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

Kerberos support #47

Closed
FedericoCeratto opened this issue May 27, 2011 · 21 comments
Closed

Kerberos support #47

FedericoCeratto opened this issue May 27, 2011 · 21 comments

Comments

@FedericoCeratto
Copy link

A simple way to authenticate using Kerberos is blatantly missing from urllib/urllib2

Having (optional) Kerberos support in Requests would be awesome... here is a code example that does pretty much everything is needed http://bretm.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/python-kerberos-urllib2/

Thank you!

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

I'm looking into adding this, thanks for the suggestion!

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

Someone was working on this, but I haven't heard from him in a while.

I'd love to see a requests-kerberos module that provides the auth handler.

@pnasrat
Copy link
Contributor

pnasrat commented May 14, 2012

Was there a published tree with a starting point for this? Else if it's free I may take a stab.

@eichin
Copy link

eichin commented Jul 27, 2012

Release v0.13.4 includes this (just add auth=requests.auth.HTTPKerberosAuth() to the keyword args to requests.get()) so perhaps this can be closed now...

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

🍰

@kcr
Copy link

kcr commented Feb 6, 2013

Said code appears to have been ripped out in 377078b

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

correct, there is now a requests-keroberos project which will contain this functionality

https://github.com/requests/requests-kerberos

@kcr
Copy link

kcr commented Feb 6, 2013

Which doesn't work, and when fixed will continue to rot when you change an interface.

Which isn't packaged by anyone and will be that much more effort to get into e.g. debian or ubuntu.

Security should never be a secondary feature that you have to go to extra lengths to enable.

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

The interface will never change. It was removed because I cannot maintain it.

@kcr
Copy link

kcr commented Feb 6, 2013

(I apologize if this is coming across a bit confrontational, but I was unreasonably annoyed by the functionality I was wanting and expecting being removed in a commit labelled "hooks and such")

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

refactors are brutal :)

@kcr
Copy link

kcr commented Feb 6, 2013

I say this about interfaces from the perspective of having made the code work again; some of the details of how the response hook is called appears to have changed since it was written.

I appreciate that this sort of thing is hard to maintain, but that's a reason to say "hey can someone write me a test" not quietly delete it in the apparent hope that nobody notices.

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

this was not quietly removed, requests was basically fully rewritten and stripped down of everything unnccesary.

http://kennethreitz.org/exposures/announcing-requests-v1-0-0

@kcr
Copy link

kcr commented Feb 6, 2013

Oops, I completely failed to find that. I apologize for my implication.

Still, authentication methods ought to be core functionality and tested along with everything else; anything more complex than Basic is going to end up having to fiddle around behind the scenes.

@kennethreitz
Copy link
Contributor

The authentication interface and mechanism is a first-class citizen. Basic and Digest is all that will be supported in core.

@kcr
Copy link

kcr commented Feb 6, 2013

"Security is hard, batteries not included"

@kcr
Copy link

kcr commented Feb 7, 2013

Pull request for requests_kerberos sent.

@Lukasa
Copy link
Member

Lukasa commented Feb 7, 2013

@kcr: The biggest problem requests-kerberos has is a lack of tests. If you want to contribute a test suite (or even just a couple of tests), that will greatly improve our ability to keep it up to date. =)

@eichin
Copy link

eichin commented Feb 7, 2013

@Lukasa I suspect we'll be able to repurpose at least the setup parts of the Zephyr test suite we're working on over the next couple of weekends, we'll definitely be in touch about that :)

@sigmavirus24
Copy link
Contributor

@eichin, link for the curious?

@sigmavirus24
Copy link
Contributor

Also, can we move this over to requests/requests-kerberos#1?

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 9, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants