"Protected" error when using "new_copy_url" - box-api

I have developed a Box App using "Web App Integrations", the options to manage the file from Box web using right click on it.
It is a popup integration that gets the file modify it and save it again.
Some time ago we detected it was broken but have not had time to check it until now and the problem lays in our last request to box when we want to save the modified file.
In our callback we are requesting #overwrite_url# and #new_copy_url# and we post to that urls with the modified files to "save as" or "save" based on user selection.
The new documentation does not describe this 2 parameters but the app management allows them to be requested so I assume that they are not deprecated, other than that I have not been able to see a difference in the documentation related to this issue.
The request we are using is:
POST /api/1.0/new_copy/dmq5esykpq30sp2kepy3b1d7mvese5ap/9721827325?new_file_name=Koala.proton.jpg HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/json
Content-Type: multipart/form-data;boundary=2iqAzMZWpgN473oDBmRGnysbfTtsD2
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
User-Agent: Java/1.7.0_45
Host: upload.box.com
Connection: keep-alive
Content-Length: 17831
--2iqAzMZWpgN473oDBmRGnysbfTtsD2
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file"; filename="empty.dat"
Content-Type: application/octet-stream
Content-Length: 17627
And the only response I get is a 200 response with the body "restricted" without further information.
I suspect this has something to do with the deprecation of APIv1 but the integrations does not use the api and I did ask a couple of times to box support mail if the deprecation was going to have some effect to integrations and the responses were always negative.

There are definitely changes required in order to update your integration to continue to work. Yes, V1 APIs have been deprecated, and so your old integration has stopped working.
New documentation is here . Subtle difference is that you get way more power now for these web-app integrations. Tokens don't expire after 24 hours, but follow Box's same OAuth2 rules. Scope of your token will be for the file or folder that your web-app-integration is invoked on.
Fundamentally, first step after you get the inbound request on your server is to trade in the auth_code for an Auth-Token via the OAuth2 endpoints.
See the section on auth_code. Then you will have an Auth-token that will let you call regular V2 APIs. To do a copy you would then :
POST https://api.box.com/2.0/files/{id}/copy (with the Bearer-token header)
See https://developers.box.com/docs/#files-copy-a-file for the documentation on how to do a copy operation. Nice thing is you can also do any number of other API calls with that token... as long as they are within scope of that file.

Related

Where to add Http Response Header in code? [duplicate]

Apparently, I have completely misunderstood its semantics. I thought of something like this:
A client downloads JavaScript code MyCode.js from http://siteA - the origin.
The response header of MyCode.js contains Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://siteB, which I thought meant that MyCode.js was allowed to make cross-origin references to the site B.
The client triggers some functionality of MyCode.js, which in turn make requests to http://siteB, which should be fine, despite being cross-origin requests.
Well, I am wrong. It does not work like this at all. So, I have read Cross-origin resource sharing and attempted to read Cross-Origin Resource Sharing in w3c recommendation.
One thing is sure - I still do not understand how I am supposed to use this header.
I have full control of both site A and site B. How do I enable the JavaScript code downloaded from the site A to access resources on the site B using this header?
P.S.: I do not want to utilize JSONP.
Access-Control-Allow-Origin is a CORS (cross-origin resource sharing) header.
When Site A tries to fetch content from Site B, Site B can send an Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header to tell the browser that the content of this page is accessible to certain origins. (An origin is a domain, plus a scheme and port number.) By default, Site B's pages are not accessible to any other origin; using the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header opens a door for cross-origin access by specific requesting origins.
For each resource/page that Site B wants to make accessible to Site A, Site B should serve its pages with the response header:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://siteA.com
Modern browsers will not block cross-domain requests outright. If Site A requests a page from Site B, the browser will actually fetch the requested page on the network level and check if the response headers list Site A as a permitted requester domain. If Site B has not indicated that Site A is allowed to access this page, the browser will trigger the XMLHttpRequest's error event and deny the response data to the requesting JavaScript code.
Non-simple requests
What happens on the network level can be slightly more complex than explained above. If the request is a "non-simple" request, the browser first sends a data-less "preflight" OPTIONS request, to verify that the server will accept the request. A request is non-simple when either (or both):
using an HTTP verb other than GET or POST (e.g. PUT, DELETE)
using non-simple request headers; the only simple requests headers are:
Accept
Accept-Language
Content-Language
Content-Type (this is only simple when its value is application/x-www-form-urlencoded, multipart/form-data, or text/plain)
If the server responds to the OPTIONS preflight with appropriate response headers (Access-Control-Allow-Headers for non-simple headers, Access-Control-Allow-Methods for non-simple verbs) that match the non-simple verb and/or non-simple headers, then the browser sends the actual request.
Supposing that Site A wants to send a PUT request for /somePage, with a non-simple Content-Type value of application/json, the browser would first send a preflight request:
OPTIONS /somePage HTTP/1.1
Origin: http://siteA.com
Access-Control-Request-Method: PUT
Access-Control-Request-Headers: Content-Type
Note that Access-Control-Request-Method and Access-Control-Request-Headers are added by the browser automatically; you do not need to add them. This OPTIONS preflight gets the successful response headers:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://siteA.com
Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET, POST, PUT
Access-Control-Allow-Headers: Content-Type
When sending the actual request (after preflight is done), the behavior is identical to how a simple request is handled. In other words, a non-simple request whose preflight is successful is treated the same as a simple request (i.e., the server must still send Access-Control-Allow-Origin again for the actual response).
The browsers sends the actual request:
PUT /somePage HTTP/1.1
Origin: http://siteA.com
Content-Type: application/json
{ "myRequestContent": "JSON is so great" }
And the server sends back an Access-Control-Allow-Origin, just as it would for a simple request:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://siteA.com
See Understanding XMLHttpRequest over CORS for a little more information about non-simple requests.
Cross-Origin Resource Sharing - CORS (A.K.A. Cross-Domain AJAX request) is an issue that most web developers might encounter, according to Same-Origin-Policy, browsers restrict client JavaScript in a security sandbox, usually JS cannot directly communicate with a remote server from a different domain. In the past developers created many tricky ways to achieve Cross-Domain resource request, most commonly using ways are:
Use Flash/Silverlight or server side as a "proxy" to communicate
with remote.
JSON With Padding (JSONP).
Embeds remote server in an iframe and communicate through fragment or window.name, refer here.
Those tricky ways have more or less some issues, for example JSONP might result in security hole if developers simply "eval" it, and #3 above, although it works, both domains should build strict contract between each other, it neither flexible nor elegant IMHO:)
W3C had introduced Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) as a standard solution to provide a safe, flexible and a recommended standard way to solve this issue.
The Mechanism
From a high level we can simply deem CORS as a contract between client AJAX call from domain A and a page hosted on domain B, a typical Cross-Origin request/response would be:
