1

I have an older ASP.NET (.NET 1.0) web application that is using Windows authentication. We want to remove the Windows authentication since the AD server for this particular web application needs to be decommission. We want to keep some type of authentication for this older web-application. I am thinking this leaves us with Forms and Passport authentication modes (but not sure of support in a .NET 1.0). I am trying to avoid a major rewrite since the web-application is not being used much anymore (only being used by one user). Any idea of a quick and simple solution to remove Windows authentication to something else for authentication?

John Saunders
  • 160,644
  • 26
  • 247
  • 397
Lakeshore
  • 323
  • 1
  • 7
  • 18

1 Answers1

2

If the domain controller is to be decommissioned I take it the entire office will reverted back to a domain-less workgroup environment. I also take it all workstations will be configured to leave the domain prior to destroying the domain controller once and for all.

Since it's only down to one user for a web application that has little value in enhancement, you may be able to get away by creating the very same user account with the same password on the web server. That way when s/he accesses the web app on that server, the Windows authentication mechanism will attempt to negotiate as SERVER\username in the local SAM store instead of relying on the previous DOMAIN\username account.

icelava
  • 9,787
  • 7
  • 52
  • 74
  • Thanks for the information. It seems that we cannot create the same user account on the local web server as the one on the DOMAIN server. The DOMAIN server is still up and running. We created a new local user account on the web-server but got HTTP 500 error when trying to log in to the web application. – Lakeshore May 28 '14 at 03:04
  • You have to check what is the underlying cause of the HTTP 500 error, which typically indicates application error. In the event logs or any existing application log that records exceptions. If it was a failure to authenticate properly than it should have been HTTP 401. – icelava May 28 '14 at 10:19