I am trying to queue various cookies in response in Lumen.
I've added \Illuminate\Cookie\ into my Composer.
I added Following code in app.php
$app->singleton('cookie', function () use ($app) {
return $app->loadComponent('session', 'Illuminate\Cookie\CookieServiceProvider', 'cookie');
});
$app->bind('Illuminate\Contracts\Cookie\QueueingFactory', 'cookie');
In My Controller, I am trying the following code
Cookie::queue(Cookie::make('test', 'tada', 10, '/'));
//Few more business logic here: before returning the response
$response = new \Illuminate\Http\Response('exit');
return $response->withHeaders($headers);
I can see my queued cookies using Cookie::getQueuedCookies()
but still, after a response, my cookie is nowhere to be found.
I tried various answers from StackOverflow questions but still couldn't resolve it
I can't use response()->withCookie() solution because I am creating cookies at various points of my code, and can't pull them together at the time of response
Queued cookies in Laravel are handled by the \Illuminate\Cookie\Middleware\AddQueuedCookiesToResponse class.
It begs the question why you'd use Lumen if you wanted cookies support but you should be able to add this middleware to your HTTP stack in Lumen.
Related
Given the following pest test:
it('allows admins to create courses', function () {
$admin = User::factory()->admin()->create();
actingAs($admin);
$this->get('/courses')->assertDontSee('WebTechnologies');
$this->followingRedirects()->post('/courses', [
'course-name' => 'WebTechnologies',
])->assertStatus(200)->assertSee('WebTechnologies');
});
The above should fully work; however, the second request post('/courses')...
fails saying that:
Failed asserting that <...> contains "WebTechnologies".
If I remove the first request:
it('allows admins to create courses', function () {
$admin = User::factory()->admin()->create();
actingAs($admin);
$this->followingRedirects()->post('/courses', [
'course-name' => 'WebTechnologies',
])->assertStatus(200)->assertSee('WebTechnologies');
});
The test passes.
If I remove the second request instead:
it('allows admins to create courses', function () {
$admin = User::factory()->admin()->create();
actingAs($admin);
$this->get('/courses')->assertDontSee('WebTechnologies');
});
It also passes.
So why should the combination of the two cause them to fail? I feel Laravel is caching the original response, but I can't find anything within the documentation supporting this claim.
I have created an issue about this on Laravel/Sanctum as my problem was about authentication an stuff...
https://github.com/laravel/sanctum/issues/377
One of the maintainers of Laravel Said:
You can't perform two HTTP requests in the same test method. That's not supported.
I would have wanted a much clearer explanation on why it's not supported.
but I guess, we would never know. (Unless we dive deep into the Laravel framework and trace the request)
UPDATE:
My guess is that, knowing how Laravel works, for each REAL request Laravel initializes a new instance of the APP...
but when it comes to Test, Laravel Initializes the APP for each Test case NOT for each request, There for making the second request not valid.
here is the file that creates the request when doing a test...
vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Foundation/Testing/Concerns/MakesHttpRequests.php
it's on the call method line: 526 (Laravel v9.26.1)
as you can see...
Laravel only uses 1 app instance... not rebuilding the app...
Line 528: $kernel = $this->app->make(HttpKernel::class);
https://laravel.com/docs/9.x/container#the-make-method
the $kernel Variable is an instance of vendor/laravel/framework/src/Illuminate/Foundation/Http/Kernel.php
My guess here is that the HttpKernel::class is a singleton.
P.S. I can do a little more deep dive, but I've procrastinated too much already by answering this question, it was fun thou.
TL;DR.
You can't perform two HTTP requests in the same test method. That's not supported.
UPDATE:
I was not able to stop myself...
