Viewstate Corrupt error message after "Worker Process" recycling

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi There,

I have a small ASP.NET application under development. I am using VS.NET 2002
(2003 upgrade is on the way) with .NET Framework 1.1. It is hosted on a web
hosting service in the US. I am experiencing the "Viewstate corrupted" error
message on a particular page, when that page is left for a period of time
and I return to it again, and submit it again. The page in question has a
drop-down list of various RSS news feeds I am interested in, so I'll often
look at a set of news articles, read one and return to my page and choose
another RSS feed.

I have been informed by my web hosting organisation that the problem is
caused by "worker process recycling". That is, to minimise resources after a
period of inactivity, the worker process servicing requests for my web site
is
re-used.

Does this sound plausible? Many of the other explanations regarding
synchronised machine keys in machine.config files sound much more likely to
me.

Also, even if this were the case, why would the servicing of a subsequent
request by a different worker process consider the client-side persisted
viewstate to be corrupt? That's the bit I just don't understand.

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Trevor Andrew

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi Justin,

Thanks for that ... I understand that viewstate is encoded, and the bits
that are persisted on the server side are the machine keys to perform this
encoding. But isn't that all that is persisted server side? Surely none of
the web form related viewstate data is persisted server side?

Regards,
Trevor Andrew


"S. Justin Gengo" <sjgengo@aboutfortunate.com> wrote in message
news:%2382c2SYUDHA.2204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> I don't believe the entire view state is persisted. But part of the view
> state is persisted server side. Let me see if I can explain this

clearly...

>
> For security reasons the view state is encoded. Part of the encoding

process

> is kept server side and is used to compare a submitted view state with the
> part kept on the server. This makes it very difficult for someone to
> impersonate a page post back sending false data in the viewstate.
>
> --
> S. Justin Gengo, MCP
> Web Developer
>
> Free code library at:
> [url]www.aboutfortunate.com[/url]
>
> "Out of chaos comes order."
> Nietzche
> "Trevor Andrew" <nntp@tassoc.com.au> wrote in message
> news:eTy9C%23XUDHA.3916@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> > Hi There,
> >
> > By way of further clarification, I have been told by my web hosting

> company

> > that:
> >
> > a. Viewstate IS persisted on the server, and hence this is where the

> problem

> > arises.
> > b. This is only an issue with Windows 2003, which they are now running.
> > c. There is no way to stop ASP.NET persisting a copy of viewstate on the
> > server.
> >
> > Not wishing to sound sceptical, but points a) and c) above really puzzle

> me.

> > I thought that Viewstate (as opposed to session state) was most

definitely

> > only a client side form of persistence. Can someone confirm one way or

the

> > other?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Trevor Andrew
> >
> > "Trevor Andrew" <nntp@tassoc.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:%23NFMZ3VUDHA.2088@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> > > Hi There,
> > >
> > > I have a small ASP.NET application under development. I am using

VS.NET

> > 2002

> > > (2003 upgrade is on the way) with .NET Framework 1.1. It is hosted on

a

> > web

> > > hosting service in the US. I am experiencing the "Viewstate corrupted"

> > error

> > > message on a particular page, when that page is left for a period of

> time

> > > and I return to it again, and submit it again. The page in question

has

> a

> > > drop-down list of various RSS news feeds I am interested in, so I'll

> often

> > > look at a set of news articles, read one and return to my page and

> choose

> > > another RSS feed.
> > >
> > > I have been informed by my web hosting organisation that the problem

is

> > > caused by "worker process recycling". That is, to minimise resources

> after

> > a

> > > period of inactivity, the worker process servicing requests for my web

> > site

> > > is
> > > re-used.
> > >
> > > Does this sound plausible? Many of the other explanations regarding
> > > synchronised machine keys in machine.config files sound much more

likely

> > to

> > > me.
> > >
> > > Also, even if this were the case, why would the servicing of a

> subsequent

> > > request by a different worker process consider the client-side

persisted

> > > viewstate to be corrupt? That's the bit I just don't understand.
> > >
> > > Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Trevor Andrew
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[S. Justin Gengo]

Trevor,

Yes, I believe that is correct.

--
S. Justin Gengo, MCP
Web Developer

Free code library at:
[url]www.aboutfortunate.com[/url]

"Out of chaos comes order."
Nietzche
"Trevor Andrew" <nntp@tassoc.com.au> wrote in message
news:e%23Z%23BcYUDHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for that ... I understand that viewstate is encoded, and the bits
> that are persisted on the server side are the machine keys to perform this
> encoding. But isn't that all that is persisted server side? Surely none of
> the web form related viewstate data is persisted server side?
>
> Regards,
> Trevor Andrew
>
>
> "S. Justin Gengo" <sjgengo@aboutfortunate.com> wrote in message
> news:%2382c2SYUDHA.2204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> > I don't believe the entire view state is persisted. But part of the view
> > state is persisted server side. Let me see if I can explain this

> clearly...

> >
> > For security reasons the view state is encoded. Part of the encoding

> process

> > is kept server side and is used to compare a submitted view state with

the

> > part kept on the server. This makes it very difficult for someone to
> > impersonate a page post back sending false data in the viewstate.
> >
> > --
> > S. Justin Gengo, MCP
> > Web Developer
> >
> > Free code library at:
> > [url]www.aboutfortunate.com[/url]
> >
> > "Out of chaos comes order."
> > Nietzche
> > "Trevor Andrew" <nntp@tassoc.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:eTy9C%23XUDHA.3916@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> > > Hi There,
> > >
> > > By way of further clarification, I have been told by my web hosting

> > company

> > > that:
> > >
> > > a. Viewstate IS persisted on the server, and hence this is where the

> > problem

> > > arises.
> > > b. This is only an issue with Windows 2003, which they are now

running.

> > > c. There is no way to stop ASP.NET persisting a copy of viewstate on

the

> > > server.
> > >
> > > Not wishing to sound sceptical, but points a) and c) above really

puzzle

> > me.

> > > I thought that Viewstate (as opposed to session state) was most

> definitely

> > > only a client side form of persistence. Can someone confirm one way or

> the

> > > other?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Trevor Andrew
> > >
> > > "Trevor Andrew" <nntp@tassoc.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:%23NFMZ3VUDHA.2088@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > Hi There,
> > > >
> > > > I have a small ASP.NET application under development. I am using

> VS.NET

> > > 2002
> > > > (2003 upgrade is on the way) with .NET Framework 1.1. It is hosted

on

> a

> > > web
> > > > hosting service in the US. I am experiencing the "Viewstate

corrupted"

> > > error
> > > > message on a particular page, when that page is left for a period of

> > time

> > > > and I return to it again, and submit it again. The page in question

> has

> > a

> > > > drop-down list of various RSS news feeds I am interested in, so I'll

> > often

> > > > look at a set of news articles, read one and return to my page and

> > choose

> > > > another RSS feed.
> > > >
> > > > I have been informed by my web hosting organisation that the problem

> is

> > > > caused by "worker process recycling". That is, to minimise resources

> > after

> > > a
> > > > period of inactivity, the worker process servicing requests for my

web

> > > site
> > > > is
> > > > re-used.
> > > >
> > > > Does this sound plausible? Many of the other explanations regarding
> > > > synchronised machine keys in machine.config files sound much more

> likely

> > > to
> > > > me.
> > > >
> > > > Also, even if this were the case, why would the servicing of a

> > subsequent

> > > > request by a different worker process consider the client-side

> persisted

> > > > viewstate to be corrupt? That's the bit I just don't understand.
> > > >
> > > > Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Trevor Andrew
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>