Closed
Bug 95350
Opened 23 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
port (:80) is added to the Site entry in the password manager when using web server auth
Categories
(Core :: Networking: HTTP, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: bugzilla, Assigned: badami)
Details
(Whiteboard: [patch needs r/sr=])
Attachments
(1 file)
845 bytes,
patch
|
darin.moz
:
superreview+
morse
:
approval+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I have some sites that uses web server auth (via .htaccess) files. When I ask Mozilla to save the username/password for these logins a portnumber is adding to the site entry in the Password Manager. Fx if I log into http://dev.gemal.dk and let Mozilla remember the username/password the Site entry in the Password Manager gets listed as dev.gemal.dk:80 (Development) The ":80" should *not* be added! build 20010814
Comment 1•23 years ago
|
||
This sounds similar to bug 84776. Probably need a patch similar to that one to fix this problem.
Comment 2•23 years ago
|
||
That site name is not being generated by password manager but rather is being passed to it from http authentication. Below is the stack showing this. Reassigning. SINGSIGN_PromptUsernameAndPassword(const unsigned short * 0x00000000, const unsigned short * 0x05beb3a0, unsigned short * * 0x05beb32c, unsigned short * * 0x05beb36c, const char * 0x0012f4a0, nsIPrompt * 0x05bf35b0, int * 0x0012f7dc, unsigned int 2) line 2361 + 47 bytes nsSingleSignOnPrompt::PromptUsernameAndPassword(nsSingleSignOnPrompt * const 0x05bf34a0, const unsigned short * 0x00000000, const unsigned short * 0x05beb3a0, const unsigned short * 0x0012f550, unsigned int 2, unsigned short * * 0x05beb32c, unsigned short * * 0x05beb36c, int * 0x0012f7dc) line 581 + 51 bytes nsHttpChannel::PromptForUserPass(const char * 0x05bdbfe0, int 80, int 0, const char * 0x0012f9b0, nsAString & {...}, nsAString & {...}) line 1489 + 162 bytes nsHttpChannel::GetCredentials(const char * 0x05bea870, int 0, nsAFlatCString & {...}) line 1285 + 53 bytes nsHttpChannel::ProcessAuthentication(unsigned int 401) line 1157 + 23 bytes nsHttpChannel::ProcessResponse() line 431 + 12 bytes nsHttpChannel::OnStartRequest(nsHttpChannel * const 0x05bd81c4, nsIRequest * 0x05be2490, nsISupports * 0x00000000) line 2174 + 11 bytes nsOnStartRequestEvent::HandleEvent() line 110 + 53 bytes nsARequestObserverEvent::HandlePLEvent(PLEvent * 0x05bea4c4) line 65 PL_HandleEvent(PLEvent * 0x05bea4c4) line 590 + 10 bytes PL_ProcessPendingEvents(PLEventQueue * 0x00aebeb0) line 520 + 9 bytes _md_EventReceiverProc(HWND__ * 0x002304a4, unsigned int 49295, unsigned int 0, long 11452080) line 1071 + 9 bytes USER32! 77e71268() 00ae
Component: Password Manager → Networking: HTTP
Comment 3•23 years ago
|
||
Really reassigning this time.
Assignee: morse → neeti
QA Contact: tpreston → tever
Comment 5•23 years ago
|
||
why is it wrong to add :80 to the hostname in the password manager entries? of course we could leave it off since it is the default port and there wouldn't be any ambiguity, but why is it wrong as it currently is?
Comment 6•23 years ago
|
||
henrik: can you please address comment #5. i'm tempted to mark this WONTFIX.
Reporter | ||
Comment 7•23 years ago
|
||
I just think that if you dont have a port in the URL we shouldn't add a port. If the user specify :80 it's ok to add a port. It looks weird and confusing. Most common users have no clue about port 80. So if thay check the entries they might wonder what the :80 means...
Comment 8•23 years ago
|
||
ok, from the UI point of view, ic your point. thx for spelling it out for me! -> badami
Assignee: darin → badami
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•23 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [patch needs r/sr=]
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 67641 [details] [diff] [review] add port to domain string only if it was originally mentioned sr=darin
Attachment #67641 -
Flags: superreview+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
morse@netscape.com Need a r= on this one.
Comment 12•23 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 67641 [details] [diff] [review] add port to domain string only if it was originally mentioned Looks fine to me r=morse
Attachment #67641 -
Flags: approval+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•23 years ago
|
||
Fixed with checkin Checking in src/nsHttpChannel.cpp; /cvsroot/mozilla/netwerk/protocol/http/src/nsHttpChannel.cpp,v <-- nsHttpChann el.cpp new revision: 1.88; previous revision: 1.87 done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
It is fixed, or this could be a new bug now :) Cause before, mozilla saves these urls with port number, even if 80. So users, as me, have to edit their SignonFileName, to add another copy of entries with :80 (or delete the ':80' :-) )? Probably this not the right way:( Mozilla should recognize even if there is a port number 80, if no port specified in uri. Probably there are many users who use mozilla but don't know nothing about it, just they will recongnize in new release that this is not working like before. :(
Comment 16•22 years ago
|
||
The new nightly builds add the :80 too, once again. It works fine in release 0.9.9 but after this in new builds wont work as it works before :(.
Reporter | ||
Comment 17•22 years ago
|
||
this has now returned...
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•22 years ago
|
||
this would still not appear on the UI which prompts for the username/password. It will be stored in the password database file and hence appear in the password manager. This is intended behavior. In the password manager we always deal with the cannonicalized versions of the host:port. Marking as wontfix.
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago → 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Reporter | ||
Comment 19•22 years ago
|
||
still dont get it. why do it need to be in the "password database file"? Portnumbers are not added to any other entries....
Comment 20•22 years ago
|
||
What about a 'SignonFileName fixer' program? Probably many users can't, or don't know how to fix this in SignonFileName. In xxx release works int one case, in another release worked in another case, in mozilla 1.0 will work right in as worked in older releases .... Hm :( Why can not check: if there is no port number, it means that mozilla use it for default :80, if there is port number in file, mozilla use it as in new builds. Just an idea, cause I need to change every time my SignonFile too :-(
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•