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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support NTLM authentication when behind Windows proxies #285

Open
emboss opened this Issue Feb 22, 2012 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
9 participants

emboss commented Feb 22, 2012

Gem installation failed while I was playing around on a Windows machine that sat behind an NTLM-authenticated proxy. Could you please support NLTM auth for these cases?

Thanks in advance,

Owner

drbrain commented Feb 22, 2012

RubyGems can add support for NTLM if the ntlm-http is available. I think direct support is beyond our maintenance ability.

Owner

evanphx commented Feb 22, 2012

Do you have any information on supporting NTLM proxies? I've never seen one.

Owner

drbrain commented Feb 22, 2012

I added non-proxy authorization to mechanize via ntlm-http without an ntlm server to test against, and almost got it right on the first try. Proxy auth should be a simple as adding a Proxy- header instead… Fortunately @emboss should be able to help me test.

emboss commented Feb 22, 2012

Yes, I have access to "evil proxy", I'd be happy to test!

@drbrain drbrain was assigned Mar 9, 2012

bandlor commented Mar 20, 2013

Hi guys, any progress with that?
I seem to have exactly this issue inside our corp network. On my Windows machine I have some exception so gem and bundler works properly trough proxy, but in Linux I am not able to download anything with HTTP_PROXY or .gemrc configured. The response is still the same: "Proxy Authentication Required".
I have played with NTLM server side in past and actually implemented SSO for my Rails app, but it was buggy.
Any help is appreciated.

Javix commented Mar 10, 2014

See more on that here: #360

Contributor

copiousfreetime commented Jan 19, 2016

In #360 @ken-sands says:

it works if you url encode the backslash between the domain and username, ie

http://mydomain%5Cmyusername:password@proxy:port

This needs additional validation to see what works. @duckinator is this something you want to take a look at?

Member

duckinator commented Jan 31, 2016

@copiousfreetime I'm not sure I understand this well enough to be able to effectively do anything, tbh.

@lynncyrin lynncyrin removed the accepted label Jun 9, 2016

@lynncyrin lynncyrin removed this from the Future milestone Jun 9, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment