Is there any possibility to send HTTP headers on an ftp:// URL? How would I go about it?
What I want is HTTP based crawlers to see an HTML Response (in the headers) while human users see the pure FTP Content.
What would be the smartest way of solving this problem? I thought about user agent specific redirection, however this seems to be against most search engine's guidelines.
What I want is for bots to index an HTTP version of the content, while normal users can get access to the FTP version, all while using a single ftp:// URL.
Is this doable?
It's NOT doable.
You cannot redirect ftp:// URL to http:// URL. The FTP protocol has no redirects. FTP protocol does not even know what URL is. Nor does a web browser (acting as an FTP client) send "user agent" or anything similar to the FTP server.
There are also no headers in FTP protocol (but that's just a technicality, comparing to the fact above).
FTP protocol is completely different to HTTP.
You are obviously confused by the web browsers (all of them) presenting an FTP resource the same way as an HTTP resource. But it's just a "game" by the browsers. They are nowhere near similar.
Note that FTP was invented eons before Internet, HTTP, web and URLs.
Though note that you may be able to do it the other way around. You should be able to redirect HTTP to FTP.
But I still do not think it's a good idea. If the clients need FTP, they probably want to use a real FTP client, not a web browser. And a real FTP client won't understand HTTP (redirects).
But this question is kind of meaningless, now that all major web browsers are gradually removing a support for FTP anyway.
Related
When sending data from a server / device through HTTP, to a destination that is enforced by https, is that data encrypted in transit?
HTTP -> HTTPS
Or does the source and the destination both have to enforce HTTPS?
A protocol is the language between a client and the server. This language might have features including ones related to security. HTTP is basically for browsers requesting web resources from web servers without any encryption, authentication or integrity protection. HTTPS is the same, but one that provides these features (HTTPS is actually HTTP, protected by TLS).
Each tcp connection between components uses one protocol (it's sometimes a little more difficult than that, but let's stick with this, it's good enough for now). In case of web components, it's typically either http or https. Each resource that is downloaded (a page, an image, a javascript file, any resource) is typically downloaded in its own separate connection. Whether that will be http or https depends on how the page references it.
So in practice, if you have a look at a html page that you downloaded over http, it can still reference resources with https urls, in which case those will be downloaded by your browser via https. It can also happen the other way round, a page downloaded over https can reference resources over plain http, but your browser will then warn you.
In short, your question doesn't make sense because you don't "send data through http, to a https destination". If the destination is https, the connection will be using https. In a web application, the page itself can be downloaded via http (in which case the html code and any data embedded in the html itself will not be protected against man-in-the-middle attackers), but it can reference further resources, images, css, javascripts via https, which your browser will then download securely.
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html describes that "cool" URIs don't change and don't expose details about the technology.
http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/ provides further details when it comes to semantic web (RDF) URLs.
The question I have is: can https URLs ever be considered cooluris in this regard?
they expose the access technology (ssl)
the same resource is sometimes accessed by http (eg on intranet) and https (eg on extranet)
It seems to me the best way is NOT to use https to identify things in RDF, but only http. Many servers nowadays automatically redirect http to https for publicly accessible resources (especially if you have an account at that site).
What do you think?
I don't see why you couldn't use https URIs. First of all 'S' in https means secure and not SSL. Hence it doesn't expose technological details. As long as you stick to https forever, this shouldn't make a difference
However a 303 redirect is commonplace in the Semantic Web. It may be better use http URIs as identifiers and redirect. You could even redirect to a different document based on intranet (http) or extranet (https) if that's desired and keep the id stable.
I have one wordpress website, in that am getting lot of errors day by day. So I like to change my normal HTTP to HTTPS. So please can you explain it is very useful and secure for my website.
If your website does not have https in the web link this means that you do not have installed SSL. Most of the modern web browsers treat any website without SSL installed as insecure. This may be one of the reasons for your website's issues.
I found the following answers to the question of the difference between HTTP and HTTPS.
Difference between HTTP and HTTPS
To know about the reasons for using SSL follow the link given below:
Reasons for using SSL
10,000ft view...
http is an unencrypted protocol for sending and retrieving data from servers in a web browser (among other uses). https is the same protocol but wrapper in SSL, a security tool that encrypts communications between the browser and server. This is what what banks and other websites use to ensure your data (like financial info) is protected when sent to your browser and cannot be read by someone on the same network.
Checkout articles like this and google the topic for more info.
Hope this helps.
Evening all,
I am having some difficulty with displaying my FTP connection content on a page with HTTPS encryption. It works on standard HTTP but not HTTPS. I am running Apache web server. I'm not fussed about the user being able to see the FTP details just want to secure the connection between both ends though.
Would FTPS on HTTPS work?
Regards
ftp:// does work on https websites, although by default its blocked by the "Mixed Content Blocking"
In firefox you can disable this protection by doing what the picture describes:
For IE:
ftp:// does not work because of mixed content (e.g. secure https and non-secure ftp).
ftps:// will not work because most browsers do not support it and maybe your ftp server doesn't even speak ftps.
And, how about just testing it before asking, it is not that hard to replace that ftp:// with ftps:// in your page, isn't it?
Scenario: I want a staging environment at a customer's site. The customer owns www.example.com. I want to map the site to staging.example.com reachable from the outside, but I haven't got time to wait for the bureaucracy surrounding either the purchase of the new subdomain or opening of secondary HTTP ports.
Assumption: If I spoof the HTTP Header param Host to be staging.example.com on the client side, but actually make the request to the IP of www.example.com, IIS will redirect the request to the configured site for staging.example.com. Am I right?
So is there any client tool that can help me with that? I'm fairly famailiar with Fiddler, but it seem to override my rewrites of the host parameter. Also I would need to configure it to do it for every request, not just one, to make it trivial to test.
Are there simpler solutions to this problem?
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking.
Inside Fiddler, by clicking Tools > HOSTS and you can send all traffic targeting one site, e.g. dev.example.com to the IP of your choice. The target site (namely dev.example.com) doesn't need to exist at all in this case. Your client (e.g. the browser) has no idea that Fiddler is retargeting the traffic, it just thinks that it is talking to dev.example.com.
If you have the Fiddler book, check out the Retargeting Traffic section for many other ways to retarget traffic.