I was about to add an HTTP header to all responses in our web application that would identify which physical node behind our load balancer has serviced the request.
I thought maybe there's a standard (or de facto standard) header that has been traditionally used for this purpose.
Is there?
One potential response header you could use is the "Server" header. By RFC 2616, we can see that it's used to identify the software and any sub-products being used to handle the request and it should not be mutated by any proxies/ load balancers between the server and the client.
Typically this shows information some suggest is sensitive (name & version number of the HTTP server). Many suggest removing the Server header entirely to improve security (see this Stack Overflow question about someone doing this).
You could almost view this as killing two birds with one stone: giving you some way of identifying the server used to process requests on your side and lightly obfuscating the server for attackers satisfying certain security concerns (though, FWIW, I'm not convinced of the value of this from a security perspective, but it's worth mentioning).
Related
I’m investigating a problem where Tomcat (7.0.90 7.0.92) returns a response with no HTTP headers very occasionally.
According to the captured packets by Wireshark, after Tomcat receives a request it just returns only a response body. It returns neither a status line nor HTTP response headers.
It makes a downstream Nginx instance produce the error “upstream sent no valid HTTP/1.0 header while reading response header from upstream”, return 502 error to the client and close the corresponding http connection between Nginx and Tomcat.
What can be a cause of this behavior? Is there any possibility which makes Tomcat behave this way? Or there can be something which strips HTTP headers under some condition? Or Wireshark failed to capture the frames which contain the HTTP headers? Any advice to narrow down where the problem is is also greatly appreciated.
This is a screenshot of Wireshark's "Follow HTTP Stream" which is showing the problematic response:
EDIT:
This is a screen shot of "TCP Stream" of the relevant part (only response). It seems that the chunks in the second response from the last looks fine:
EDIT2:
I forwarded this question to the Tomcat users mailing list and got some suggestions for further investigation from the developers:
http://tomcat.10.x6.nabble.com/Tomcat-occasionally-returns-a-response-without-HTTP-headers-td5080623.html
But I haven’t found any proper solution yet. I’m still looking for insights to tackle this problem..
The issues you experience stem from pipelining multiple requests over a single connection with the upstream, as explained by yesterday's answer here by Eugène Adell.
Whether this is a bug in nginx, tomcat, your application, or the interaction of any combination of the above, would probably be a discussion for another forum, but for now, let's consider what would be the best solution:
Can you post your nginx configuration? Specifically, if you're using keepalive and a non-default value of proxy_http_version within nginx? – cnst 1 hour ago
#cnst I'm using proxy_http_version 1.1 and keepalive 100 – Kohei Nozaki 1 hour ago
As per an earlier answer to an unrelated question here on SO, yet sharing the configuration parameters as above, you might want to reconsider the reasons behind your use of the keepalive functionality between the front-end load-balancer (e.g., nginx) and the backend application server (e.g., tomcat).
As per a keepalive explanation on ServerFault in the context of nginx, the keepalive functionality in the upstream context of nginx wasn't even supported until very-very recently in the nginx development years. Why? It's because there are very few valid scenarios for using keepalive when it's basically faster to establish a new connection than to wait for an existing one to become available:
When the latency between the client and the server is on the order of 50ms+, keepalive makes it possible to reuse the TCP and SSL credentials, resulting in a very significant speedup, because no extra roundtrips are required to get the connection ready for servicing the HTTP requests.
This is why you should never disable keepalive between the client and nginx (controlled through http://nginx.org/r/keepalive_timeout in http, server and location contexts).
But when the latency between the front-end proxy server and the backend application server is on the order of 1ms (0.001s), using keepalive is a recipe for chasing Heisenbugs without reaping any benefits, as the extra 1ms latency to establish a connection might as well be less than the 100ms latency of waiting for an existing connection to become available. (This is a gross oversimplification of connection handling, but it just shows you how extremely insignificant any possible benefits of the keepalive between the front-end load-balancer and the application server would be, provided both of them live in the same region.)
This is why using http://nginx.org/r/keepalive in the upstream context is rarely a good idea, unless you really do need it, and have specifically verified that it produces the results you desire, given the points as above.
(And, just to make it clear, these points are irrespective of what actual software you're using, so, even if you weren't experiencing the problems you experience with your combination of nginx and tomcat, I'd still recommend you not use keepalive between the load-balancer and the application server even if you decide to switch away from either or both of nginx and tomcat.)
My suggestion?
The problem wouldn't be reproducible with the default values of http://nginx.org/r/proxy_http_version and http://nginx.org/r/keepalive.
If your backend is within 5ms of front-end, you most certainly aren't even getting any benefits from modifying these directives in the first place, so, unless chasing Heisenbugs is your path, you might as well keep these specific settings at their most sensible defaults.
We see that you are reusing an established connection to send the POST request and that, as you said, the response comes without the status-line and the headers.
after Tomcat receives a request it just returns only a response body.
Not exactly. It starts with 5d which is probably a chunk-size and this means that the latest "full" response (with status-line and headers) got from this connection contained a "Transfer-Encoding: chunked" header. For any reason, your server still believes the previous response isn't finished by the time it starts sending this new response to your last request.
A missing chunked seems confirmed as the screenshot doesn't show a last-chunk (value = 0) ending the previous request. Note that the last response ends with a last-chunk (the last byte shown is 0).
What causes this ? The previous response isn't technically considered as fully answered. It can be a bug on Tomcat, your webservice library, your own code. Maybe even, you're sending your request too early, before the previous one was completely answered.
Are some bytes missing if you compare the chunk-sizes from what is actually sent to the client ? Are all buffers flushed ? Beware of the line endings (CRLF vs LF only) too.
One last cause that I'm thinking about, if your response contains some kind of user input taken from the request, you can be facing HTTP Splitting.
Possible solutions.
It is worth trying to disable the chunked encoding at your library level, for example with Axis2 check the HTTP Transport.
When reusing a connection, check your client code to make sure that you aren't sending a request before you read all of the previous response (to avoid overlapping).
Further reading
RFC 2616 3.6.1 Chunked Transfer Coding
It turned out that the "sjsxp" library which JAX-WS RI v2.1.3 uses makes Tomcat behave this way. I tried a different version of JAX-WS RI (v2.1.7) which doesn't use the "sjsxp" library anymore and it solved the issue.
A very similar issue posted on Metro mailing list: http://metro.1045641.n5.nabble.com/JAX-WS-RI-2-1-5-returning-malformed-response-tp1063518.html
Last week I started quite a fuss in my Computer Networks class over the need for a mandatory Host clause in the header of HTTP 1.1 GET messages.
The reason I'm provided with, be it written on the Web or shouted at me by my classmates, is always the same: the need to support virtual hosting. However, and I'll try to be as clear as possible, this does not appear to make sense.
I understand that in order to allow two domains to be hosted in a single machine (and by consequence, share the same IP address), there has to exist a way of differentiating both domain names.
What I don't understand is why it isn't possible to achieve this without a Host clause (HTTP 1.0 style) by using an absolute URL (e.g. GET http://www.example.org/index.html) instead of a relative one (e.g. GET /index.html).
When the HTTP message got to the server, it (the server) would redirect the message to the appropriate host, not by looking at the Host clause but, instead, by looking at the hostname in the URL present in the message's request line.
I would be very grateful if any of you hardcore hackers could help me understand what exactly am I missing here.
This was discussed in this thread:
modest suggestions for HTTP/2.0 with their rationale.
Add a header to the client request that indicates the hostname and
port of the URL which the client is accessing.
Rationale: One of the most requested features from commercial server
maintainers is the ability to run a single server on a single port
and have it respond with different top level pages depending on the
hostname in the URL.
Making an absolute request URI required (because there's no way for the client to know on beforehand whether the server homes one or more sites) was suggested:
Re the first proposal, to incorporate the hostname somewhere. This
would be cleanest put into the URL itself :-
GET http://hostname/fred http/2.0
This is the syntax for proxy redirects.
To which this argument was made:
Since there will be a mix of clients, some supporting host name reporting
and some not, it just doesn't matter how this info gets to the server.
Since it doesn't matter, the easier to implement solution is a new HTTP
request header field. It allows all clients and servers to operate as they
do now with NO code changes. Clients and servers that actually need host
name information can have tiny mods made to send the extra header field
containing the URL and process it.
[...]
All I'm suggesting is that there is a better way to
implement the delivery of host name info to the server that doesn't involve
hacking the request syntax and can be backwards compatible with ALL clients
and servers.
Feel free to read on to discover the final decision yourself. But be warned, it's easy to get lost in there.
The reason for adding support for specifying a host in an HTTP request was the limited supply of IP addresses (which was not an issue yet when HTTP 1.0 came out).
If your question is "why specify the host in a Host header as opposed to on the Request-Line", the answer is the need for interopability between HTTP/1.0 and 1.1.
If the question is "why is the Host header mandatory", this has to do with the desire to speed up the transition away from assigned IP addresses.
Here's some background on the Internet address conservation with respect to HTTP/1.1.
The reason for the 'Host' header is to make explicit which host this request refers to. Without 'Host', the server must know ahead of time that it is supposed to route 'http://joesdogs.com/' to Joe's Dogs while it is supposed to route 'http://joscats.com/' to Jo's Cats even though they are on the same webserver. (What if a server has 2 names, like 'joscats.com' and 'joescats.com' that should refer to the same website?)
Having an explicit 'Host' header make these kinds of decisions much easier to program.
I am working on a C# mobile application that requires major interaction with a PHP web server. However, the application also needs to support an "offline mode" as connection will be over a cellular network. This network may drop requests at random times. The problem that I have experienced with previous "Offline Mode" applications is that when a request results in a Timeout, the server may or may not have already processed that request. In cases where sending the request more than once would create a duplicate, this is a problem. I was walking through this and came up with the following idea.
Mobile sets a header value such as UniqueRequestID: 1 to be sent with the request.
Upon receiving the request, the PHP server adds the UniqueRequestID to the current user session $_SESSION['RequestID'][] = $headers['UniqueRequestID'];
Server implements a GetRequestByID that returns true if the id exists for the current session or false if not. Alternatively, this could returned the cached result of the request.
This seems to be a somewhat reliable way of seeing if a request successfully contacted the server. In mobile, upon re-connecting to the server, we check if the request was received. If so, skip that pending offline message and go to the next one.
Question
Have I reinvented the wheel here? Is this method prone to failure (or am I going down a rabbit hole)? Is there a better way / alternative?
-I was pitching this to other developers here and we thought that this seemed very simple implying that this "system" would likely already exist somewhere.
-Apologies if my Google skills are failing me today.
As you correctly stated, this problem is not new. There have been multiple attempts to solve it at different levels.
Transport level
HTTP transport protocol itself does not provide any mechanisms for reliable data transfer. One of the reasons is that HTTP is stateless and don't care much about previous requests and responses. There have been attempts by IBM to make a reliable transport protocol called HTTPR what was based on HTTP, but it never got popular. You can read more about it here.
Messaging level
Most Web Services out there still uses HTTP as a transport protocol and SOAP messaging protocol on top of it. SOAP over HTTP is not sufficient when an application-level messaging protocol must also guarantee some level of reliability and security. This is why WS-Reliability and WS-ReliableMessaging protocols where introduced. Those protocols allow SOAP messages to be reliably delivered between distributed applications in the presence of software component, system, or network failures. At the same time they provide additional security. You can read more about those protocols here and here.
Your solution
I guess there is nothing wrong with your approach if you need a simple way to ensure that message has not been already processed. I would recommend to use database instead of session to store processing result for each request. If you use $_SESSION['RequestID'][] you will run in to trouble if the session is lost (user is offline for specific time, server is restarted or has crashed, etc). Also, if you use database instead of session, you can scale-up easier later on just by adding extra web server.
HTTP 1.1 supports keep alive connections, connections are not closed until "Connection: close" is sent.
So, if the browser, in this case firefox has network.http.pipelining enabled and network.http.pipelining.maxrequests increased isn't the same effect in the end?
I know that these settings are disabled because for some websites this could increase load but I think a simple http header flag could tell the browser that is ok tu use multiplexing and this problem can be solved easier.
Wouldn't be easier to change default settings in browsers than invent a new protocol that increases complexity especially in the http servers?
SPDY has a number of advantages that go beyond what HTTP pipelining can offer, which are described in the SPDY whitepaper:
With pipelining, the server still has to return the responses one at a time in the order they were requested. This can be a problem if the client requests a resource that's dynamically generated before one that is static: the server cannot send any of the "easy" static responses until the dynamically generated one has been generated and sent. With SPDY, responses can be returned out of order or in parallel as they are generated, lowering the total time to receive all resources.
As you noted in your question, not all servers are able to deal with pipelining: it's not just load, some servers actually behave incorrectly when the client requests pipelining. Using a header to indicate that it's okay to do pipelining is too late to get the maximum benefit: you are already receiving the first response at that point, so while you can use it on future connections it's already too late for this one.
SPDY compresses headers using an algorithm which is specific to that task (stateful and with knowledge of what is normally in HTTP headers); while yes, SSL already includes compression, just compressing them with deflate is not as efficient. Most HTTP requests have no bodies and only a short GET line, so the headers make up virtually the entire request: any compression you can get is an improvement. Many responses are also small compared to their headers.
SPDY allows servers to send back additional responses without the client asking for them. For example, a server might start sending back the CSS for a page along with the original HTML, before the client has had a chance to receive and parse the HTML to determine the stylesheet URL. This can speed up page loads even further by eliminating the need for the client to actually parse the HTML before requesting other resources needed to render the page. It also supports a less bandwidth-heavy version of this feature where it can "hint" about which resources might be needed, and allow the client to decide: this allows, for example, clients that don't care about images to not bother to request them, but clients that want to display images can still request the images using the given URLs without needing to wait for the HTML.
Other things too: see William Chan's answer for even more.
HTTP pipelining is susceptible to head of line blocking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-of-line_blocking) at the HTTP transaction level whereas SPDY only has head of line blocking at the transport level, due to its use of multiplexing.
HTTP pipelining has deployability issues. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingham-http-pipeline-01 which describes a number of different workarounds and heuristics to mitigate this. SPDY as deployed in the wild does not have this problem since it is generally deployed over SSL (port 443) using NPN (http://technotes.googlecode.com/git/nextprotoneg.html) to negotiate SPDY support. SSL is key, since it prevents intermediaries from interfering.
SPDY has header compression. See http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper which discusses some benchmark results of the benefits of header compression. Now, it's useful to note that bandwidth is less and less of an issue (see http://www.belshe.com/2010/05/24/more-bandwidth-doesnt-matter-much/), but it's also useful to remember that bandwidth is still key for mobile. Check out https://developers.google.com/speed/articles/spdy-for-mobile which shows how beneficial SPDY is for mobile.
SPDY supports features like server push. See http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-best-practices for ways to use server push to improve cacheability of content and still reduce roundtrips.
HTTP pipelining has ill-defined failure semantics. When the server closes the connection, how do you know which requests have been successfully processed? This is a major reason why POST and other non-idempotent requests are not allowed over pipelined connections. SPDY provides semantics to cancel individual streams on the same connection, and also has a GOAWAY frame which indicates the last stream to be successfully processed.
HTTP pipelining has difficulty, often due to intermediaries, in allowing deep pipelines. This (in addition to many other reasons like HoL blocking) means that you still need to utilize multiple TCP connections to achieve maximal parallelization. Using multiple TCP connections means that congestion control information cannot be shared, that compression contexts cannot be shared (like SPDY does with headers), is worse for the internet (more costly for intermediaries and servers).
I could go on and on about HTTP pipelining vs SPDY. But I'd recommend just reading up on SPDY. Check out http://dev.chromium.org/spdy and our tech talk on SPDY at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNBkxA313kk&list=PLE0E03DF19D90B5F4&index=2&feature=plpp_video.
See Difference between HTTP pipeling and HTTP multiplexing with SPDY
Is it possible to detect if an incoming request is being made through a proxy server? If a web application "bans" users via IP address, they could bypass this by using a proxy server. That is just one reason to block these requests. How can this be achieved?
IMHO there's no 100% reliable way to achieve this but the presence of any of the following headers is a strong indication that the request was routed from a proxy server:
via:
forwarded:
x-forwarded-for:
client-ip:
You could also look for the proxy or pxy in the client domain name.
If a proxy server is setup properly to avoid the detection of proxy servers, you won't be able to tell.
Most proxy servers supply headers as others mention, but those are not present on proxies meant to completely hide the user.
You will need to employ several detection methods, such as cookies, proxy header detection, and perhaps IP heuristics to detect such situations. Check out http://www.osix.net/modules/article/?id=765 for some information on this situation. Also consider using a proxy blacklist - they are published by many organizations.
However, nothing is 100% certain. You can employ the above tactics to avoid most simple situations, but at the end of the day it's merely a series of packets forming a TCP/IP transaction, and the TCP/IP protocol was not developed with today's ideas on security, authentication, etc.
Keep in mind that many corporations deploy company wide proxies for various reasons, and if you simply block proxies as a general rule you necessarily limit your audience, and that may not always be desirable. However, these proxies usually announce themselves with the appropriate headers - you may end up blocking legitimate users, rather than users who are good at hiding themselves.
-Adam
Did a bit of digging on this after my domain got hosted up on Google's AppSpot.com with nice hardcore porn ads injected into it (thanks Google).
Taking a leaf from this htaccess idea I'm doing the following, which seems to be working. I added a specific rule for AppSpot which injects a HTTP_X_APPENGINE_COUNTRY ServerVariable.
Dim varys As New List(Of String)
varys.Add("VIA")
varys.Add("FORWARDED")
varys.Add("USERAGENT_VIA")
varys.Add("X_FORWARDED_FOR")
varys.Add("PROXY_CONNECTION")
varys.Add("XPROXY_CONNECTION")
varys.Add("HTTP_PC_REMOTE_ADDR")
varys.Add("HTTP_CLIENT_IP")
varys.Add("HTTP_X_APPENGINE_COUNTRY")
For Each vary As String In varys
If Not String.IsNullOrEmpty(HttpContext.Current.Request.Headers(vary)) Then HttpContext.Current.Response.Redirect("http://www.your-real-domain.com")
Next
You can look for these headers in the Request Object and accordingly decide whether request is via a proxy/not
1) Via
2) X-Forwarded-For
note that this is not a 100% sure shot trick, depends upon whether these proxy servers choose to add above headers.