I found Laravel initializing Kernel as a singleton
/{probject_dir}/bootstrap/app.php:29-32
Please make sure to not use any classic singleton pattern which isn't invoked with singleton binding or facades.
https://laravel.com/docs/9.x/container#binding-a-singleton
$this->app->singleton(Transistor::class, function ($app) {
return new Transistor($app->make(PodcastParser::class));
});
The Laravel app won't be completely restarted during tests unlike different incoming HTTP requests - even if you call different API endpoints in your tests
I'm currently building a REST API with Laravel Lumen 8. I want to set a cookie if the user logged in successfully. I saw that in the Lumen 5.1 docs there was a section that showed how to send a cookie with the response (https://lumen.laravel.com/docs/5.1/responses#attaching-cookies-to-responses). But in the documentation for version 8 this section is missing. I also looked into the Laravel 8 docs (https://laravel.com/docs/8.x/responses#attaching-cookies-to-responses) and tried the following things in my routes/web.php file:
Attempt 1
$router->get('/test', function () {
return response('Hello World')->cookie(
'name', 'value', 60
);
});
But then I get the following error:
Argument 1 passed to
Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\ResponseHeaderBag::setCookie() must
be an instance of Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Cookie, string
given
Attempt 2
use Illuminate\Support\Facades\Cookie;
$router->get('/test', function () {
Cookie::queue('name', 'value', 60);
return response('Hello World');
});
Error message: Target class [cookie] does not exist.
Attempt 3
$router->get('/test', function () {
$cookie = cookie('name', 'value', 60);
return response('Hello World')->cookie($cookie);
});
Error message: Call to undefined function cookie()
Attempt 4
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Cookie;
$router->get('/test', function () {
return response(null)->withCookie(new Cookie('name', 'value'));
});
This solution works, but if i set the third parameter like this new Cookie('name', 'value', 60), I don't get an error message but the cookie doesn't get set anymore.
And I'm also a bit sceptical because I never saw this in any official docs but only in this stack overflow question: Set cookie on response in lumen 5.6.
These weren't the only things I tried but nothing worked so far. Setting a cookie should be such an easy thing but I just can't achieve it. I'm pretty new to Laravel/Lumen, has it something to do with the new Version 8? Or what else am I doing wrong?
I've had the same issue, this is not pretty but it fixed it for me.
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Cookie;
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response;
...
$response = new Response();
$response->headers->setCookie(Cookie::create('foo', 'bar'));
$response->send(); // <- this guy
In case you are using the jwt-auth library by Sean Tymon for JSON Web Token Authentication, this Thread may help you: https://github.com/tymondesigns/jwt-auth/issues/1594#issuecomment-395575980
Cited from the thread:
The root of the culprit I guess is that Lumen by design no longer does
cookies which I find a bit of a flaw in the light of all the blogs and
OWASP suggestions of not storing a JWT in localstorage but rather in a
httponly cookie to prevent XSS and deal with CSRF accordingly. So, the
jwt-auth doesn't include the cookie parser with the
LumenServiceProvider which is what you register in app.php as a
service provider:
$app->register(Tymon\JWTAuth\Providers\LumenServiceProvider::class);
So when you add
use Tymon\JWTAuth\Http\Parser\Cookies;
to the top of jwt-auth\src\Providers\LumenServiceProvider.php
and add
new Cookies($this->config('decrypt_cookies'))
into the array at the very end of the file
$this->app['tymon.jwt.parser']->setChain([<br>
new AuthHeaders,
new QueryString,
new InputSource,
new LumenRouteParams,
new Cookies($this->config('decrypt_cookies')),
]);
then you should be able use the cookie authentication in Lumen as
well.
I'm using composer to install the slim-skeleton. Those built in routes work as expected. I understand how to add in my previous routes and database connections, but I've been struggling on how to add in any JWT library. I've searched and searched but I'm not finding much documentation for Slim-4 and what I've tried always seems to fail one way or another.
So for example I use composer to install tuupola/slim-jwt-auth and it says to add the following code:
$app = new Slim\App;
$app->add(new Tuupola\Middleware\JwtAuthentication([
"secret" => "supersecretkeyyoushouldnotcommittogithub"
]));
but where or how exactly do I add it to the middleware? Does it need to be added to app/middleware.php? All the documentation I read has a completely different file structure with other directories and whatnot. Once this is placed in the correct spot it looks like when a request is made without a token I should get a 401 Unauthorized response.
After that part is working I know I need to create a route to get my access token, but I'm not seeing anything about that in this library so I would assume I need another library to encode my token and return it from my request.
Once I actually get a token response and pass it in the headers for my actual request route I would assume I do something like the following
$app->get("/protected-route-name", function ($request, $response, $arguments) {
$token = $request->getAttribute("token");
// Not sure what to put next to verify the token and allow the response or display a error if there is no token or the token in invalid.
});
I'm open to firebase or any JWT library if someone has one they like and that works well, I just need some direction as I feel all the documentation is lacking.
use \Firebase\JWT\JWT;
get token
$headers = apache_request_headers();
if(isset($headers['Authorization'])){
$decoded = JWT::decode($headers['Authorization'], $publicKey, array("RS256"));
.... verify token.
}
$jwt = JWT::encode($payload, $privateKey, "RS256");
boom done.
you don't even really need to use middle ware to do this.
slim made itself way overly complex with that.
But the truth is between slim3 and slim 4, on a very basic setup, the only thing that has changed is the getBody() on the json writing.
honestly, not really sure how useful this is anymore to be honest. everything is cloudbased now. Only reason I found this is trying to figure out how to use Google Identity Platform with Slim.
I'm looking to do sub requests in my API, to other parts of my API. I have done this before in Symfony - but I'm not sure how to achieve this in Laravel.
$url = route('some.route', ['param' => $val]);
$request = Request::create($url, 'get', []);
Route::dispatch($request);
Always seems to fail giving something along the lines of
Class api does not exist
So I've tried
app()->handle($request);
This works, but processes a request, but I cant handle any exceptions thrown (e.g. validation as the app layer handles it and throws a html response)
Handle has a signature of the HttpKernelInterface, so can take a property of sub requests and catch exceptions - but these are not used....
...->handle($request, HttpKernelInterface::SUB_REQUEST, false);
Is it possible to do this in Laravel without having to send an actual http request?
Thanks
So after digging deep into the framework, it seems that this way is not possible as it stores some values as statics and they're not updated via the dipatch() method.
So ive created this package to handle setting and reapplying the original values.
https://github.com/myerscode/laravel-sub-request
The Problem in a Nutshell
I'm looking for a way to remove VerifyCsrfToken from the global middleware pipeline from within a package without the user having to modify App\Http\Middleware\VerifyCsrfToken. Is this possible?
The Use Case
I'm developing a package that would make it easy to securely add push-to-deploy functionality to any Laravel project. I'm starting with Github. Github uses webhooks to notify 3rd party apps about events, such as pushes or releases. In other words, I would register a URL like http://myapp.com/deploy at Github, and Github will send a POST request to that URL with a payload containing details about the event whenever it happens, and I could use that event to trigger a new deployment. Obviously, I don't want to trigger a deployment on the off chance that some random (or perhaps malicious) agent other than the Github service hits that URL. As such, Github has a process for securing your webhooks. This involves registering a secret key with Github that they will use to send a special, securely hashed header along with the request that you can use to verify it.
My approach to making this secure involves:
Random Unique URL/Route and Secret Key
First, I automatically generate two random, unique strings, that are stored in the .env file and used to create a secret key route within my app. In the .env file this looks like:
AUTODEPLOY_SECRET=BHBfCiC0bjIDCAGH2I54JACwKNrC2dqn
AUTODEPLOY_ROUTE=UG2Yu8QzHY6KbxvLNxcRs0HVy9lQnKsx
The config for this package creates two keys, auto-deploy.secret and auto-deploy.route that I can access when registering the route so that it never gets published in any repo:
Route::post(config('auto-deploy.route'),'MyController#index');
I can then go to Github and register my webook like this:
In this way, both the deployment URL and the key used to authenticate the request will remain secret, and prevent a malicious agent from triggering random deployments on the site.
Global Middleware for Authenticating Webhook Requests
The next part of the approach involves creating a piece of global middleware for the Laravel app that would catch and authenticate the webhook requests. I am able to make sure that my middleware gets executed near the beginning of the queue by using an approach demonstrated in this Laracasts discussion thread. In the ServiceProvider for my package, I can prepend a new global middleware class as follows:
public function boot(Illuminate\Contracts\Http\Kernel $kernel)
{
// register the middleware
$kernel->prependMiddleware(Middleware\VerifyWebhookRequest::class);
// load my route
include __DIR__.'/routes.php';
}
My Route looks like:
Route::post(
config('auto-deploy.route'), [
'as' => 'autodeployroute',
'uses' => 'MyPackage\AutoDeploy\Controllers\DeployController#index',
]
);
And then my middleware would implement a handle() method that looks something like:
public function handle($request, Closure $next)
{
if ($request->path() === config('auto-deploy.route')) {
if ($request->secure()) {
// handle authenticating webhook request
if (/* webhook request is authentic */) {
// continue on to controller
return $next($request);
} else {
// abort if not authenticated
abort(403);
}
} else {
// request NOT submitted via HTTPS
abort(403);
}
}
// Passthrough if it's not our secret route
return $next($request);
}
This function works right up until the continue on to controller bit.
The Problem in Detail
Of course the problem here is that since this is a POST request, and there is no session() and no way to get a CSRF token in advance, the global VerifyCsrfToken middleware generates a TokenMismatchException and aborts. I have read through numerous forum threads, and dug through the source code, but I can't find any clean and easy way to disable the VerifyCsrfToken middleware for this one request. I have tried several workarounds, but I don't like them for various reasons.
Workaround Attempt #1: Have user modify VerifyCsrfToken middleware
The documented and supported method for solving this problem is to add the URL to the $except array in the App\Http\Middleware\VerifyCsrfToken class, e.g.
// The URIs that should be excluded from CSRF verification
protected $except = [
'UG2Yu8QzHY6KbxvLNxcRs0HVy9lQnKsx',
];
The problem with this, obviously, is that when this code gets checked into the repo, it will be visible to anyone who happens to look. To get around this I tried:
protected $except = [
config('auto-deploy.route'),
];
But PHP didn't like it. I also tried using the route name here:
protected $except = [
'autodeployroute',
];
But this doesn't work either. It has to be the actual URL. The thing that actually does work is to override the constructor:
protected $except = [];
public function __construct(\Illuminate\Contracts\Encryption\Encrypter $encrypter)
{
parent::__construct($encrypter);
$this->except[] = config('auto-deploy.route');
}
But this would have to be part of the installation instructions, and would be an unusual install step for a Laravel package. I have a feeling this is the solution I'll end up adopting, as I guess it's not really that difficult to ask users to do this. And it has the upside of at least possibly making them conscious that the package they're about to install circumvents some of Laravel's built in security.
Workaround Attempt #2: catch the TokenMismatchException
The next thing I tried was to see if I could just catch the exception, then ignore it and move on, i.e.:
public function handle($request, Closure $next)
{
if ($request->secure() && $request->path() === config('auto-deploy.route')) {
if ($request->secure()) {
// handle authenticating webhook request
if (/* webhook request is authentic */) {
// try to continue on to controller
try {
// this will eventually trigger the CSRF verification
$response = $next($request);
} catch (TokenMismatchException $e) {
// but, maybe we can just ignore it and move on...
return $response;
}
} else {
// abort if not authenticated
abort(403);
}
} else {
// request NOT submitted via HTTPS
abort(403);
}
}
// Passthrough if it's not our secret route
return $next($request);
}
Yeah, go ahead and laugh at me now. Silly wabbit, that's not how try/catch works! Of course $response is undefined within the catch block. And If I try doing $next($request) in the catch block, it just bangs up against the TokenMismatchException again.
Workaround Attempt #3: Run ALL of my code in the middleware
Of course, I could just forget about using a Controller for the deploy logic and trigger everything from the middleware's handle() method. The request lifecycle would end there, and I would never let the rest of the middleware propagate. I can't help feeling that there's something inelegant about that, and that it departs from the overall design patterns upon which Laravel is built so much that it would end up making maintenance and collaboration difficult moving forward. At least I know it would work.
Workaround Attempt #4: Modify the Pipeline
Philip Brown has an excellent tutorial describing the Pipeline pattern and how it gets implemented in Laravel. Laravel's middleware uses this pattern. I thought maybe, just maybe, there was a way to get access to the Pipeline object that queues up the middleware packages, loop through them, and remove the CSRF one for my route. Best I can tell, there are ways to add new elements to the pipeline, but no way to find out what's in it or to modify it in any way. If you know of a way, please let me know!!!
