Not able to connect to redis on ec2 from another ec2 instance - amazon-ec2

I am running redis 2.8.7 on one box. From other box (both are aws ec2) i am issuing this command
redis-cli -h , but I get this error
Could not connect to Redis at :6379: Connection refused
port 6379 on box 1 is open for box2
Also, there is no id/pwd for redis

I figured it out
comment the bind line in redis.conf file
(make sure port 6379 is accessible only for specific machines)
More details at https://serverfault.com/questions/301788/how-do-you-get-redis-connections-working-within-an-amazon-vpc-private-subnet

Comment the bind line for local host and add the below bind line.
bind 0.0.0.0
and make sure you restart the redis-server for the changes to be effective.

Related

AWS DocumentDB ECONNRESET error with SSH tunneling from Mongo shell

I've followed the AWS DocumentDB docs for connecting outside VPC:
I created an EC2 instance in the same security group and VPC as the DocDB cluster
In the security group I opened 22 port access for my IP, and also opened port 27017 for communication inside the security so EC2 instance can SSH tunnel to the DocDB
I ran ssh -f -i "ssh-tunneling-access.pem" -L 27017:{doc-db-cluster}:27017 {ec2-instance-user}#{ec2-instance-dns} -N to open the SSH tunnel
In another terminal I tried to connect using Mongo shell with mongosh "mongodb://{credentials}!#localhost:27017/?tls=true&tlsAllowInvalidHostnames=true&tlsCAFile=rds-combined-ca-bundle.pem"
I got an error "MongoServerSelectionError: read ECONNRESET"
I'm running on Windows 11, and my terminal is Powershell Core.
Any ideas what did I miss and/or how to troubleshoot it?
First of all, make sure you can connect to DocumentDB from the EC2 instance. The security group attached to the DocumentDB cluster has to allow port 27017 with source the EC2 instance (or the security group of the EC2).
Second, is not clear from where you're initiating the tunnel. Did you execute step 3. on the Windows 11 machine? Have you installed OpenSSH on Windows?
How about using a GUI client, like Robo 3t, which has SSH tunneling support? Instructions on how to connect can be found here.

Unable to connect MongoDB Compass to AWS DocumentDB using SSH tunnel

I am new to mongoDB trying to setup tools for my new project. Most of my infrastructure run on AWS so i prefer to use AWS documentDB. I manage to connect to documentDB from EC2 both via mongo client or NodeJS aplication. but it would be good to mange documentDB from my Windows workstation using MongoDB Compass.
As we know, we can not direct connect any mongo client from outside AWS to DocumentDB Connecting to an Amazon DocumentDB Cluster from Outside an Amazon VPC
so we need SSH tunnel through EC2. I try many options but still fail... below are most likely 2 options:
Option 1: Connect using MongoDB Compass SSH tunnel
Error: unable to get local issuer certificate
both RDS-COMBINED-CA-BUNDLE.PEM and SSH Key already supplied so which one unable to get?
as red highlight on SSH port, I also tried to open another SSHD port on server and tried to connect using second port but still failed.
Option 2: Connect using Putty SSH tunnel
Error: Hostname/IP does not match certificate's altnames...
since MongoDB Compass need to connect to locathost to get into tunnel and i still can not find the way to supply --sslAllowInvalidHostnames options.
So, what i can do to get around this ?
MongoDB Compass: 1.25.0
I am done with Compass.
successful established "robo3t" connection to AWS DocumentDB using this guild.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/documentdb/latest/developerguide/robo3t.html
As of Jan 2022 MongoDB Compass does not support sslInvalidHostNameAllowed=true in the connection builder form, this is the parameter you are missing in order to connect to AWS DocumentDB while ssh tunneling to a machine inside the same VPC of the database itself.
I used Studio 3T and it worked perfectly. You could create the connection string yourself or try other GUI.
Edit Jan 2023:
I just gave a try to compass again and it seems they now support sslInvalidHostNameAllowed flag through the UI, you could still change manually the connection string but then any UI interaction would overwrite it.
If you edit the connection string directly in MongoDB Compass you can set options that may not be accessible in the user interface.
Below is an example with tweaked parameters to connect without using TLS:
mongodb://xxxx:yyyy#localhost:27017/?authSource=admin&connectTimeoutMS=10000&readPreference=primary&authMechanism=SCRAM-SHA-1&serverSelectionTimeoutMS=5000&appname=MongoDB%20Compass&ssl=false
For Hostname, are you using DocumentDB endpoint? In one screenshot, I see you are using localhost.
I have managed to connect with option 1.
The workaround can be by establish connection using SSH Tunnel (port forward) and so that SSH tunnel opens a port on your local system that connects through to another port at the other end of the tunnel.
Using the below command establishes a tunnel on terminal and later you can use this channel/connection to connect MongoDB using MongoDB Compass.
For example:
ssh user#aws-ec2-ip-address -L 35356:127.0.0.1:27017 -N
where -L as the Local listening side
Port 35356 is listening on localhost (that is in this case your EC2) and port forwards through to port 27017 on remote server.
Note - Add identity file in .ssh/config
Ex - On Mac
Host XXXXXXX
HostName 52.xx.xx.xx
User ubuntu
IdentityFile ./path/prod.pem

access host's ssh tunnel from docker container

Using ubuntu tusty, there is a service running on a remote machine, that I can access via port forwarding through an ssh tunnel from localhost:9999.
I have a docker container running. I need to access that remote service via the host's tunnel, from within the container.
I tried tunneling from the container to the host with -L 9000:host-ip:9999 , then accessing the service through 127.0.0.1:9000 from within the container fails to connect. To check wether the port mapping was on, I tried
nc -luv -p 9999 # at host
nc -luv -p 9000 # at container
following this, parag. 2 but there was no perceived communication, even when doing
nc -luv host-ip -p 9000
at the container
I also tried mapping the ports via docker run -p 9999:9000 , but this reports that the bind failed because the host port is already in use (from the host tunnel to the remote machine, presumably).
So my questions are
1 - How will I achieve the connection? Do I need to setup an ssh tunnel to the host, or can this be achieved with the docker port mapping alone?
2 - What's a quick way to test that the connection is up? Via bash, preferably.
Thanks.
Using your hosts network as network for your containers via --net=host or in docker-compose via network_mode: host is one option but this has the unwanted side effect that (a) you now expose the container ports in your host system and (b) that you cannot connect to those containers anymore that are not mapped to your host network.
In your case, a quick and cleaner solution would be to make your ssh tunnel "available" to your docker containers (e.g. by binding ssh to the docker0 bridge) instead of exposing your docker containers in your host environment (as suggested in the accepted answer).
Setting up the tunnel:
For this to work, retrieve the ip your docker0 bridge is using via:
ifconfig
you will see something like this:
docker0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 03:41:4a:26:b7:31
inet addr:172.17.0.1 Bcast:172.17.255.255 Mask:255.255.0.0
Now you need to tell ssh to bind to this ip to listen for traffic directed towards port 9000 via
ssh -L 172.17.0.1:9000:host-ip:9999
Without setting the bind_address, :9000 would only be available to your host's loopback interface and not per se to your docker containers.
Side note: You could also bind your tunnel to 0.0.0.0, which will make ssh listen to all interfaces.
Setting up your application:
In your containerized application use the same docker0 ip to connect to the server: 172.17.0.1:9000. Now traffic being routed through your docker0 bridge will also reach your ssh tunnel :)
For example, if you have a "DOT.NET Core" application that needs to connect to a remote db located at :9000, your "ConnectionString" would contain "server=172.17.0.1,9000;.
Forwarding multiple connections:
When dealing with multiple outgoing connections (e.g. a docker container needs to connect to multiple remote DB's via tunnel), several valid techniques exist but an easy and straightforward way is to simply create multiple tunnels listening to traffic arriving at different docker0 bridge ports.
Within your ssh tunnel command (ssh -L [bind_address:]port:host:hostport] [user#]hostname), the port part of the bind_address does not have to match the hostport of the host and, therefore, can be freely chosen by you. So within your docker containers just channel the traffic to different ports of your docker0 bridge and then create several ssh tunnel commands (one for each port you are listening to) that intercept data at these ports and then forward it to the different hosts and hostports of your choice.
on MacOS (tested in v19.03.2),
1) create a tunnel on host
ssh -i key.pem username#jump_server -L 3336:mysql_host:3306 -N
2) from container, you can use host.docker.internal or docker.for.mac.localhost or docker.for.mac.host.internal to reference host.
example,
mysql -h host.docker.internal -P 3336 -u admin -p
note from docker-for-mac official doc
I WANT TO CONNECT FROM A CONTAINER TO A SERVICE ON THE HOST
The host has a changing IP address (or none if you have no network access).
From 18.03 onwards our recommendation is to connect to the special DNS
name host.docker.internal, which resolves to the internal IP address
used by the host. This is for development purpose and will not work in
a production environment outside of Docker Desktop for Mac.
The gateway is also reachable as gateway.docker.internal.
I think you can do it by adding --net=host to your docker run. But see also this question: Forward host port to docker container
I'd like to share my solution to this. My case was as follows: I had a PostgreSQL SSH tunnel on my host and I needed one of my containers from the stack to connect to a database through it.
I spent hours trying to find a solution (Ubuntu + Docker 19.03) and I failed. Instead of doing voodoo magic with iptables, doing modifications to the settings of the Docker engine itself I came up with a solution and was shocked I didn't thought of this earlier. The most important thing was I didn't want to use the host mode: security first.
Instead of trying to allow a container to talk to the host, I simply added another service to the stack, which would create the tunnel, so other containers could talk to easily without any hacks.
After configuring a host inside my ~/.ssh/config:
Host project-postgres-tunnel
HostName remote.server.host
User sshuser
Port 2200
ForwardAgent yes
TCPKeepAlive yes
ConnectTimeout 5
ServerAliveCountMax 10
ServerAliveInterval 15
And adding a service to the stack:
postgres:
image: cagataygurturk/docker-ssh-tunnel:0.0.1
volumes:
- $HOME/.ssh:/root/ssh:ro
environment:
TUNNEL_HOST: project-postgres-tunnel
REMOTE_HOST: localhost
LOCAL_PORT: 5432
REMOTE_PORT: 5432
# uncomment if you wish to access the tunnel on the host
#ports:
# - 5432:5432
The PHP container started talking through the tunnel without any problems:
postgresql://user:password#postgres/db?serverVersion=11&charset=utf8
Just remember to put your public key inside that host if you haven't already:
ssh-copy-id project-postgres-tunnel
I'm pretty sure this will work regardless of the OS used (MacOS / Linux).
I agree with #hlobit that #B12Toaster answer should be the accepted answer.
In case anyone hits this problem but with a slightly different setup with the SSH tunnel, here are my findings. In my case, instead of creating a tunnel from Docker host machine to remote machine using ssh -L, I was creating remote forward SSH tunnel from remote machine to Docker host machine using ssh -L.
In this setup, by default sshd does NOT allow gateway ports, i.e. in file /etc/ssh/sshd_config on Docker host, the GatewayPorts no should be uncommented and set to GatewayPorts yes or GatewayPorts clientspecified. I configured GatewayPorts clientspecified and configured the remote forward SSH tunnel by ssh -L 172.17.0.1:dockerHostPort:localhost:sshClientPort user#dockerHost. Remember to restart sshd after changing /etc/ssh/sshd_config (sudo systemctl restart sshd).
Your Docker container should be able to connect to Docker host on 172.17.0.1:dockerHostPort and this in turn gets tunnelled back to SSH client's localhost:sshClientPort.
References:
https://www.ssh.com/ssh/tunneling/example
https://docs.docker.com/network/network-tutorial-host/
https://docs.docker.com/network/host/
My 2 cents for Ubuntu 18.04 - a very simple answer, no need for extra tunnels, extra containers, extra docker options or exposing host.
Simply, when creating a reverse tunnel make sure ssh binds to all interfaces as, by default, it binds ports of the reverse tunnel to localhost only. For example, in putty make sure that option Connection->SSH->Tunnels Remote ports do the same (SSH-2 only) is ticked.
This is more or less equivalent to specifying the binding address 0.0.0.0 for the remote part of the tunnel (more details here):
-R [bind_address:]port:host:hostport
However, this did not work for me unless I allowed the GatewayPorts option in my sshd server configuration. Many thanks to Stefan Seidel for his great answer.
In short: (1) you bind the reverse tunnel to 0.0.0.0, (2) you let the sshd server to accept such tunnels.
Once this is done I can access my remote server from my docker containers via the docker gateway 172.17.0.1 and port bound to the host.
On my side, running Docker in Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL v1), I couldn't use docker0 connection approach. host.docker.internal also doesn't resolve (latest docker version).
However, I found out I could directly use the host-ip insider my docker container.
Get your Host IP (Windows cmd: ipconfig), e.g. 192.168.0.5
Bash into your Container and test if you can ping your host ip:
- docker exec -it d6b4be5b20f7 /bin/bash
- apt-get update && apt-get install iputils-ping
- ping 192.168.0.5
PING 192.168.0.5 (192.168.0.5) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5 : icmp_seq=1 ttl=37 time=2.17 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5 : icmp_seq=2 ttl=37 time=1.44 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.5 : icmp_seq=3 ttl=37 time=1.68 ms
Apparently, in Windows, you can directly connect from within containers to the host using the official host ip.
In case anyone needs it (like I did), solution for Windows and WSL is same as #prayagupd mentioned for Mac OS
Create an SSH tunnel to your remote service with whatever tool you prefer to whatever port you prefer, for example 3300.
Then, from Docker container you can connect to, for example, MySQL DB on tunnel port 3300 using following command:
mysql -u user -p -h host.docker.internal -P 3300
An easy example to reproduce the situation and ssh to host
Run a container. Use --network="host
docker container run --network="host" --interactive --tty --rm ubuntu bash
Now you can access your host using localhost
Now your host machine is a Linux machine that has a public-private key file to ssh into it. So copy the contents of your private key file and reproduce the key file inside your host. (However, this is just a demonstration. This is not a good way to copy key files)
Now ssh into your host. Use localhost to access it.
ssh -i key_file.pem ec2-user#localhost

Can't connect to public IP for EC2 instance

I have an EC2 instance which is running with the following security groups:
HTTP - TCP - 80 - 0.0.0.0/0
Custom UDP Rule - UDP - 1194 - 0.0.0.0/0
SSH - TCP - 22 - 0.0.0.0/0
Custom TCP Rule - TCP - 943 - 0.0.0.0/0
HTTPS - TCP - 443 - 0.0.0.0/0
However, when I try to access http://{PUBLIC_IP} or https://{PUBLIC_IP} in the browser, I get a "{IP} refused to connect" error. I'm new to AWS. Am I missing something here? What should I do to debug?
One way to debug this particular class of problem is to use netcat in order to determine where the problem lies.
If you run netcat against port 80 on the public IP address of your instance and just get a hang (no output at all), then most likely your security group isn't allowing traffic through. Here is an example from an EC2 instance that is in a security group that doesn't allow port 80 traffic inbound:
% nc -v 55.35.300.45 80
<just hangs>
Whereas if the security group is changed to allow port 80, but the EC2 instance doesn't have any process listening on port 80, you'll get the following:
% nc -v 55.35.300.45 80
nc: connectx to 52.38.300.43 port 80 (tcp) failed: Connection refused
Given that your browser gave you a similar "connection refused", most likely the problem is that there is no web server running on your instance. You can verify this by ssh'ing into the instance and seeing if you can connect to port 80 there:
ssh ec2-user#55.35.300.45
% nc -v localhost 80
nc: connect to localhost port 80 (tcp) failed: Connection refused
If you get something like the above, you're definitely not running a webserver.
I'm not sure if it's too late to help but I was stuck with a similar issue with my test server
SG Inbound: ssh -> 22
HTTP -> 80
NACL: default allow/deny settings
but still couldn't ping to the server from my browser, then I realize there's nothing running on the server that can serve the request, and I started httpd server (webserver) and it worked.
sudo yum -y install httpd
sudo service httpd start
this way you can test the connectivity if you are playing with SGs and NACLs and of course it's not the only way, just an example if you're figuring your System N/W out.
Have you installed webserver(ngingx/apache) to serve your requests. If so please share your the config files. (So that it will help to troubleshoot)
I think the reason is probably that you did not set up a web server for your EC2 instance, because if you try to access http://{PUBLIC_IP} or https://{PUBLIC_IP}, you need to have a background server to serve the http request as #Niranj Rajasekaran said.
By the way, by simply pinging the {PUBLIC_IP}, you could see if your connection to your EC2 instance is normal or not.
In command prompt or terminal, type
ping {PUBLIC_IP}
In my case, the server was running but available on just 127.0.0.1 so it refused connections from external hosts. To see if this is your situation, you can run
netstat -an | grep <port number>
If it says 127.0.0.1:<port number> instead of 0.0.0.0:<port number>, you have this problem.
Usually there's a flag or an argument in your server code somewhere to set the host to 0.0.0.0:
app.run(host='0.0.0.0') # flask example
However, in my case, I had already set this so I thought that couldn't possibly be the issue, which is how I ended up on this thread, which asks more generally about the problem. Unfortunately, I was using docker, and had set 0.0.0.0 on the container but was mapping that explicitly to 127.0.0.1 on the host in the docker-compose port-mapping:
ports:
- "127.0.0.1:<port number>:<port number>"
Changing that line to remove the host IP specification fixed the problem upon re-deploy:
ports:
- "<port number>:<port number>"

How to open incoming port 50070 in firewall (google compute engine)

I have my Single node Hadoop installed on Google Compute Engine instance and i want to open port 50070 on that machine to access the hadoop dashboard. i configured in the firewall rule as tcp:50070 in compute engine networks. but still i am unable to access my port outside the network (ie . via internet). I tried nmap for the public ip of my GCE instance and i got a result which has only ssh port got opened all other ports are filtered .
Note: i am using debian 7.5 image
Make sure your daemon is listening on port 50070. If you have more than one networks in you project make sure the port is opened on the right network. You can run the following commands to check the information about your instance and network.
lsof -i
gcutil --project= getinstance
gcutil --project= listnetworks
gcutil --project= listfirewalls
gcutil --project= getfirewall
Check if IP/Port is allowed in iptables or not.
iptables -L
would show you all the records.
To allow port in iptables you can do the following:
sudo iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 50070 -j ACCEPT
sudo iptables-save -c
Short answer
In addition to configure the firewall rule at GCE web console make sure that your server is listening at 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1
Long answer
In the context of servers, 0.0.0.0 means all IPv4 addresses on the local machine. If a host has two IP addresses, 192.168.1.1 and 10.1.2.1, and a server running on the host listens on 0.0.0.0, it will be reachable at both of those IPs - Source
In contrast 127.0.0.1 is the IP address used to stablish a connection to the same machine used by the user this address is usually referred as the localhost.
It's often used when you want a network-capable application to only serve clients on the same host. A process that is listening on 127.0.0.1 for connections will only receive local connections on that socket. - Source
Hence, if you try to stablish a connection to your server from internet and your server is listening at 127.0.0.1 at your GCE machine, then, from the server point of view a request has never been received and as a consequence Goocle Cloud Firewall will refuse the connection because there is no server listening at the opened port (in your case 50070).
I hope this answer helps to solve your problem. Best regards.

Resources