthenticated or using basic username/password authentication. This breaks in any environment that uses different types of authentication, such as NTLM or Kerberos.

In our case when we try to use our proxy we get a 407 HTTP response.

Ideally the Box API should allow us to substitute in our own proxy configuration. Maybe something based on the Apache HTTPClient which allows using an auth schema registry, along with a credentials provider - this works for us in a standalone test, when not using the Box Java API.

Versions Used

Java SDK: 1.80_181 on RedHat Linux.
Java: 1.80_181 on RedHat Linux.

Steps to Reproduce

Error Message, Including Stack Trace

Status 407 returned by proxy. If everything worked we should get a 401 (since we aren't providing Box auth for this test case).

@carycheng
Copy link

Hey @ajmas,

We will add NTLM Proxy support to our backlog. However, this is not a trivial change and we will need to prioritize this on our roadmap.

Thank you!

@ajmas
Copy link
Author

ajmas commented Nov 19, 2018

@carycheng understood.

  • I'll make sure my employer gets this brought up via official support channels, since this is essentially a blocker for us.
  • Would Box consider using Apache HTTPClient to handle the connectivity, instead of HTTPUrlConnection? I ask, since this provides the necessary support for SSO based proxies as part of its API.

@carycheng
Copy link

Hey @ajmas,

Yes, I believe using Apache HTTPClient to handle the connectivity could potentially solve this issue and that is idea we are considering down the road, however the effort to swap out our HTTP connection with Apache HTTP Client will be a larger task so we are putting this in our planning backlog to discuss when to tackle this.

We will let you know if/when we figure out a more concrete roadmap for this Proxy issue, thank you!

@PreciselyAlyss PreciselyAlyss added the enhancement Added to issues that describes enhancements label May 7, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Added to issues that describes enhancements
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants