![]() Make sure you extract the user name correctly from Authorization header. It separates user name and domain with a single ‘\’ symbol: DOMAIN\User. Unlike Windows XP WebDAV client, Windows Vista may attach a machine or domain name to the user name returned in Authorization header. The BasicAuthLevel can be set to the following values:ġ - Basic authentication enabled for SSL shares onlyĢ or greater - Basic authentication enabled for SSL shares and for non-SSL shares However you still can connect if you set the following registry key on a client machine: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\WebClient\Parameters\BasicAuthLevel to 2. If you try to connect via Add Network Location Wizard you will get the following error: “The folder you entered does not appear to be valid. Windows 7 and Vista requires SSL / HTTPS connection to be used with Basic. It will not even display any login dialog. Windows 7 and Vista will fail to connect to server using insecure Basic authentication. When developing Basic authentication and using Windows 7 & Vista as a WebDAV client note the following: I am sure you’ve done your own research when investigating this but thought I’d share it anyway, in the off chance that you didn’t see this somewhere.Įdit: Editing this post to paste the contents of that link here directly, for both convenience and in case that link ever becomes unavailable, folks can still find the info here. I don’t know if this will help you with your issues with Windows 7’s & 8.1’s WebDAV client implementation using HTTPS. ![]() Vertech1 - while doing a quick research for WebDAV, I came across this link. Instead users are limited to using WebDAV via the native Web Client service redirector. Microsoft states that 64 bit versions of Windows will never support the “Web folders” client. The update will only work on the 32-bit version of XP/Vista. Windows Vista includes only the WebDAV redirector, but if you install a version of Office, Internet Explorer, OLE-DB or “Microsoft Update for Web Folders” you will get the original “Web folders” client. NOTE: 892211 has been superseded by KB907306. Please choose another” when adding a network resource. Otherwise Windows displays “The folder you entered does not appear to be valid. In addition, WebDAV over HTTPS works only if a computer has KB892211-version files or newer installed. Some versions of the redirector are reported to have some limitations in authentication support. is converted to \host\path) for compatibility with Windows filesystem APIs. The redirector also allows WebDAV shares to be addressed via UNC paths (e.g. This newer client works as a system service at the network-redirector level (immediately above the file-system), allowing WebDAV shares to be assigned to a drive letter and used by any software. In Windows XP, Microsoft added the Web Client service also known as the WebDAV mini-redirector which is preferred by default over the old Web folders client. This client consisted of an OLE object which could be accessed by any OLE software, and was installed as an extension to Windows Explorer (the desktop/file manager) and was later included in Windows 2000. Microsoft introduced WebDAV client support in Microsoft Windows 98 with a feature called “Web folders”. Long story short, it appears that the problem MAY be in my computers, NOT the WDEX2. I am running all 64 bit windows 8.1 and windows 7 machines so I cant test beyond that. OK, to be fair I just found this, and it may very well be the reason I cant get the secure WEBDAV to work. I know they are looking to fix it…but both the long delay in getting a fix and their public silence is not very reassuring - though they have privately assured me that it will get fixed…eventually. What I find troubling is that WD has been distinctly quiet and refrained from responding any any of your and mine FTP threads…lest their admission of a bug causes even greater complaints. ![]() But then again, most tech purchases even today have some learning curve…but it shouldn’t be as steep as it is on the EX2/EX4/Mirror to get basic things like FTP or secure WebDAV to work. I do admit, if I was’t a technical person, I’d probably not have discovered the bug with the FTP and either blamed it on WD (which would be accurate) or blamed my inexperience…either way a frustrating experience. Also, a visit to check out their user forums on their sites is a good idea - to get the feel of what kinds of issues there are. I just need to actually make sure I can compile their firmware code and can figure out how things are designed in their firmware BEFORE I buy any of thei devices. The good thing though is they all, just like WD, offer their firmware source code. Their firmwares seem to be more comprehensive suites. I personally would pick a QNAP or Synology for my next pick, now that I have cut my teeth on an inexpensive NAS. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |