Yes, that looks like a valid workflow for the situation you described, and those Authenticate headers seem to be in the correct format.
It's interesting to note that it's possible, albeit unlikely, for a given connection to involve multiple proxies that are chained together, and each one can itself require authentication. In this case, the client side of each intermediate proxy would itself get back a 407 Proxy Authentication Required
message and itself repeat the request with the Proxy-Authorization
header; the Proxy-Authenticate
and Proxy-Authorization
headers are single-hop headers that do not get passed from one server to the next, but WWW-Authenticate
and Authorization
are end-to-end headers that are considered to be from the client to the final server, passed through verbatim by the intermediaries.
Since the Basic
scheme sends the password in the clear (base64 is a reversible encoding) it is most commonly used over SSL. This scenario is implemented in a different fashion, because it is desirable to prevent the proxy from seeing the password sent to the final server:
- the client opens an SSL channel to the proxy to initiate the request, but instead of submitting a regular HTTP request it would submit a special
CONNECT
request (still with a Proxy-Authorization
header) to open a TCP tunnel to the remote server.
- The client then proceeds to create another SSL channel nested inside the first, over which it transfers the final HTTP message including the
Authorization
header.
In this scenario the proxy only knows the host and port the client connected to, not what was transmitted or received over the inner SSL channel. Further, the use of nested channels allows the client to "see" the SSL certificates of both the proxy and the server, allowing the identity of both to be authenticated.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…