I am debugging caching on my website and have enabled some additional response headers indicating whether a request hit the cache and if not, an additional header with a reason. Through the built-in Network Monitor in Firefox I can check the response headers, but this is a tedious process for each request.
It is possible to add a response header as a column within Network Monitor however only common headers are available:
Is it possible to add custom headers to this list such as X-Cacheable?
Sadly, that's currently (as of Firefox 68) not possible. There is already a request in bug 1377013 to add a UI to manage custom response headers.
I've got a (Spring) handler that I'd like users to be able to bookmark. As it's coded now, they get different formats (CSV, JSON) back based on the Accept header.
Would there be any way for users to specify the URL so that they can say what header they want? Or am I going to have to give URL-level parameter for the different formats?
Would there be any way for users to specify the URL so that they can say what header they want?
no there is no way to do that magically.
Or am I going to have to give URL-level parameter for the different formats? Yes this is valid
This is quoted from xml.com:
Server-driven negotiation. The service provider determines the right representation from prior knowledge of its clients or uses the information provided in HTTP headers like Accept, Accept-Charset, Accept-Encoding, Accept-Language, and User-Agent. The drawback of this approach is that the server may not have the best knowledge about what a client really wants.
Client-driven negotiation. A client initiates a request to a server. The server returns a list of available of representations. The client then selects the representation it wants and sends a second request to the server. The drawback is that a client needs to send two requests.
Proxy-driven negotiation. A client initiates a request to a server through a proxy. The proxy passes the request to the server and obtains a list of representations. The proxy selects one representation according to preferences set by the client and returns the representation back to the client.
URI-specified representation. A client specifies the representation it wants in the URI query string.
I am hoping to get some clarification on the expected behavior of a SIP Proxy when proxying 401 responses from a downstream UAS.
Our SIP Proxy is configured to proxy requests downstream in a round-robin fashion. If the downstream UAS responds to an INVITE with a 401, I would expect the SIP Proxy to keep enough state to select this same UAS as the target when the originating upstream UAC sends the second INVITE containing authentication credentials.
Instead, what I'm seeing is that the SIP Proxy will proxy the 401 response, receive the ACK from the upstream UAC, and immediately destroy all state pertaining to this dialog. Then when the upstream UAC sends the second INVITE with authentication credentials the SIP Proxy will forward that request in round-robin fashion. If we get lucky then the SIP Proxy will select the same UAS for the second INVITE, but most of the time it will select some other downstream target.
I'm new to SIP and I've been reading RFC 3261 to try and understand what the correct behavior should be, but I'm not seeing an obvious answer.
I think what you are really asking is an understanding of how further requests within a dialog work. For that you need to understand the "Record-Route" / "Route" headers.
It really doesn't mater what the response code is, the next request in the dialog will go directly to the remote URI unless (and there almost always is) a route set provided.
From section 12 of RFC 3261:
The route set is the list of servers that need to be traversed to
send a request to the peer.
From section 16.6 Request Forwarding
4. Record-Route
If this proxy wishes to remain on the path of future requests
in a dialog created by this request (assuming the request
creates a dialog), it MUST insert a Record-Route header field
value into the copy before any existing Record-Route header
field values, even if a Route header field is already present.
From 20.34 Route
The Route header field is used to force routing for a request
through the listed set of proxies. Examples of the use of the
Route header field are in Section 16.12.1.
From 12.1.2 UAC Behavior
The route set MUST be set to the list of URIs in the Record-Route
header field from the response, taken in reverse order and preserving
all URI parameters. If no Record-Route header field is present in
the response, the route set MUST be set to the empty set. This route
set, even if empty, overrides any pre-existing route set for future
requests in this dialog.
From 16.12 Summary of Proxy Route Processing
In the absence of local policy to the contrary, the processing a
proxy performs on a request containing a Route header field can be
summarized in the following steps.
1. The proxy will inspect the Request-URI. If it indicates a
resource owned by this proxy, the proxy will replace it with
the results of running a location service. Otherwise, the
proxy will not change the Request-URI.
2. The proxy will inspect the URI in the topmost Route header
field value. If it indicates this proxy, the proxy removes it
from the Route header field (this route node has been
reached).
3. The proxy will forward the request to the resource indicated
by the URI in the topmost Route header field value or in the
Request-URI if no Route header field is present. The proxy
determines the address, port and transport to use when
forwarding the request by applying the procedures in [4] to
that URI.
See this example for how it works.
So basically the initial request should build up "Route-Set" that is then used to generate the "Route" header in the following request.
So for your problem, it sounds like either the "Route-Set" is not being built up and/or being sent back in the response or the UAC isn't using the remote target and route set to build the Request-URI and Route headers correctly for the next request.
There is also the difference between strict and loose routing which also may be in play here as well. I would assume you would be using lr tho.
Hi guys
As you know checking process of web pages content is a little different from static pages or personal files on our machines because content of Dynamic web pages are changed on each request. So if we are going to use checksums to identifying changes, We'll fail! very simple example is when site owner are use Google Ads on him website; on each request Ads are different from previous. Also if we are going to cache only on period time, also We'll fail, because some web pages aren't updated every years but some are every minutes (if not seconds).
So what is better approach to solve this issue? (Thanks)
UPDATE
Another option is use of LastModified http-header! but this is strong approach?
Browsers do this automatically with the help of the several caching mechanisms that HTTP provides. The two mechanisms most obviously useful for determining whether a page has changed is the concept of Entity Tags and the Last Modified HTTP header. These mechanisms allow the browser to make conditional requests to a web site, eg. fetch a page only if it has been changed.
Quoting RFC 2616 on HTTP 1.1:
3.11 Entity Tags
Entity tags are used for comparing two or more entities from the same
requested resource. HTTP/1.1 uses entity tags in the ETag (section
14.19), If-Match (section 14.24), If-None-Match (section 14.26), and
If-Range (section 14.27) header fields. The definition of how they
are used and compared as cache validators is in section 13.3.3. An
entity tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by
a weakness indicator.
The key point here is that the ETag is a cache validator. If a browser has a cached version of a page (called a resource in the RFC), it can use the ETag to determine whether the cached page is still valid, ie. if the page hasn't changed on the server.
And about the modification date:
14.25 If-Modified-Since
The If-Modified-Since request-header field is used with a method to
make it conditional: if the requested variant has not been modified
since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be
returned from the server; instead, a 304 (not modified) response will
be returned without any message-body.
The key point here is that the server may know when a page has been modified, and may then inform the client.
If you open a HTTP monitor (such as Fiddler for Windows) and watch your browser communicate with web sites, you'll see the use of these mechanisms first-hand when the browser makes conditional requests.
To specifically address your question about the Last Modified header, this header in itself won't work for the majority of pages you'll find. But in combination with the ETag it can get you started.
A customer sometimes sends POST requests with Content-Length: 0 when submitting a form (10 to over 40 fields).
We tested it with different browsers and from different locations but couldn't reproduce the error. The customer is using Internet Explorer 7 and a proxy.
We asked them to let their system administrator see into the problem from their side. Running some tests without the proxy, etc..
In the meantime (half a year later and still no answer) I'm curious if somebody else knows of similar problems with a Content-Length: 0 request. Maybe from inside some Windows network with a special proxy for big companies.
Is there a known problem with Internet Explorer 7? With a proxy system? The Windows network itself?
Google only showed something in the context of NTLM (and such) authentication, but we aren't using this in the web application. Maybe it's in the way the proxy operates in the customer's network with Windows logins? (I'm no Windows expert. Just guessing.)
I have no further information about the infrastructure.
UPDATE: In December 2010 it was possible to inform one administrator about this, incl. links from the answers here. Contact was because of another problem which was caused by the proxy, too. No feedback since then. And the error messages are still there. I'm laughing to prevent me from crying.
UPDATE 2: This problem exists since mid 2008. Every few months the customer is annoyed and wants it to be fixed ASAP. We send them all the old e-mails again and ask them to contact their administrators to either fix it or run some further tests. In December 2010 we were able to send some information to 1 administrator. No feedback. Problem isn't fixed and we don't know if they even tried. And in May 2011 the customer writes again and wants this to be fixed. The same person who has all the information since 2008.
Thanks for all the answers. You helped a lot of people, as I can see from some comments here. Too bad the real world is this grotesque for me.
UPDATE 3: May 2012 and I was wondering why we hadn't received another demand to fix this (see UPDATE 2). Looked into the error protocol, which only reports this single error every time it happened (about 15 a day). It stopped end of January 2012. Nobody said anything. They must have done something with their network. Everything is OK now. From summer 2008 to January 2012. Too bad I can't tell you what they have done.
UPDATE 4: September 2015. The website had to collect some data and deliver it to the main website of the customer. There was an API with an account. Whenever there was a problem they contacted us, even if the problem was clearly on the other side. For a few weeks now we can't send them the data. The account isn't available anymore. They had a relaunch and I can't find the pages anymore that used the data of our site. The bug report isn't answered and nobody complaint. I guess they just ended this project.
UPDATE 5: March 2017. The API stopped working in the summer of 2015. The customer seems to continue paying for the site and is still accessing it in February 2017. I'm guessing they use it as an archive. They don't create or update any data anymore so this bug probably won't reemerge after the mysterious fix of January 2012. But this would be someone else's problem. I'm leaving.
Internet Explorer does not send form fields if they are posted from an authenticated site (NTLM) to a non-authenticated site (anonymous).
This is feature for challange-response situations (NTLM- or Kerberos- secured web sites) where IE can expect that the first POST request immediately leads to an HTTP 401 Authentication Required response (which includes a challenge), and only the second POST request (which includes the response to the challange) will actually be accepted. In these situations IE does not upload the possibly large request body with the first request for performance reasons. Thanks to EricLaw for posting that bit of information in the comments.
This behavior occurs every time an HTTP POST is made from a NTLM authenticated (i.e. Intranet) page to a non-authenticated (i.e. Internet) page, or if the non-authenticated page is part of a frameset, where the frameset page is authenticated.
The work-around is either to use a GET request as the form method, or to make sure the non-authenticated page is opened in a fresh tab/window (favorite/link target) without a partly authenticated frameset. As soon as the authentication model for the whole window is consistent, IE will start to send form contents again.
Definitely related: http://www.websina.com/bugzero/kb/browser-ie.html
Possibly related: KB923155
Full Explanation: IEInternals Blog – Challenge-Response Authentication and Zero-Length Posts
This is easy to reproduce with MS-IE and an NTLM authentication filter on server side. I have the same issue with JCIFS (1.2.), struts 1. and MS-IE 6/7 on XP-SP2. It was finally fixed. There are several workarounds to make it up.
change form method from POST (struts default setting) to GET.
For most pages with small sized forms, it works well. Unfortunately i have possibly more than 50 records to send in HTTP stream back to server side. IE has a GET URL limit 2038 Bytes (not parameter length, but the whole URL length). So this is a quick workaround but not applicable for me.
send a GET before POST action executing.
This was recommended in MS-KB. My project has many legacy procedures and i would not take the risk at the right time. I have never tried this because it still needs some extra authentication processing when GET is received by filter layer based on my understanding from MS-KB and I would not like to change the behavior with other browsers, e.g. Firefox, Opera.
detecting if POST was sent with zero content-length (you may get it from header properties hash structure with your framework).
If so, trigger an NTLM authentication cycle by get challenge code from DC or cache and expect an NTLM response.
When the NTLM type2 msg is received and the session is still valid, you don't really need to authenticate the user but just forward it to the expected action if POST content-length is not zero. BTW, this would increase the network traffics. So check your cache life time setting and SMB session soTimeOut configuration before applying the change plz.
Or, more simple, you may just send a 401-unauthorized status to MS-IE and the browser shall send back POST request with data in reply.
MS-KB has provided a hot-fix with KB-923155 (I could not post more than one link because of a low reputation number :{ ) , but it seems not working. Would someone post a workable hot-fix here? Thanks :) Here is a link for reference, http://www.websina.com/bugzero/kb/browser-ie.html
We have a customer on our system with exactly the same problem. We've pin pointed it down to the proxy/firewall. Microsoft's IAS. It's stripping the POST body and sending content-length: 0. Not a lot we can do to work around however, and down want to use GET requests as this exposes usernames/passwords etc on the URL string. There's nearly 7,000 users on our system and only one with the problem... also only one using Microsoft IAS, so it has to be this.
There's a good chance the problem is that the proxy server in between implements HTTP 1.0.
In HTTP 1.0 you must use the Content-Length header field: (See section 10.4 here)
A valid Content-Length is required on
all HTTP/1.0 POST requests. An
HTTP/1.0 server should respond with a
400 (bad request) message if it cannot
determine the length of the request
message's content.
The request going into the proxy is HTTP 1.1 and therefore does not need to use the Content-Length header field. The Content-Length header is usually used but not always. See the following excerpt from the HTTP 1.1 RFC S. 14.13.
Applications SHOULD use this field to
indicate the transfer-length of the
message-body, unless this is
prohibited by the rules in section
4.4.
Any Content-Length greater than or
equal to zero is a valid value.
Section 4.4 describes how to determine
the length of a message-body if a
Content-Length is not given.
So the proxy server does not see the Content-Length header, which it assumes is absolutely needed in HTTP 1.0 if there is a body. So it assumes 0 so that the request will eventually reach the server. Remember the proxy doesn't know the rules of the HTTP 1.1 spec, so it doesn't know how to handle the situation when there is no Content-Length header.
Are you 100% sure your request is specifying the Content-Length header? If it is using another means as defined in section 4.4 because it thinks the server is 1.1 (because it doesn't know about the 1.0 proxy in between) then you will have your described problem.
Perhaps you can use HTTP GET instead to bypass the problem.
This is a known problem for Internet explorer 6, but not for 7 that I know of. You can install this fix for the IE6 KB831167 fix.
You can read more about it here.
Some questions for you:
Do you know which type of proxy?
Do you know if there is an actual body sent in the request?
Does it happen consistently every time? Or only sometimes?
Is there any binary data sent in the request? Maybe the data starts with a \0 and the proxy has a bug with binary data.
If the user is going through an ISA proxy that uses NTLM authentication, then it sounds like this issue, which has a solution provided (a patch to the ISA proxy)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942638POST requests that do not have a POST body may be sent to a Web server that is published in ISA Server 2006
I also had a problem where requests from a customer's IE 11 browser had Content-Length: 0 and did not include the expected POST content. When the customer used Firefox, or Chrome the expected content was included in the request.
I worked out the cause was the customer was using a HTTP URL instead of a HTTPS URL (e.g. http://..., not https://...) and our application uses HSTS. It seems there might be a bug in IE 11 that when a request gets upgraded to HTTPS due to HSTS the request content gets lost.
Getting the customer to correct the URL to https://... resulted in the content being included in the POST request and resolved the problem.
I haven't investigated whether it is actually a bug in IE 11 any further at this stage.
Are you sure these requests are coming from a "customer"?
I've had this issue with bots before; they sometimes probe sites for "contact us" forms by sending blank POST requests based on the action URI in FORM tags they discover during crawling.
Presence and possible values of the ContentLength header in HTTP are described in the HTTP ( I assume 1/1) RFC:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.13
In HTTP, it SHOULD be sent whenever the message's length can be determined prior to being transferred
See also:
If a message is received with both a
Transfer-Encoding header field and a Content-Length header field,
the latter MUST be ignored.
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.4
Maybe your message is carrying a Transfer-Encoding header?
Later edit: also please note "SHOULD" as used in the RFC is very important and not equivalent to "MUST":
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Ref: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
We had a customer using same website in anonymous and NTLM mode (on different ports). We found out that in our case the 401 was related to Riverbed Steelhead application used for http optimization. The first signal pointing us into that direction was a X-RBT-Optimized-By header. The issue was the Gratuitous 401 feature:
This feature can be used with both per-request and per-connection
authentication but it‘s most effective when used with per-request
authentication. With per-request authentication, every request must be
authenticated against the server before the server would serve the
object to the client. However, most browsers do not cache the server‘s
response requiring authentication and hence it will waste one
round-trip for every GET request. With Gratuitous 401, the client-side
Steelhead appliance will cache the server response and when the client
sends the GET request without any authentication headers, it will
locally respond with a ―401 Unauthorized‖ message and therefore saving
a round trip. Note that the HTTP module does not participate in the
actual authentication itself. What the HTTP module does is to inform
the client that the server requires authentication without requiring
it to waste one round trip.
Google also shows this as an IE (some versions, anyway) bug after an https connection hits the keepalive timeout and reconnects to the server. The solution seems to be configuring the server to not use keepalive for IE under https.
Microsoft's hotfix for KB821814 can set Content-Length to 0:
The hotfix that this article describes implements a code change in Wininet.dll to:
Detect the RESET condition on a POST request.
Save the data that is to be posted.
Retry the POST request with the content length set to 0. This prevents the reset from occurring and permits the authentication process to complete.
Retry the original POST request.
curl sends PUT/POST requests with Content-Length: 0 when configured to use HTTP proxy. It's trick to overcome required buffering in case of first unauthorized PUT/POST request to proxy. In case of GET/HEAD requests curl simply repeats the query. The scheme for PUT/POST is like:
Send first PUT/POST request with Content-Length set to 0.
Get answer. HTTP status code of 407 means we have to use proxy
authorization. Prepare headers for proxy authentication for send request.
Send request again with filled headers for proxy authentication and real data to POST/PUT.