DomainA AJAX request headers
Host DomainB.com
User-Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0
Accept text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8,application/json
Accept-Language en-us;
Accept-Encoding gzip, deflate
Keep-Alive 115
Origin http://DomainA.com
DomainB response headers
Cache-Control private
Content-Type application/json; charset=utf-8
Access-Control-Allow-Origin DomainA.com
Content-Length 87
Proxy-Connection Keep-Alive
Connection Keep-Alive
The blue parts I marked above were the kernal facts, "Origin" request header "indicates where the cross-origin request or preflight request originates from", the "Access-Control-Allow-Origin" response header indicates this page allows remote request from DomainA (if the value is * indicate allows remote requests from any domain).
As I mentioned above, W3 recommended browser to implement a "preflight request" before submiting the actually Cross-Origin HTTP request, in a nutshell it is an HTTP OPTIONS request:
OPTIONS DomainB.com/foo.aspx HTTP/1.1
If foo.aspx supports OPTIONS HTTP verb, it might return response like below:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2011 15:38:19 GMT
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://DomainA.com
Access-Control-Allow-Methods: POST, GET, OPTIONS, HEAD
Access-Control-Allow-Headers: X-Requested-With
Access-Control-Max-Age: 1728000
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Type: application/json
Only if the response contains "Access-Control-Allow-Origin" AND its value is "*" or contain the domain who submitted the CORS request, by satisfying this mandtory condition browser will submit the actual Cross-Domain request, and cache the result in "Preflight-Result-Cache".
I blogged about CORS three years ago: AJAX Cross-Origin HTTP request
According to this Mozilla Developer Network article,
A resource makes a cross-origin HTTP request when it requests a resource from a different domain, or port than the one which the first resource itself serves.
An HTML page served from http://domain-a.com makes an <img> src request for http://domain-b.com/image.jpg.
Many pages on the web today load resources like CSS style sheets, images and scripts from separate domains (thus it should be cool).
Same-Origin Policy
For security reasons, browsers restrict cross-origin HTTP requests initiated from within scripts.
For example, XMLHttpRequest and Fetch follow the same-origin policy.
So, a web application using XMLHttpRequest or Fetch could only make HTTP requests to its own domain.
Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS)
To improve web applications, developers asked browser vendors to allow cross-domain requests.
The Cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) mechanism gives web servers cross-domain access controls, which enable secure cross-domain data transfers.
Modern browsers use CORS in an API container - such as XMLHttpRequest or fetch - to mitigate risks of cross-origin HTTP requests.
How CORS works (Access-Control-Allow-Origin header)
Wikipedia:
The CORS standard describes new HTTP headers which provide browsers and servers a way to request remote URLs only when they have permission.
Although some validation and authorization can be performed by the server, it is generally the browser's responsibility to support these headers and honor the restrictions they impose.
Example
The browser sends the OPTIONS request with an Origin HTTP header.
The value of this header is the domain that served the parent page. When a page from http://www.example.com attempts to access a user's data in service.example.com, the following request header would be sent to service.example.com:
Origin: http://www.example.com
The server at service.example.com may respond with:
An Access-Control-Allow-Origin (ACAO) header in its response indicating which origin sites are allowed.
For example:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://www.example.com
An error page if the server does not allow the cross-origin request
An Access-Control-Allow-Origin (ACAO) header with a wildcard that allows all domains:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
Whenever I start thinking about CORS, my intuition about which site hosts the headers is incorrect, just as you described in your question. For me, it helps to think about the purpose of the same-origin policy.
The purpose of the same-origin policy is to protect you from malicious JavaScript on siteA.com accessing private information you've chosen to share only with siteB.com. Without the same-origin policy, JavaScript written by the authors of siteA.com could have your browser make requests to siteB.com, using your authentication cookies for siteB.com. In this way, siteA.com could steal the secret information you share with siteB.com.
Sometimes you need to work cross domain, which is where CORS comes in. CORS relaxes the same-origin policy for siteB.com, using the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header to list other domains (siteA.com) that are trusted to run JavaScript that can interact with siteB.com.
To understand which domain should serve the CORS headers, consider this. You visit malicious.com, which contains some JavaScript that tries to make a cross domain request to mybank.com. It should be up to mybank.com, not malicious.com, to decide whether or not it sets CORS headers that relax the same-origin policy, allowing the JavaScript from malicious.com to interact with it. If malicous.com could set its own CORS headers allowing its own JavaScript access to mybank.com, this would completely nullify the same-origin policy.
I think the reason for my bad intuition is the point of view I have when developing a site. It's my site, with all my JavaScript. Therefore, it isn't doing anything malicious, and it should be up to me to specify which other sites my JavaScript can interact with. When in fact I should be thinking: Which other sites' JavaScript are trying to interact with my site and should I use CORS to allow them?
From my own experience, it's hard to find a simple explanation why CORS is even a concern.
Once you understand why it's there, the headers and discussion becomes a lot clearer. I'll give it a shot in a few lines.
It's all about cookies. Cookies are stored on a client by their domain.
An example story: On your computer, there's a cookie for yourbank.com. Maybe your session is in there.
Key point: When a client makes a request to the server, it will send the cookies stored under the domain for that request.
You're logged in on your browser to yourbank.com. You request to see all your accounts, and cookies are sent for yourbank.com. yourbank.com receives the pile of cookies and sends back its response (your accounts).
If another client makes a cross origin request to a server, those cookies are sent along, just as before. Ruh roh.
You browse to malicious.com. Malicious makes a bunch of requests to different banks, including yourbank.com.
Since the cookies are validated as expected, the server will authorize the response.
Those cookies get gathered up and sent along - and now, malicious.com has a response from yourbank.
Yikes.
So now, a few questions and answers become apparent:
"Why don't we just block the browser from doing that?" Yep. That's CORS.
"How do we get around it?" Have the server tell the request that CORS is OK.
1. A client downloads javascript code MyCode.js from http://siteA - the origin.
The code that does the downloading - your html script tag or xhr from javascript or whatever - came from, let's say, http://siteZ. And, when the browser requests MyCode.js, it sends an Origin: header saying "Origin: http://siteZ", because it can see that you're requesting to siteA and siteZ != siteA. (You cannot stop or interfere with this.)
2. The response header of MyCode.js contains Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://siteB, which I thought meant that MyCode.js was allowed to make cross-origin references to the site B.
no. It means, Only siteB is allowed to do this request. So your request for MyCode.js from siteZ gets an error instead, and the browser typically gives you nothing. But if you make your server return A-C-A-O: siteZ instead, you'll get MyCode.js . Or if it sends '*', that'll work, that'll let everybody in. Or if the server always sends the string from the Origin: header... but... for security, if you're afraid of hackers, your server should only allow origins on a shortlist, that are allowed to make those requests.
Then, MyCode.js comes from siteA. When it makes requests to siteB, they are all cross-origin, the browser sends Origin: siteA, and siteB has to take the siteA, recognize it's on the short list of allowed requesters, and send back A-C-A-O: siteA. Only then will the browser let your script get the result of those requests.
Using React and Axios, join a proxy link to the URL and add a header as shown below:
https://cors-anywhere.herokuapp.com/ + Your API URL
Just adding the proxy link will work, but it can also throw an error for No Access again. Hence it is better to add a header as shown below.
axios.get(`https://cors-anywhere.herokuapp.com/[YOUR_API_URL]`,{headers: {'Access-Control-Allow-Origin': '*'}})
.then(response => console.log(response:data);
}
Warning: Not to be used in production
This is just a quick fix. If you're struggling with why you're not able to get a response, you can use this.
But again it's not the best answer for production.
If you are using PHP, try adding the following code at the beginning of the php file:
If you are using localhost, try this:
header("Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *");
If you are using external domains such as server, try this:
header("Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://www.website.com");
I worked with Express.js 4, Node.js 7.4 and Angular, and I had the same problem. This helped me:
a) server side: in file app.js I add headers to all responses, like:
app.use(function(req, res, next) {
res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', req.headers.origin);
res.header("Access-Control-Allow-Headers", "Origin, X-Requested-With, Content-Type, Accept");
next();
});
This must be before all routes.
I saw a lot of added this headers:
res.header("Access-Control-Allow-Headers","*");
res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Credentials', true);
res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Methods', 'GET,PUT,POST,DELETE');
But I don’t need that,
b) client side: in sending by Ajax, you need to add "withCredentials: true," like:
$http({
method: 'POST',
url: 'url',
withCredentials: true,
data : {}
}).then(function(response){
// Code
}, function (response) {
// Code
});
If you want just to test a cross-domain application in which the browser blocks your request, then you can just open your browser in unsafe mode and test your application without changing your code and without making your code unsafe.
From macOS, you can do this from the terminal line:
open -a Google\ Chrome --args --disable-web-security --user-data-dir
In Python, I have been using the Flask-CORS library with great success. It makes dealing with CORS super easy and painless. I added some code from the library's documentation below.
Installing:
pip install -U flask-cors
Simple example that allows CORS for all domains on all routes:
from flask import Flask
from flask_cors import CORS
app = Flask(__name__)
CORS(app)
#app.route("/")
def helloWorld():
return "Hello, cross-origin-world!"
For more specific examples, see the documentation. I have used the simple example above to get around the CORS issue in an Ionic application I am building that has to access a separate flask server.
Simply paste the following code in your web.config file.
Noted that, you have to paste the following code under <system.webServer> tag
<httpProtocol>
<customHeaders>
<add name="Access-Control-Allow-Origin" value="*" />
<add name="Access-Control-Allow-Headers" value="Content-Type" />
<add name="Access-Control-Allow-Methods" value="GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, OPTIONS" />
</customHeaders>
</httpProtocol>
I can't configure it on the back-end server, but with these extensions in the browsers, it works for me:
For Firefox:
CORS Everywhere
For Google Chrome:
Allow CORS: Access-Control-Allow-Origin
Note: CORS works for me with this configuration:
For cross origin sharing, set header: 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin':'*';
Php: header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin':'*');
Node: app.use('Access-Control-Allow-Origin':'*');
This will allow to share content for different domain.
Nginx and Apache
As an addition to apsiller's answer, I would like to add a wiki graph which shows when a request is simple or not (and OPTIONS pre-flight request is send or not)
For a simple request (e.g., hotlinking images), you don't need to change your server configuration files, but you can add headers in the application (hosted on the server, e.g., in PHP) like Melvin Guerrero mentions in his answer - but remember: if you add full CORS headers in your server (configuration) and at same time you allow simple CORS in the application (e.g., PHP), this will not work at all.
And here are configurations for two popular servers:
turn on CORS on Nginx (nginx.conf file)
location ~ ^/index\.php(/|$) {
...
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' "$http_origin" always; # if you change "$http_origin" to "*" you shoud get same result - allow all domain to CORS (but better change it to your particular domain)
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Credentials' 'true' always;
if ($request_method = OPTIONS) {
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin' "$http_origin"; # DO NOT remove THIS LINES (doubled with outside 'if' above)
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Credentials' 'true';
add_header 'Access-Control-Max-Age' 1728000; # cache preflight value for 20 days
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Methods' 'GET, POST, OPTIONS'; # arbitrary methods
add_header 'Access-Control-Allow-Headers' 'My-First-Header,My-Second-Header,Authorization,Content-Type,Accept,Origin'; # arbitrary headers
add_header 'Content-Length' 0;
add_header 'Content-Type' 'text/plain charset=UTF-8';
return 204;
}
}
turn on CORS on Apache (.htaccess file)
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# | Cross-domain Ajax requests |
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Enable cross-origin Ajax requests.
# http://code.google.com/p/html5security/wiki/CrossOriginRequestSecurity
# http://enable-cors.org/
# change * (allow any domain) below to your domain
Header set Access-Control-Allow-Origin "*"
Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Methods "POST, GET, OPTIONS, DELETE, PUT"
Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Headers "My-First-Header,My-Second-Header,Authorization, content-type, csrf-token"
Header always set Access-Control-Allow-Credentials "true"
The Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header indicates whether the
response can be shared with requesting code from the given origin.
Header type Response header
-------------------------------------------
Forbidden header name no
A response that tells the browser to allow code from any origin to
access a resource will include the following:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
For more information, visit Access-Control-Allow-Origin...
For .NET Core 3.1 API With Angular
Startup.cs : Add CORS
//SERVICES
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services){
//CORS (Cross Origin Resource Sharing)
//=====================================
services.AddCors();
}
//MIDDLEWARES
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IWebHostEnvironment env)
{
app.UseRouting();
//ORDER: CORS -> Authentication -> Authorization)
//CORS (Cross Origin Resource Sharing)
//=====================================
app.UseCors(x=>x.AllowAnyHeader().AllowAnyMethod().WithOrigins("http://localhost:4200"));
app.UseHttpsRedirection();
}
}
Controller : Enable CORS For Authorized Controller
//Authorize all methods inside this controller
[Authorize]
[EnableCors()]
public class UsersController : ControllerBase
{
//ActionMethods
}
Note: Only a temporary solution for testing
For those who can't control the backend for Options 405 Method Not Allowed, here is a workaround for theChrome browser.
Execute in the command line:
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --disable-web-security --user-data-dir="path_to_profile"
Example:
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --disable-web-security --user-data-dir="C:\Users\vital\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Profile 2"
Most CORS issues are because you are trying to request via client side ajax from a react, angular, jquery apps that are frontend basic libs.
You must request from a backend application.
You are trying to request from a frontend API, but the API you are trying to consume is expecting this request to be made from a backend application and it will never accept client side requests.

Why is my request for an ASP resource not routed as expected by Azure API Management?

For my use case, I would like to use Azure APIM as a proxy.
(Edit: I'm using the "Consumption" tier, and the answer given here works with the standard tiers. I will update this if I find a solution with MS support for the Consumption tier.)
So that a
GET https://my-awesome-api.azure-api.net/default.css
fetches and returns what sits there:
GET https://my-backend.my-domain.com/default.css
It works fine, except for ASP files. If my resource is /default.asp, I get a 404 generated directly by the APIM (not my backend, which is not called at all). The problem is reproduced at every level (I can get /foo/default.css, but 404 on /foo/default.asp).
I've not been able to find in the documentation anything related to special handling of ASP files by default (or any other for that matter). The fact that other types of resources work fine is even more puzzling.
GET /default.css -> works
GET /default.asp -> gets the Azure 404
GET /i-dont-exist.css -> gets the backend 404
GET /i-dont-exist.asp -> gets Azure 404
Azure's 404:
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
content-length: 103
content-type: text/html
date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 15:35:34 GMT
vary: Origin
x-powered-by: ASP.NET
The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Most likely your API is misconfigured. Seems you want to pass through all traffic, so you need to create API with Web service URL set to "https://my-backend.my-domain.com" and Path suffix to "/".
Underneath it create an operation for each HTTP method you want to proxy with URL template set to /*.

