I have a WebSocket server running on an Android device on my local network. I would like to have the ability to discover this server using DNS-based Service Discovery (DNS-SD). I believe this is possible for plain sockets but is this possible for WebSockets? If not, are there any other mechanisms besides DNS-SD that would allow me to discover a WebSocket server on a LAN besides iterating through all possible IP:port combinations? If this is possible, how can I go about naming my service so that it is discoverable?
Related
So I've seen projects like trojan-go,v2ray-go
They are making their own proxy protocols in user space level. I am trying to do the same thing but I don't know how to redirect network traffic from clients to proxy server.
Basically I don't understand how those tools (or any tool) can redirect internet traffic of the device to a certain server, so when the packets are going to the internet they go to the proxy server first instead of their destination ip address.
How can I do it in golang without dealing with netlink and Iptables?
I know apps like wireguard do this by dealing with layer 3-4 stuff using netlink API but I need to know how apps do it without adding a new network interface.
Browsers leaks Public IP through WebRTC protocols while routing traffics through browser specific proxies such as chrome vpn extensions. but using Native VPN Application (OS Specific) doesn't produce public ip through WebRTC.
How to overcome this problem and force chromium to use proxy IP instead of public IP for WebRTC communication.
Note- Blocking WebRTC from Browser does hide the public ip but many websites eg. google.com, godaddy.com treats you as a bot and blacklist you from using some of their services.
This issue is more related to browser fingerprinting than ungoogling stuffs..
No Extensions available to solve this problem till now but some of the automation tools such as Kameleo.com is able to do such things but those are pricy.
Possible solutions
Force chromium to use proxy ip through ICE Framework TURN/STUN signaling services
I also don't know how to seup STUN connection so please also guide me for the coding part.
https://isaacbrains.com
TLDR: Configure and deploy your own TURN server and configure your WebRTC app to use relay candidates only via iceTransportPolicy and use only TURN for your iceServers.
Something like this:
let config = {
iceServers: [{urls: "turn:turn.yourdomain.com:3478"}],
iceTransportPolicy:"relay"
};
WebRTC does not use browser proxies. Browser proxies bridge connections via http/https to websites. And browser proxies don't fit into the model WebRTC uses to connect to another client ad-hoc packet transfer of UDP packets.
STUN exists primarily for clients to discover and share their own public IP address and port mapping. It sounds like you want to avoid STUN since you don't want srflx candidates anyway.
TURN is a relay server protocol for WebRTC, VOIP, and other types of P2P connections. It's primary job is to be a fallback when direct client to client communication is not possible. But it sounds like you want to avoid that altogether and just have the SDP advertise your relay (TURN) addresses only.
Shall I use WebSocket on non-80 ports? Does it ruin the whole purpose of using existing web/HTTP infrastructures? And I think it no longer fits the name WebSocket on non-80 ports.
If I use WebSocket over other ports, why not just use TCP directly? Or is there any special benefits in the WebSocket protocol itself?
And since current WebSocket handshake is in the form of a HTTP UPGRADE request, does it mean I have to enable HTTP protocol on the port so that WebSocket handshake can be accomplished?
Shall I use WebSocket on non-80 ports? Does it ruin the whole purpose
of using existing web/HTTP infrastructures? And I think it no longer
fits the name WebSocket on non-80 ports.
You can run a webSocket server on any port that your host OS allows and that your client will be allowed to connect to.
However, there are a number of advantages to running it on port 80 (or 443).
Networking infrastructure is generally already deployed and open on port 80 for outbound connections from the places that clients live (like desktop computers, mobile devices, etc...) to the places that servers live (like data centers). So, new holes in the firewall or router configurations, etc... are usually not required in order to deploy a webSocket app on port 80. Configuration changes may be required to run on different ports. For example, many large corporate networks are very picky about what ports outbound connections can be made on and are configured only for certain standard and expected behaviors. Picking a non-standard port for a webSocket connection may not be allowed from some corporate networks. This is the BIG reason to use port 80 (maximum interoperability from private networks that have locked down configurations).
Many webSocket apps running from the browser wish to leverage existing security/login/auth infrastructure already being used on port 80 for the host web page. Using that exact same infrastructure to check authentication of a webSocket connection may be simpler if everything is on the same port.
Some server infrastructures for webSockets (such as socket.io in node.js) use a combined server infrastructure (single process, one listener) to support both HTTP requests and webSockets. This is simpler if both are on the same port.
If I use WebSocket over other ports, why not just use TCP directly? Or
is there any special benefits in the WebSocket protocol itself?
The webSocket protocol was originally defined to work from a browser to a server. There is no generic TCP access from a browser so if you want a persistent socket without custom browser add-ons, then a webSocket is what is offered. As compared to a plain TCP connection, the webSocket protocol offers the ability to leverage HTTP authentication and cookies, a standard way of doing app-level and end-to-end keep-alive ping/pong (TCP offers hop-level keep-alive, but not end-to-end), a built in framing protocol (you'd have to design your own packet formats in TCP) and a lot of libraries that support these higher level features. Basically, webSocket works at a higher level than TCP (using TCP under the covers) and offers more built-in features that most people find useful. For example, if using TCP, one of the first things you have to do is get or design a protocol (a means of expressing your data). This is already built-in with webSocket.
And since current WebSocket handshake is in the form of a HTTP UPGRADE
request, does it mean I have to enable HTTP protocol on the port so
that WebSocket handshake can be accomplished?
You MUST have an HTTP server running on the port that you wish to use webSocket on because all webSocket requests start with an HTTP request. It wouldn't have to be heavily featured HTTP server, but it does have to handle the initial HTTP request.
Yes - Use 443 (ie, the HTTPS port) instead.
There's little reason these days to use port 80 (HTTP) for anything other than a redirection to port 443 (HTTPS), as certification (via services like LetsEncrypt) are easy and free to set up.
The only possible exceptions to this rule are local development, and non-internet facing services.
Should I use a non-standard port?
I suspect this is the intent of your question. To this, I'd argue that doing so adds an unnecessary layer of complication with no obvious benefits. It doesn't add security, and it doesn't make anything easier.
But it does mean that specific firewall exceptions need to be made to host and connect to your websocket server. This means that people accessing your services from a corporate/school/locked down environment are probably not going to be able to use it, unless they can somehow convince management that it is mandatory. I doubt there are many good reasons to exclude your userbase in this way.
But there's nothing stopping you from doing it either...
In my opinion, yes you can. 80 is the default port, but you can change it to any as you like.
Is is possible to run a Node.js TCP Socket oriented application on the Cloud, more specifically on Heroku or AppFog.
It's not going to be a web application, but a server for access with a client program. The basic idea is to use the capabilities of the Cloud - scaling and an easy to use platform.
I know that such application could easily run on IaaS like Amazon AWS, but I would really like to take advantage of the PaaS features of Heroku or AppFog.
I am reasonably sure that doesn't answer the question at hand: "Is is possible to run a Node.js TCP Socket oriented application". All PaaS companies (including Nodejitsu) support HTTP[S]-only reverse proxies for incoming connections.
Generally with node.js + any PaaS with a socket oriented connection you want to use WebSockets, but:
Heroku does not support WebSockets and will only hold open your connection for 55-seconds (see: https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/http-routing#timeouts)
AppFog does not support WebSockets, but I'm not sure how they handle long-held HTTP connections.
Nodejitsu supports WebSockets and will hold your connections open until closed or reset. Our node.js powered reverse-proxies make this very cheap for us.
We have plans to support front-facing TCP load-balancing with custom ports in the future. Stay tuned!
AppFog and Heroku give your app a single arbitrary port to listen on which is port mapped from port 80. You don't get to pick your port. If you need to keep a connection open for extended periods of time see my edit below. If your client does not need to maintain and open connection you should consider creating a restful API which emits json for your client app to consume. Port 80 is more than adequate for this and Node.js and Express make a superb combo for creating APIs on paas.
AppFog
https://docs.appfog.com/languages/node#node-walkthrough
var port = process.env.VCAP_APP_PORT || 5000;
Heroku
https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/nodejs
var port = process.env.PORT || 5000;
EDIT: As mentioned by indexzero, AppFog and Heroku support http[s] only and close long held connections. AppFog will keep the connection open as long as there is activity. This can be worked around by using Socket.io or a third party solutions like Pusher
// Socket.io server
var io = require('socket.io').listen(port);
...
io.configure(function () {
io.set("transports", ["xhr-polling"]);
io.set("polling duration", 12);
});
tl;dr - with the current state of the world, it's simply not possible; you must purchase a virtual machine with its own public IP address.
All PaaS providers I've found have an HTTP router in front of all of their applications. This allows them to house hundreds of thousands of applications under a single IP address, vastly improving scalability, and hence – how they offer application hosting for free. So in the HTTP case, the Hostname header is used to uniquely identify applications.
In the TCP case however, an IP address must be used to identify an application. Therefore, in order for this to work, PaaS providers would be forced to allocate you one from their IPv4 range. This would not scale for two main reasons: the IPv4 address space having been completely exhausted and the slow pace of "legacy" networks would make it hard to physically move VMs. ("legacy" networks refer to standard/non-SDN networks.)
The solution to these two problems are IPv6 and SDN, though I foresee ubiquitous SDN arriving before IPv6 does – which could then be used to solve the various IPv4 problems. Amazon already use SDN in their datacenters though there is still a long way to go. In the meantime, just purchase a virtual machine/linux container instance with a public IP address and run your TCP servers there.
The WebSocket standard hasn't been ratified yet, however from the draft it appears that the technology is meant to be implemented in Web servers. pywebsocket implements a WebSocket server which can be dedicated or loaded as Apache plugin.
So what I am am wondering is: what's the ideal use of WebSockets? Does it make any sense to implement a service using as dedicated WebSocket servers or is it better to rethink it to run on top of WebSocket-enabled Web server?
The WebSocket protocol was designed with three models in mind:
A WebSocket server running completely separately from any web server.
A WebSocket server running separately from a web server, but with traffic proxied to the websocket server from the web server (allowing websocket and HTTP traffic to co-exist on the same port)
A WebSocket server running as a plugin in the web server.
The model you pick really depends on the application you are trying to build and some other constraints that may limit your choices.
For example, if your application is going to be served from a single web server and the WebSocket connection will always be back to that same server, then it probably makes sense to just run the WebSocket server as a plugin/module in the web server.
On the other hand if you have a general WebSocket service that is usable from many different web sites (for example, you could have continuous low-latency traffic updates served from a WebSocket server), then you probably want to run the WebSocket server separate from any web server.
Basically, the tighter the integration between your WebSocket service and your web service, the more likely you will want to run them together and on the same port.
There are some constraints that may force one model or another:
If you control the server(s) but not the incoming firewall rules, then you probably have no choice but to run the WebSocket server on the same port(s) as your HTTP/HTTPS server (e.g. 80 and 443). In which case you will have to use a web server plugin or proxy to the real WebSocket server.
On the other hand, if you do not have super-user permission on the server where you are running the WebSocket server, then you will probably not be able to use ports 80 and 443 (below 1024 is generally a privileged port range) and in that case it really doesn't matter whether you run the HTTP/S and WebSocket servers on the same port or not.
If you have cookie based authentication (such as OAuth) in the web server and you would like to re-use this for the WebSocket connections then you will probably want to run them together (special case of tight integration).