Javascript Disabled Redirect?

Question

Background:
I am using IIS 5 with Microsoft Access DB. Im coding
ASP/Javascript.
I currently have a login.asp page which handles Username and
Password Authentication. No Javascript functions are on this page.
I do have a script that detects if their browser has javascript
disabled.
i.e.
<noscript><p><span style="color:#FFFFFF;
font-weight:bold; padding:2px; background-color:#FF0000">This
site requires javascript to be enabled.<br />If you do not
enable javascript in your browser settings, some functions will not
work properly.</span></p></noscript>
</div>
This is all fine and dandy but it doest affect the user from
proceeding once they put in their username and password. Once they
are authenticated, the user is redirected to a index.asp page.
After my login.asp page, I have several pages within my site
which I do use javascript for some of my functions.
So, how do I prevent my user from proceeding past my
login.asp page if their browser has javascript disabled.
I thought of changing my login.asp to have the NOSCRIPT tag
to have a redirect to another login1.asp page, but if a malicious
attacker looked at the source page of login.asp, it would no how to
bypass my NOSCRIPT redirect tage and go straight into my login1.asp
page thus still enable them to login in with javascript disabled.
Should I recode my login page to use a javascript function
before continuing? if so what would you suggest?
Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

>And that's my whole point: JS yes - for additional
features or to
>improve the usability, but not a requirement to make the
site work.
Yes, I agree 100%. The problem is that in most cases by
providing the extra
functionality, you automatically make the site reliant on it.
Either that or
the user experience is crap because the site appears to be
broken. I think
you really have to decide to go with JS or not go with JS and
adhere to your
choice throughout the entire site.
"Michael Fesser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .oO(Pat Shaw)
>
>>Sometimes, for certain functionality, there is no
alternative but to use
>>Javascript Michael.
>
> IMHO most really important things can also be done with
server-side
> scripts if JS is not available. It will often be much
slower and more
> complex, but it's possible. I'm not talking about such
stuff like "Spry"
> effects, scrolling or fading images and such - these are
only eye candy.
> If they are not there, the site can still work. It's the
most basic
> functionality of a site that shouldn't entirely rely on
JS, because
> there's always a non-JS alternative (at least I haven't
seen anything
> yet that would not have been possible in a similar way
without JS).
>
>>If you need that sort of functionality then you MUST
use
>>Javascript. Besides, there are plenty of very large
and established sites
>>that make good use of Javascript. If you write off
Javascript then you
>>also
>>write off related technologies such as AJAX.
>
> No question, AJAX can make many things much more
convenient and easier
> to use, but after all it just sends another request to
the server and
> fetches some data. Nothing special. Server-side scripts
could often do
> the same work and already deliver the final page.
>
> Take for example some map services like Google Maps
(even if this is a
> rather bad example). It's quite common to use AJAX
techniques, so the
> user is able to seamlessly drag the whole map around,
while the script
> automatically loads the next required tiles in the
background. Quite
> nice of course. But this is nothing that would really
require JS. The
> better services also provide a non-JS alternative - you
just have to
> click a link to move the map one or more tiles in any
direction. Then
> the server sends the new page back. Not as nice and
convenient as the
> JS-version, but still completely usable.
>
> And that's my whole point: JS yes - for additional
features or to
> improve the usability, but not a requirement to make the
site work.
>
> YMMV.
>
> Micha