Workaround Attempt #5: Use the WithoutMiddleware trait
I haven't investigated this one quite as thoroughly, yet, but it appears that this trait was added recently to allow testing routes without having to worry about middleware. It's clearly NOT meant for production, and disabling the middleware would mean that I'd have to come up with a whole new solution for figuring out how to get my package to do its thing. I decided this was not the way to go.
Workaround Attempt #6: Give up. Just use Forge or Envoyer
Why reinvent the wheel? Why not just pay for one or both of these service that already supports push-to-deploy rather than go to the trouble of rolling my own package? Well, for one, I only pay $5/month for my server, so somehow the economics of paying another $5 or $10 per month for one of these services doesn't feel right. I'm a teacher who builds apps to support my teaching. None of them generate revenue, and although I could probably afford it, this kinda thing adds up over time.
Discussion
Okay, so I've spent the better part of two solid days banging my head against this problem, which is what brought me here looking for help. Do you have a solution? If you've read this far, perhaps you'll indulge a couple of closing thoughts.
Thought #1: Bravo to the Laravel guys for taking security seriously!
I'm really impressed with how difficult it is to write a package that circumvents the built-in security mechanisms. I'm not talking about "circumvention" in the I'm-trying-to-do-something-bad way, but in the sense that I'm trying to write a legitimate package that would save me and lots of other people time, but would, in effect, be asking them to "trust me" with the security of their applications by potentially opening them up to malicious deployment triggers. This should be tough to get right, and it is.
Thought #2: Maybe I shouldn't be doing this
Frequently if something is hard or impossible to implement in code, that is by design. Maybe it's Bad Design™ on my part to want to automate the entire installation process for this package. Maybe this is the code telling me, "Don't do that!" What do you think?
In summary, here are two questions:
Do you know a way to do this that I haven't thought of?
Is this bad design? Should I not do it?
Thanks for reading, and thank you for your thoughtful answers.
P.S. Before someone says it, I know this might be a duplicate, but I provided much more detail than the other poster, and he never found a solution, either.
I know it is not good practice to use the Reflection API in production code, but this is the only solution i could think of where no additional configuration is needed. This is more like a proof of concept and I would not use it in production code.
I think a better and more stable solution is to have the user update his middleware to work with your package.
tl;dr - you can place this in your packages boot code:
// Just remove CSRF middleware when we hit the deploy route
if(request()->is(config('auto-deploy.route')))
{
// Create a reflection object of the app instance
$appReflector = new ReflectionObject(app());
// When dumping the App instance, it turns out that the
// global middleware is registered at:
// Application
// -> instances
// -> Illuminate\Contracts\Http\Kernel
// -> ... Somewhere in the 'middleware' array
//
// The 'instance' property of the App object is not accessible
// by default, so we have to make it accessible in order to
// get and set its value.
$instancesProperty = $appReflector->getProperty('instances');
$instancesProperty->setAccessible(true);
$instances = $instancesProperty->getValue(app());
$kernel = $instances['Illuminate\Contracts\Http\Kernel'];
// Now we got the Kernel instance.
// Again, we have to set the accessibility of the instance.
$kernelReflector = new ReflectionObject($kernel);
$middlewareProperty = $kernelReflector->getProperty('middleware');
$middlewareProperty->setAccessible(true);
$middlewareArray = $middlewareProperty->getValue($kernel);
// The $middlewareArray contains all global middleware.
// We search for the CSRF entry and remove it if it exists.
foreach ($middlewareArray as $i => $middleware)
{
if ($middleware == 'App\Http\Middleware\VerifyCsrfToken')
{
unset($middlewareArray[ $i ]);
break;
}
}
// The last thing we have to do is to update the altered
// middleware array on the Kernel instance.
$middlewareProperty->setValue($kernel, $middlewareArray);
}
I haven't tested this with Laravel 5.1 - for 5.2 it works.
So you could create a Route::group where you can explicitly say which middleware you want to use.
For example in your ServiceProvider you could do something like this:
\Route::group([
'middleware' => ['only-middleware-you-need']
], function () {
require __DIR__ . '/routes.php';
});
So just exclude VerifyCsrfToken middleware, and put what you need.