All posts by bryan

MVC running on IIS8

After a number of 500 errors coming up from IIS8 under Windows Server 2012, I final found the solution.

The solution was to go back to the Microsoft Server 2012 Dashboard and select the “Add Roles” feature. Scroll down to the root “Web Server (IIS)”, expand “Web Server”, expand “Application Development” and select “ASP.NET 3.5” and “ASP.NET 4.5” and “Install”.

What confused me originally was I hadn’t expanded “Application Development”, but selected IIS and continued. On the next step, “Features”, “.NET Framework 4.5 Features” was selected by default so I selected “.NET Framework 3.5 Features” and thought all would be fine.

Validating an e-mail address the DataAnnotation way

There are many ways to validate if an e-mail address is right, and many wrong ways.  The biggest wrong way is using a Regular expression, why?  They are complex and there is not one that resolves this issue, you will always get an invalid e-mail address that passes through okay.

So what can we do?  Why not use something that already works, something that someone else maintains, something we already have?

Let’s take a look at the System.Net.Mail name space, it has MailAddress, and if you add a string that is an invalid e-mail address it fails eg:

new MailAddress("invalidemailaddress");

This causes an exception to be thrown.

This mean you can use a single line of code to see if an e-mail is valid or not.

Let’s make it more practical and generate a ValidationAttribute that validates an email address for any given field in a model, what we are after doing is something like this:

    public class UserModel
    {
        [Required]
        public string name { get; set; }
        
        [Email]
        public string email { get; set; }
    }

To does this we just need to create an email attribute:

public class EmailAttribute : ValidationAttribute
    {
        protected override ValidationResult IsValid
        (object value, ValidationContext validationContext)
        {
            if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(value?.ToString())) return ValidationResult.Success;

            try
            {
                new MailAddress(value.ToString());
            }
            catch (Exception)
            {
                return new ValidationResult("Please provide a valid email address.");
            }
            return ValidationResult.Success; 
         } 
     }

So simple when you know how to do it.

Determine which file type has been uploaded

It is quite an easy process to upload files from a web browser, but how do you know it is the correct type of document you are asking for?

You can check the file extenstion, but a hacker would just change the file type to another extension, so this is not a fail safe way of checking the file type being uploaded.

Another way which can check for the content of the file being uploaded and look for a signature.

First we will need to hold the signature in a file type, so lets create an enum for them

public enum FileType
    {
        Gif = 7173,
        Jpg = 255216,
        Png = 13780,
        Bmp = 6677,
        TxtAspxAspSql = 239187,
        XlsDocPpt = 208207,
        Xml = 6063,
        Html = 6033,
        Js = 4742,
        XlsxZipPptxMmapZip = 8075,
        Rar = 8297,
        AccdbMdb = 01,
        ExeDll = 7790,
        Bat = 64101,
        Unknown
    }

You’ll notice that some file types have the same signature so you need to be a little careful with these files.

Now for the method that will return our file type:

protected FileType IsImageFile(HttpPostedFileBase file)
        {

            var fs = new FileStream(file.FileName, FileMode.Open, System.IO.FileAccess.Read);
            var br = new BinaryReader(fs);
            string fileclass;
            byte buffer;

            try
            {
                buffer = br.ReadByte();
                fileclass = buffer.ToString();
                buffer = br.ReadByte();
                fileclass += buffer.ToString();
            }
            catch
            {
                return FileType.Unknown;
            }
            finally
            {
                br.Close();
                fs.Close();
            }

            foreach (var type in Enum.GetValues(typeof(FileType)))
            {
                var l = (int)type;
                String[] fileType = {l.ToString()};

                if (fileType.Any(t => fileclass == t))
                {
                    return (FileType)Enum.Parse(typeof(FileType), type.ToString());
                }
            }

            return FileType.Unknown;

        }

That is it, all done

Stay Alive in MVC

Have you ever opened a page for one of your websites and it lags for a while before it finally shows a page but then all of your following requests are quick? If you were to Google the problem you’d find that often it ends up having to do with IIS meeting an idle time limit and shuts down your site.

Keep me Alive

private static void _SetupRefreshJob() {

    //remove a previous job
    Action remove = HttpContext.Current.Cache["Refresh"] as Action;
    if (remove is Action) {
        HttpContext.Current.Cache.Remove("Refresh");
        remove.EndInvoke(null);
    }

    //get the worker
    Action work = () => {
        while (true) {
            Thread.Sleep(60000);
            //TODO: Refresh Code (Explained in a moment)
        }
    };
    work.BeginInvoke(null, null);

    //add this job to the cache
    HttpContext.Current.Cache.Add(
        "Refresh",
        work,
        null,
        Cache.NoAbsoluteExpiration,
        Cache.NoSlidingExpiration,
        CacheItemPriority.Normal,
        (s, o, r) => { _SetupRefreshJob(); }
        );
}

If we place this code in the Global.asax and call it when Application_Start() is raised, we can basically start a job that keeps our website alive. You could just as easily use a Thread to host the refresh method but for this example we simply used an Action delegate.

Once our application starts the refresh job is also started and is saved to the cache. In this example we’re using 60 seconds, but you can change this to be as often as you like.

So How Can We Keep It Fresh?

So how about an example of some code we can use? Here is a simple example that could keep our website alive. Replace the //TODO: in the example above with something like the following.

WebClient refresh = new WebClient();
try {
    refresh.UploadString("http://www.website.com/", string.Empty);
}
catch (Exception ex) {
    //snip...
}
finally {
    refresh.Dispose();
}

This snippet uses a WebClient to actually make an HTTP call to our website, thus keeping the site alive! We could do any number of things from this code like updating local data or get information from external resource. This can be used to keep our site alive and our content refreshed, even if we’re using a Hosted Environment!

It is worth nothing that might not actually need to do an HTTP call back to your website. It is possible that using any method will keep your website from being killed off (but I haven’t tested it yet so let me know what happens if you try it). This example, however, has been tested and works quite well with my provider.

You need to be careful that you don’t call a page with any Analytics attached, otherwise you’ll get false reading in your logs.

Original article

Overloading Methods in WCF

Is this possible?

It is possible to overload a method in WCF.  However, when you want to expose overloaded methods as operations in a WCF contract, there is more to it than simply writing two or more methods with the same name.

Consider the following example:

[ServiceContract]
public interface ICalendarService
{
   [OperationContract]
   ScheduledEvent[] GetScheduledEvents(DateTime date);

   [OperationContract]
   ScheduledEvent[] GetScheduledEvents(DateTime start, DateTime end);
}

Now, try to actually implement this interface and host it as a WCF service.  An InvalidOperationException will be raised when you invoke ServiceHost.Open. 

As far as the C# compiler is concerned, this is a completely legal piece of code.  The interface contains two methods.  The methods have the same name, but their signatures are unique since their parameters differ.  The interface and methods are decorated with attributes.  However, WCF doesn’t have any special hooks into the compiler. Consequently, the compiler doesn’t have any special knowledge about the attributes.  It is simply going to emit their information in the assembly metadata.

When WCF attempts to start the service, it essentially interrogates the metadata to generate a WSDL contract.  WSDL is all about technology neutral, message based communication.  It doesn’t support object-oriented concepts such as inheritance and overloading.  (Actually, I think the earliest versions of WSDL allowed overloading to a certain extent, but it has since been removed in the newer versions.)  So, WCF basically detects there are two methods with the same name and raises an exception to indicate this isn’t allowed even though the code compiled without any errors.

Regardless, WCF still provides the ability to overload methods.  This can be achieved by using the name property of the OperationContract attribute.  By default, the name of the method will be used for the value of the name property.  However, you can explicitly set the value of the name property to provide a unique value.  Under the covers, WCF will use the value you supply as the name of the corresponding operation in the generated WSDL.

Here is our previous example revised to use alias method names:

[ServiceContract]
public interface ICalendarService
{
   [OperationContract(Name = "GetScheduledEventsByDate")]
   ScheduledEvent[] GetScheduledEvents(DateTime date);

   [OperationContract(Name = "GetScheduledEventsByDateRange")]
   ScheduledEvent[] GetScheduledEvents(DateTime start, DateTime end);
}

You may be wondering how the method will appear to the consumer of the service.  Will it appear as two different names (based on the the alias) or as overloaded methods with the same name?  This will depend upon the proxy class used by your client.  If you use the proxy class that is automatically generated by svcutility.exe, the alias method names will be used.  However, you can manually edit the generated proxy class to achieve the appearance of overloaded methods on the client as well.  This can be accomplished by applying the same attributes to the methods defined in the interface that is used by the proxy class.

Original article from Jeff Barnes

Cross Site Attacks – XSS

Cross Site Attacks (XSS) what is that all about?
 
“Cross-site scripting (XSS) is a type of computer security vulnerability typically found in Web applications. XSS enables attackers to inject client-side script into Web pages viewed by other users. A cross-site scripting vulnerability may be used by attackers to bypass access controls such as the same origin policy. Cross-site scripting carried out on websites accounted for roughly 84% of all security vulnerabilities documented by Symantec as of 2007. Their effect may range from a petty nuisance to a significant security risk, depending on the sensitivity of the data handled by the vulnerable site and the nature of any security mitigation implemented by the site’s owner.”
 
All user’s inputs can be a back door for attacker to attack your site. User’s inputs that we will categorize as un-trusted inputs are :
  • Incoming URLs including Request.QueryString[] values
  • Form post data (Request.Form[] values including values from hidden fields and disabled fields)
  • Cookies
  • Data in HTTP Headers (such as Request.UserAgent and Request.UrlReferrer).
Your site could be attacked by altering the query string, form values, or cookies data. The solution is not to prevent request manipulation but to check that each request is a legal request for the logged-in visitor.

Cross-Site Scripting and HTML Injection

If an attacker can get our site to return some javascript to our visitors, then the attacker’s script can take control of our visitors’ browsing session and by this the attackers can collect the personal information (passwords, credit card details) of our visitors. There are two main ways an attacker follow to get this:

  1. Persistently:  by entering formed malicious input into some feature and hoping we will store it into our database and then issue it back to other visitors.
  2. Non-persistently or Passively : by finding a way of sending malicious data in a request to our application and having our application echo that data back in it is response. The attacker then finds a way to trick a victim into making such a request.

Razor HTML Encoding

The Razor view engine helps protect us against XSS attacks by encoding any data that we refer to using the @ tag to make it safe to display as HTML. This means when we request an URL with a javascript code as a query string, Razor processes the query string value and replaces the special characters and rendering javascript code as a simple text.

Razor view engine treats the contents of MvcHtmlString objects as if they were encoded, even when that is not the case. We can use Html.Raw helper method to include our HTML into the web page without it being encoded.

Request Validation

The goal of request validation is to stop potentially dangerous data ever reaching the application. If the user tries to submit data that looks like it might be HTML, Then ASP.Net throws an exception. This happens before the request is passed to the MVC Framework, so our application never receives the data the user has sent. But the problem with Request Validation is that it rejects any data even slightly resembling an HTML tag, and this can include valid data.

In ASP.Net MVC Framework, request validation is enabled by default. You can disable it by decorate your controller/action method by ValidateInput attribute and passing false to it. If you decorate the controller with it, that means you enabled/disabled request validation for all action methods within this controller (of course not recommended). If you decorate the action method by that attribute, that means you enabled/disabled request validation for all posted data/model properties. Also you can disable request validation for a specific property by decorate it with AllowHtml attribute.

JavaScript String Encoding and XSS

So what if we want to accept javascript code from the user, i.e post a question on stackoverflow. of course we don’t want to refuse it or disable request validation totally. Fortunately, the Ajax helper class has method called JavaScriptStringEncode, which encodes a string so that it safe to display and escapes characters so that JavaScript will understand it. In such case we have to use Html.Raw method around the result generated by the Ajax helper method. If we don’t do this, then Razor HTML encodes the result, and we are back where we started. Session Hijacking:
ASP.Net identifies users by session ID cookie which called ASP.Net_SessionId by default, and if we use Forms Authentication, then a second cookie is used called /AUTH. If an attacker can obtain these cookies, then they can include them in a request to our server and impersonate one of our users. The browser by default preventing the javascript from a site to access cookies of another site. But if the attacker has been able to inject a script into one of our pages, then the browser believes that the script is part of our application and grands access to the session cookies.

We can protect our site by keeping a record of each client IP address when a session starts, we can deny any requests that originate from a different IP. But you should avoid this technique when you deal with the public internet.

