I'm not clear why the handshake for WebSocket is HTTP. Wiki says "The handshake resembles HTTP so that servers can handle HTTP connections as well as WebSocket connections on the same port." What is the benefit of this? Once you start communicating over WebSocket you are using port 80 also...so why can't the initial handshake be in WebSocket format?
Also, how do you have both WebSocket and HTTP servers listening on port 80? Or is it typically the same application functioning as HTTP and WebSocket servers?
Thanks y'all :)
WebSockets are designed to work almost flawlessly with existing web infrastructures. That is the reason why WS connections starts as HTTP and then switches to a persistent binary connection.
This way the deployment is simplified. You don't need to modify your router's port forwarding and server listen ports... Also, because it starts as HTTP it can be load balanced in the same way that a normal HTTP request, firewalls are more lean to let the connection through, etc.. etc... Last but not the least, the HTTP handshake also carry cookies, which it is great to integrate with the rest of the app in the same way that AJAX does.
Both, traditional HTTP request-response and WS, can operate in the same port. Basiclally the WS client sends a HTTP request asking for "Upgrade:websocket", then if the server accepts the WS connections, replies with a HTTP response indicating "101 Switching Protocols", from that point the connection remains open and both ends consider it as a binary connection.
Related
I'm implementing HTTP over TLS proxy server (sni-proxy) that make two socket connection:
Client to ProxyServer
ProxyServer to TargetServer
and transfer data between Client and TargetServer(TargetServer detected using server_name extension in ClientHello)
The problem is that the client doesn't close the connection after the response has been received and the proxy server waits for data to transfer and uses resources when the request has been done.
What is the best practice for implementing this project?
The client behavior is perfectly normal - HTTP keep alive inside the TLS connection or maybe even a Websocket connection. Given that the proxy does transparent forwarding of the encrypted traffic it is not possible to look at the HTTP traffic in order to determine exactly when the connection can be closed. A good approach is therefore to keep the connection open as long as the resources allow this and on resource shortage close the connections which were idle (no traffic) the longest time.
I found the following documentation from Nginx website itself: https://www.nginx.com/blog/ip-transparency-direct-server-return-nginx-plus-transparent-proxy/
Question:
The above point is not correct, right? Since HTTP is a synchronous protocol, after a client sends a request over an established TCP connection with the server (here Nginx reverse proxy), the client expects a response on that TCP connection. So if this is the case Nginx server cannot close the connection just after receiving the request, correct? Shouldn't the Nginx server keep the connection still open until it gets a response from upstream server connection and relays back that data over the same client connection?
I believe the way that paragraph is phrased is inaccurate.
The NGINX blog post mentioned in the question is referencing the behavior of UDP in the context of Direct Server Return (DSR). It is not part of their official documentation. I suspect that the author didn't do a good job of communicating how a conventional layer 7 reverse proxy connection works because they were focusing on explaining how DSR works.
We are trying to make a secure communication between our embedded system and web server.Firstly we implement HTTP connection to in our microcontroller. I am just connecting to 80 port of my web server and send simple GET request to this port as example below :
GET /foo.php?msg=test HTTP/1.1
HOST: foo.com
My questions is,How we will turn this to HTTPS ? Which port i should connect ?
Will be any difference on structure of GET request above ? Will i have to do some encryption manually or connect to "https" link instead "http" is enuogh for secure communication.
Thanks for any information
The only difference between a HTTP request and a HTTPS request is that the first is send over a plain TCP connection while the other is send over a TLS connection, i.e.:
with HTTP you establish a TCP connection and send the request over this connection
with HTTPS you establish a TCP connection, upgrade this connection to TLS (including proper certificate validation etc!) and then send the same request as you did with HTTP over this connection.
Apart from that I recommend to either use an established library for HTTP or carefully read the standard. Although HTTP looks simply it is actually not and there are many questions here where users try to do a simply HTTP request and trip over behavior they did not expect.
For example in your case the server might send the response with chunked encoding, with content-length or simply end it with connection close. And it might wait for further requests on the same connection since HTTP/1.1 implicitly enables HTTP keep-alive. Does your code really account for all these cases?
i'm having a problem with my app, on a certain situation.
We have a java server with jetty webserver embedded, and an air app on the client side.
It is working properly but on a single situation of a certain customer.
They have a private network that is not administrated by them (and has little chances of being changed as request). So, the only port they allow are 80 and 443.
The communications between the server and the client are through websockets and http.
The "online" check is made through http and, then, we use websockets to notify the client in order to start communication between them.
The thing is, in this situation, the "online" state works properly and any communication send by the client (forced), as it goes through http, gets to the server but, when the server communicates with the client, using websockets, it doesn't work.
We are using wireshark to check the communications: On a working setup, when the client app starts, a websocket is shown on wireshark, on the server side (registering the client on the server). And, after that, websockets that are only used from server to the client, don't show also.
What can be the problem? The port 80? (the same happens with 443 on that network).
Can it be a proxy/firewall that are blocking ws:// messages?
I've read somewhere that wss:// (encripted websockets) would work?
Thanks for your help.
Edit, so, I tried with https and wss communication and the same thing happens.. no websocket is set between the client and server (registering the client on the server).
This situation is happening for http on the customer network. On my test network, it works on http/ws but not with https/wss..
There are many firewalls and gateways out "in the wild" that do not understand the whole WebSocket HTTP/1.1 GET -> UPGRADE -> WebSocket mechanism.
There are several broken firewall implementations will attempt to interpret the WebSocket framing as improper content for HTTP/1.1 (which is a bad reading of the HTTP/1.1 spec) and start to muck with it.
The types of firewalls that inspect/filter/analyze the request/response contents are the ones that seem most susceptible.
I would check that the hardware (or software) that they are using to firewall their network is both compliant and upgraded to support WebSocket RFC-6455.
I understand that a SOCKS proxy only establishes a connection at the TCP level while an HTTP proxy interprets traffic at HTTP level. Thus a SOCKS proxy can work for any kind of protocol while an HTTP Proxy can only handle HTTP traffic. But why does an HTTP Proxy like Squid can support protocol like IRC, FTP ? When we use an HTTP Proxy for an IRC or FTP connection, what does specifically happen? Is there any metadata added to the package when it is sent to the proxy over the HTTP protocol?
HTTP proxy is able to support high level protocols other than HTTP if it supports CONNECT method, which is primarily used for HTTPS connections, here is description from Squid wiki:
The CONNECT method is a way to tunnel any kind of connection through an HTTP proxy. By default, the proxy establishes a TCP connection to the specified server, responds with an HTTP 200 (Connection Established) response, and then shovels packets back and forth between the client and the server, without understanding or interpreting the tunnelled traffic
If client software supports connection through 'HTTP CONNECT'-enabled (HTTPS) proxy it can be any high level protocol that can work with such a proxy (VPN, SSH, SQL, version control, etc.)
As others have mentioned, the "HTTP CONNECT" method allows you to establish any TCP-based connection via a proxy. This functionality is needed primarily for HTTPS connections, since for HTTPS connections, the entire HTTP request is encrypted (so it appears to the proxy as a "meaningless" TCP connection). In other words, an HTTPS session over a proxy, or a SSH/FTPS session over a proxy, will both appear as "encrypted sessions" to the proxy, and it won't be able to tell them apart, so it has to either allow them all or none of them.
During normal operation, the HTTP proxy receives the HTTP request, and is "smart enough" to understand the request to be able to do high level things with it (e.g. search its cache to see if it can serve the response without going to the destination server, or consults a whitelist/blacklist to see if this URL is allowed, etc.). In "CONNECT" mode, none of this happens. The proxy establishes a TCP connection to the destination server, and simply forwards all traffic from the client to the destination server and all traffic from the destination server to the client. That means any TCP protocol can work (HTTPS, SSH, FTP - even plain HTTP)