Resumable upload always returns 404

I'm trying to get resumable upload working through the google drive v3 REST api. This feature isn't available in the java client SDK so I'm doing this using HttpClient calls. The gsuite service account that I'm using works fine with the java SDK to either create or update files. But I need to be able to upload larger files through the resumable API and it always returns 404 Not Found. The docs say this means the session is no longer valid but I have just created it when I make the call that returns 404 so it must be something else.
Here are the calls I'm making:
POST https://www.googleapis.com/upload/drive/v3/files?uploadType=resumable
Authorization: Bearer [AUTH_TOKEN]
Content-Length: 38
Content-Type: application/json; charset=UTF-8
{"mimeType":"text/csv","name":"TestSheet.csv","parents":["PARENT_FOLDER_ID"]}
This always works to create the session and I correctly get the Location: header out of the response and use that for subsequent calls. But when I go to write the first chunk of data, I do this:
PUT https://www.googleapis.com/upload/drive/v3/files?uploadType=resumable&upload_id=[UPLOAD_ID]
Content-Length: 1048576
Content-Type: application/octet-stream
Content-Range: bytes 0-1048575/3063739
[1048576 bytes of data]
And this always returns a 404 Not Found.
Any ideas? Thanks

Override the "cache-control" values in a HTTP response

I have a web page that returns the following header when I access material:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:57:25 GMT
Server: Apache
Content-Length: 2247515
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, max-age=-1
Pragma: no-cache, no-store
Expires: -1
Connection: close
Using a chrome extension, I want to modify this response header so that the material is actually cached instead of wasting bandwidth.
I have the following sample code:
chrome.webRequest.onHeadersReceived.addListener(function(details)
{
// Delete the required elements
removeHeader(details.responseHeaders, 'pragma');
removeHeader(details.responseHeaders, 'expires');
// Modify cache-control
updateHeader(details.responseHeaders, 'cache-control', 'max-age=3600;')
console.log(details.url);
console.log(details.responseHeaders);
return{responseHeaders: details.responseHeaders};
},
{urls: ["<all_urls>"]}, ['blocking', 'responseHeaders']
);
Which correctly modifies the header to something like this (based on the console.log() output):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:57:25 GMT
Server: Apache
Content-Length: 2247515
Cache-Control: max-age=3600
Connection: close
But based on everything I have tried to check this, I cannot see any evidence whatsoever that this has actually happened:
The cache does not contain an entry for this file
The Network tab in the Developer Console shows no change at all to the HTTP response (I have tried changing it to even trivial modifications just for the sake of ensuring that its not a error, but still no change).
The only real hints I can find are this question which suggests that my approach still works and this paragraph on the webRequest API documentation which suggests that this won't work (but doesn't explain why I can't get any changes whatsoever):
Note that the web request API presents an abstraction of the network
stack to the extension. Internally, one URL request can be split into
several HTTP requests (for example to fetch individual byte ranges
from a large file) or can be handled by the network stack without
communicating with the network. For this reason, the API does not
provide the final HTTP headers that are sent to the network. For
example, all headers that are related to caching are invisible to the
extension.
Nothing is working whatsoever (I can't modify the HTTP response header at all) so I think that's my first concern.
Any suggestions at where I could be going wrong or how to go about finding what is going wrong here?
If its not possible, are there any other ways to achieve what I am trying to achieve?
I have recently spent some hours on trying to get a file cached, and discovered that the chrome.webRequest and chrome.declarativeWebRequest APIs cannot force resources to be cached. In no way.
The Cache-Control (and other) response headers can be changed, but it will only be visible in the getResponseHeader method. Not in the caching behaviour.

HTML form method="HEAD"

I've never seen this before, I've always known there was either GET or POST. And I can't find any good documentation.
GET send variables via the URL.
POST send it via the file body?
What does HEAD do?
It doesn't get used often, am I correct?
W3schools.com doesn't even mention it.
HTML’s method attribute only allows GET and POST.
The HEAD method is used to send the request and retrieve just the HTTP header as response. For example, a client application can issue a HEAD request to check the size of a file (from HTTP headers) without downloading it. As Arjan points out, it's not even valid in HTML forms.
HTTP method HEAD sends the response's headers but without a body; it's often useful, as the URL I've given explains, though hardly ever in a "form" HTML tag.
The only thing I can imagine is that the server may actually have been set up to validate the request method, to discover submissions by robots that for HEAD might actually use a different method than a browser does. (And thus reject those submissions.)
A response to a HEAD request does not imply nothing is shown to the user: even a response to HEAD can very well redirect to another page. However, like Gumbo noted: it's not valid for the method in a HTML form, so this would require a lot of testing in each possible browser...
For a moment I wondered if HEAD in a form is somehow used to avoid accidental multiple submissions. But I assume the only useful response would be a 301 Redirect, but that could also be used with GET or POST, so I don't see how HEAD would solve any issues.
A quick test in the current versions of both Safari and Firefox on a Mac shows that actually a GET is invoked. Of course, assuming this is undocumented behavior, one should not rely on that. Maybe for some time, spam robots were in fact fooled into using HEAD (which would then be rejected on the server), or might be fooled into skipping this form if they would only support GET and POST. But even the dumbest robot programmer (aren't they all dumb for not understanding their work is evil?) would soon have learned that a browser converts this into GET.
(Do you have an example of a website that uses this? Are you sure there's no JavaScript that changes this, or does something else? Can anyone test what Internet Explorer sends?)
HEAD Method
The HEAD method is functionally like GET, except that the server replies with a response line and headers, but no entity-body. Following is a simple example which makes use of HEAD method to fetch header information about hello.htm:
HEAD /hello.htm HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE5.01; Windows NT)
Host: www.tutorialspoint.com
Accept-Language: en-us
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Connection: Keep-Alive
Following will be a server response against the above GET request:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:28:53 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.14 (Win32)
Last-Modified: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:15:56 GMT
ETag: "34aa387-d-1568eb00"
Vary: Authorization,Accept
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 88
Content-Type: text/html
Connection: Closed
You can notice that here server does not send any data after header.
-Obtained from tutorialspoint.com