We can mark a cookie with the HttpOnly flag, and the browser will hide its existence from javascript but will continue to send it via all HTTP requests. By default ASP.Net marks ASP.Net_SessionId and /AUTH as HttpOnly. Of course you can apply HttpOnly to your session cookies when you create them.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF):

To save me repeating myself talk a look at this post Preventing Cross Site Request Forgery

Build your MVC application securely

  1. Don’t write any public method inside a controller class that will not be an action method. By default any public method is an action method, other methods should be wrote in model section. If you have to write a method that will not be an action, make sure it will be private or make it public but you must decorate it with NonAction attribute.
  2. Prevent  Model Binding to change sensitive data by using Bind attribute to set up white/black list that restrict which properties model binding is allowed/not allowed to populate.

Preventing Cross Site Request Forgery

What is Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)?

“A CSRF attack forces a logged-on victim’s browser to send a pre-authenticated request to a vulnerable web application, which then forces the victim’s browser to perform a hostile action to the benefit of the attacker. CSRF can be as powerful as the web application that it attacks.”

Cross-site scripting (XSS) is widely regarded as one of the most used security issue on the web. Few developers pay much attention to another form of attack that’s equally destructive and potentially far easier to exploit. Your application can be vulnerable to cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks not because you the developer did something wrong (as in, failing to encode outputs leads to XSS), but simply because of how the whole Web is designed to work.

How CSRF works

All web application platforms are potentially vulnerable to CSRF, but in this post we’ll focus on ASP.NET MVC. Imagine you have a controller class as follows:

public class UserProfileController : Controller
{
    public ViewResult Edit() { return View(); }
 
    public ViewResult SubmitUpdate()
    {
        // Get the user's existing profile data (implementation omitted)
        ProfileData profile = GetLoggedInUserProfile();
 
        // Update the user object
        profile.EmailAddress = Request.Form["email"];
        profile.FavoriteHobby = Request.Form["hobby"];
        SaveUserProfile(profile);
 
        ViewData["message"] = "Your profile was updated.";
        return View();
    }
}

This is all very normal. First, the visitor goes to Edit(), which renders some form to let them change their user profile details. Secondly, they post that form to SubmitUpdate(), which saves the changes to their profile record in the database. There’s no XSS vulnerability here. Everything’s fine, right? We implement this sort of thing all the time…

Unfortunately, this innocent controller is an easy target for CSRF. Imagine that an attacker sets up the following HTML page and hosts it on some server of their own:

<body onload="document.getElementById('fm1').submit()">
    <form id="fm1" action="http://yoursite/UserProfile/SubmitUpdate" method="post">
        <input name="email" value="hacker@somewhere.evil" />
        <input name="hobby" value="Defacing websites" />
    </form>
</body>

Next, they somehow persuade a victim to visit this page. When this HTML page loads, it submits a valid form post to /UserProfile/SubmitUpdate on your server.

Assuming you’re using Windows authentication or some kind of cookie-based authentication system such as Forms Authentication, the automated form post will be processed within the victim’s established authentication context, and will successfully update the victim’s email address to something under the attacker’s control. All the attacker has to do now is use your “forgotten password” facility, and they’re taken control of the victim’s account.

Of course, instead of changing an victim’s email address, they can perform any action that the victim can perform with a single POST request. For example, they might be able to grant administrative permissions to another account, or post something defamatory to a CMS.

Ways to stop CSRF

There are two main ways to block CSRF:

  • Check that incoming requests have a Referer header referencing your domain. This will stop requests unwittingly submitted from a third-party domain. However, some people disable their browser’s Referer header for privacy reasons, and attackers can sometimes spoof that header if the victim has certain versions of Adobe Flash installed. This is a weak solution.
  • Put a user-specific token as a hidden field in legitimate forms, and check that the right value was submitted. If, for example, this token is the user’s password, then a third-party can’t forge a valid form post, because they don’t know each user’s password. However, don’t expose the user’s password this way: Instead, it’s better to use some random value (such as a GUID) which you’ve stored in the visitor’s Session collection or into a Cookie.

Using the AntiForgeryToken helpers

The core ASP.NET MVC package includes a set of helpers that give you a means to detect and block CSRF using the “user-specific tokens” technique.

To use these helpers to protect a particular form, put an Html.AntiForgeryToken() into the form, e.g.,

@using(Html.Form("UserProfile", "SubmitUpdate")) 
{
    @Html.AntiForgeryToken()
    <!-- rest of form goes here -->
}

This will output something like the following:

<form action="/UserProfile/SubmitUpdate" method="post">
    <input name="__RequestVerificationToken" type="hidden" value="saTFWpkKN0BYazFtN6c4YbZAmsEwG0srqlUqqloi/fVgeV2ciIFVmelvzwRZpArs" />
    <!-- rest of form goes here -->
</form>

At the same time, Html.AntiForgeryToken() will give the visitor a cookie called __RequestVerificationToken, with the same value as the random hidden value shown above.

Next, to validate an incoming form post, add the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] filter to your target action method. For example,

[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public ViewResult SubmitUpdate()
{
    // ... etc
}

This is an authorization filter that checks that:

  • The incoming request has a cookie called __RequestVerificationToken
  • The incoming request has a Request.Form entry called __RequestVerificationToken
  • These cookie and Request.Form values match

Assuming all is well, the request goes through as normal. But if not, boom!, there’s an authorization failure with message “A required anti-forgery token was not supplied or was invalid”.

This prevents CSRF because even if a potential victim has an __RequestVerificationToken cookie, an attacker can’t find out its value, so they can’t forge a valid form post with the same value in Request.Form. But legitimate users aren’t inconvenienced at all; the mechanism is totally silent

Anti-CSRF and AJAX

The simple solution for adding AJAX Cross-Site request forgery is to add the Request Verification Token to the data

function CallAjax() {
    var data = { "ajaxparameter ": 'hello moon' };
    data.__RequestVerificationToken = $("input[name=__RequestVerificationToken]").val();
    $.ajax({
        type: "POST",
        url: '@Url.Action("AjaxCall")',
        dataType: "json",
        data: JSON.stringify(data),
        success: function () {
            alert('Ajax call succesful');
        }
    });
    return false;
}

this can also be done via the $ajaxSetup

$.ajaxSetup({
    global: true,
    beforeSend: function (xhr, settings) {
        if (settings.data != "") {
            settings.data += '&';
        }
        settings.data += '__RequestVerificationToken=' + $("input[name=__RequestVerificationToken]").val();
    }
});

this then leaves the AJAX call as you would normally find it

function CallAjax() {
    var data = { "ajaxparameter ": 'hello moon' };
    $.ajax({
        type: "POST",
        url: '@Url.Action("AjaxCall")',
        dataType: "json",
        data: JSON.stringify(data),
        success: function () {
            alert('Ajax call succesful');
        }
    });
    return false;
}

The form token can be a problem for AJAX requests, because an AJAX request might send JSON data, not HTML form data. One solution is to send the tokens in a custom HTTP header. The following code uses Razor syntax to generate the tokens, and then adds the tokens to an AJAX request.  The tokens are generated at the server by calling AntiForgery.GetTokens.

<script>
    @functions{
        public string TokenHeaderValue()
        {
            string cookieToken, formToken;
            AntiForgery.GetTokens(null, out cookieToken, out formToken);
            return cookieToken + ":" + formToken;                
        }
    }

    $.ajax("api/values", {
        type: "post",
        contentType: "application/json",
        data: {  }, // JSON data goes here
        dataType: "json",
        headers: {
            'RequestVerificationToken': '@TokenHeaderValue()'
        }
    });
</script>

When you process the request, extract the tokens from the request header. Then call the AntiForgery.Validate method to validate the tokens. The Validate method throws an exception if the tokens are not valid.

void ValidateRequestHeader(HttpRequestMessage request)
{
    string cookieToken = "";
    string formToken = "";

    IEnumerable<string> tokenHeaders;
    if (request.Headers.TryGetValues("RequestVerificationToken", out tokenHeaders))
    {
        string[] tokens = tokenHeaders.First().Split(':');
        if (tokens.Length == 2)
        {
            cookieToken = tokens[0].Trim();
            formToken = tokens[1].Trim();
        }
    }
    AntiForgery.Validate(cookieToken, formToken);
}

Using salt

Salt? What? In case you want to protect multiple forms in your application independently of each other, you can use a “salt” value when you call Html.AntiForgeryToken(), e.g.,

@Html.AntiForgeryToken("someArbitraryString")

… and also in [ValidateAntiForgeryToken], e.g.,

[ValidateAntiForgeryToken(Salt="someArbitraryString")]
public ViewResult SubmitUpdate()
{
    // ... etc
}

Salt is just an arbitrary string. A different salt value means a different anti-forgery token will be generated. This means that even if an attacker manages to get hold of a valid token somehow, they can’t reuse it in other parts of the application where a different salt value is required

Load balancing

Will different web servers in a load balanced configuration create the same token in the HTML forms?

If all machines across the farm share the same <machineKey>, everything will work. There are lots of resources on how to set this. There’s also a tutorial on MSDN.

Note that the name <machineKey> is a bit misleading, since this is actually set per-application in ~/Web.config. So set the <machineKey> explicitly in your app’s Web.config, then deploy across your farm.

Limitations of the Anti-Forgery helpers

ASP.NET MVC’s anti-CSRF helpers work very nicely, but you should be aware of a few limitations:

  • All legitimate visitors must accept cookies (otherwise, [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] will deny their form posts). Arguably this isn’t a limitation, because unless visitors allow cookies, you probably don’t have anything to protect anyway.
  • It only works with POST requests, not GET requests. Arguably this isn’t a limitation, because under the normal HTTP conventions, you shouldn’t be using GET requests for anything other than read-only operations.
  • It’s easily bypassed if you have any XSS holes on your domain. An XSS hole would allow an attacker to read a victim’s anti-forgery token value, then use it to forge valid posts. So, don’t have XSS holes!
  • It relies on the potential victim’s browser implementing cross-domain boundaries solidly. Browsers are supposed to stop foreign domains from reading your app’s response text and cookies, and are supposed to stop foreign domains from writing cookies to your domain. If an attacker manages to find a way around this, they can bypass [ValidateAntiForgeryToken]. Of course that’s not supposed to be possible. For the most part, modern browsers block this line of attack.

Links

The Open Web Application Security Project

The orginal article was produced by Steven Sanderson:
Prevent Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) using ASP.NET MVC’s AntiForgeryToken() helper

Source for this article

CrossSiteRequestForgery.zip (3.21 mb)

How to perform JavaScript Unit Testing

Following the TDD approach when you are working with MVC it is quite easy to produce Unit Tests that are based on the MVC Controllers, with more and more business logic appearing in the User Interface by using libraries such as jQuery it is becoming more important to perform Unit Testing on JavaScript.

What options are available today, more importantly what are the pros and cons of each solution?

JsUnit

Pros

    can be invoked from an ant build file
    launches browser to run the tests
    Eclipse plug-in

Cons

    launches browser to run the tests
    Does not support js file to write the unit test code: it has to be embedded inside an html file
    it has not been updated for a few years

Notes:

    There is a JsUnit (2).
    An ‘ant’ is an open source build tool; “Ant” because it is a little thing that can build big things.

RhinoUnit

Pros

    ant driven
    supports js file
    very simple to use

Cons

    Simulation of JavaScript engine: not advanced enough to support all coding types

crosscheck

Pros

    Can be invoked from ant build file
    Simulates real browser behaviour

Cons

    Simulation of JavaScript engine from a limited number of browser versions
    No activity for 2 years: it does not support Firefox versions 2.x nor 3.x

jsspec

Pros

    Runs on actual browser

Cons

    JavaScript only framework: cannot be called from ant build file

jspec

Pros

    Runs on actual browser

Cons

    Does not seem to support all code types
    JavaScript only framework: cannot be called from ant build file,

Screw.unit

Pros

    Runs on actual browser

Cons

    JavaScript only framework: cannot be called from ant build file

JSTest

Pros

    Can be intergrated with most testing frameworks, such as MSTest, NUnit, xUnit etc
    ant build supported
    Simple to install, only requires a single dll
    Browserless
    Can be installed using NuGet
    Small overhead of 56k

Cons

    Not very active on CodePlex, with only 51 downloads
    Reference directly to the js files, so if the js files are moved all the tests need to be updated

I know there are many many more and this is just a cross sample of JavaScript testing libraries, but I think I may have found the crown jewels for TDD.

It looks like JSTest is, not only the only choice we have, it is the simplest and best approach to JavaScript Unit Testing, but why has it only had 51 downloads?  Have I found a hidden gem or a monster waiting to bite me?

JSTest does provide an easy way to apply the Test-Driven Development (TDD) process

For an example to use it check out Unit Testing JavaScript with MSTest and JSTest.Net by Shawn Sweeney, I have created a sample MVC application showing it working.

JSTestMVCExample.zip (2.67 mb)

Conclusion, I do think we now have the tools to be fully “TDD” compliant.

JSTest.zip (16.80 kb)