I really love node.js but it´s really complicating when you want to run multiple websocket servers and make them all accessible over port 80.
I'm currently running nginx, but proxying incoming websocket connections to the different websocket servers depending on the url is not possible because nginx does not support http 1.1.
I´ve tried to implement a webserver that has the functionality on my own, but it is really complicated when it comes to header passing etc. Another thing is SSL support. It´s not easy to support it.
So, does anyone know a good solution to do the things i mentioned?
Thanks for any help!
I had good results using node-http-proxy by nodejitsu. As stated in their readme, they seem to support WebSockets.
Example for WebSockets (taken from their GitHub readme):
var http = require('http'),
httpProxy = require('http-proxy');
//
// Create an instance of node-http-proxy
//
var proxy = new httpProxy.HttpProxy();
var server = http.createServer(function (req, res) {
//
// Proxy normal HTTP requests
//
proxy.proxyRequest(req, res, {
host: 'localhost',
port: 8000
})
});
server.on('upgrade', function(req, socket, head) {
//
// Proxy websocket requests too
//
proxy.proxyWebSocketRequest(req, socket, head, {
host: 'localhost',
port: 8000
});
});
It's production usage should be no problem since it is used for nodejitsu.com. To run the proxy app as a daemon, consider using forever.
Newer versions of nginx actually will support reverse proxying for http/1.1. You probably want version 1.1.7 or greater.
Try something like this in your config:
location / {
chunked_transfer_encoding off;
proxy_http_version 1.1;
proxy_pass http://localhost:9001;
proxy_buffering off;
proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
proxy_set_header Host $host:9001; #probaby need to change this
proxy_set_header Connection "Upgrade";
proxy_set_header Upgrade websocket;
}
Nice thing about this is that you can terminate SSL at nginx.
Related
Setup Introduction: I have a node js app with 3 different services namely admin, client and server. All these 3 services are running as individual docker containers. My setup consists of 2 EC2 instances behind an AWS Application Load Balancer, with each EC2 instance running 1 container each of the admin and client service and the server service scaled to 2 containers using docker-compose --scale option. I'm using containerised nginx as a reverse proxy and load balancer. I have a target group with both the instances as registered targets.
Problem description: The admin service needs to communicate with the server service via WebSocket and I'm using socket.io for that purpose. So this scenario requires sticky session to establish WebSocket connection. I have enabled sticky session at the instance level with nginx ip_hash in the upstream block for server service. At the ALB level I've enabled sticky session for the target group with the Load balancer generated cookie type. When I access the endpoint for the admin service via Chrome browser and use the inspect element, I can see that the WebSocket connection failed to establish with the error exactly being:
WebSocket connection to '<URL>' failed: WebSocket is closed before the connection is establisbed.
Failed to load resource: the server responded with the status of 400 ()
This is my nginx conf for the server service:
upstream webinar_server {
hash $remote_addr consistent;
server webinar-server_webinar_server_1:8000;
server webinar-server_webinar_server_2:8000;
}
server {
listen 80;
server_name server.mydomain.com;
location / {
proxy_pass http://webinar_server/;
proxy_set_header X-Real_IP $remote_addr;
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
proxy_set_header Host $host;
proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;
proxy_set_header Connection "upgrade";
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto $scheme;
proxy_http_version 1.1;
proxy_buffering off;
}
}
This is the nignx conf for admin service:
server {
listen 80;
server_name admin.mydomain.com;
location / {
proxy_pass http://webinar_admin:5001;
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
proxy_set_header Host $host;
proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;
proxy_set_header Connection "upgrade";
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto $scheme;
proxy_http_version 1.1;
proxy_buffering off;
}
}
I've tried: I've tried to implement a simpler setup to test out the stickiness of the infrastructure which worked as expected. I had 2 EC2 instances behind AWS ALB and each instances running 2 basic containerised nginx web servers each serving a different html page. These web servers are behind a containerised nginx reverse load balancer as mentioned in my original setup. In this case both the instance level stickiness using nginx hash function and the alb level target group stickiness worked as expected.
For the original setup I'm trying to implement, when i removed one of the instance from the target group(only one registered target in the target group), the instance level nginx stickiness worked fine routing to the correct server container(since there are 2 server containers). But the target group level stickiness returns the error mentioned above.
As you can see here, Socket.IO Client don't handle cookies out of the box and ALB use cookies to redirect to the right server.
To fix this issue you need to put that code in client side
import { io } from "socket.io-client";
import { parse } from "cookie";
const socket = io("https://my-domain.com");
const COOKIE_NAME = "AWSALB";
socket.io.on("open", () => {
socket.io.engine.transport.on("pollComplete", () => {
const request = socket.io.engine.transport.pollXhr.xhr;
const cookieHeader = request.getResponseHeader("set-cookie");
if (!cookieHeader) {
return;
}
cookieHeader.forEach(cookieString => {
if (cookieString.includes(`${COOKIE_NAME}=`)) {
const cookie = parse(cookieString);
socket.io.opts.extraHeaders = {
cookie: `${COOKIE_NAME}=${cookie[COOKIE_NAME]}`
}
}
});
});
});
Since yesterday we have had a problem with WebSocket connections. The chromium-based browser and also Firefox don't add Sec-WebSocket-Key into the headers during connection. We use the standard new WebSocket() to connect with the server.
Missing header Sec-WebSocket-Key header
Funny thing is that when I open a new incognito window I can create a connection but after some fetch() request if I will try to make another connection it will fail - missing Sec-Websocket-Key header.
First WebSocket connection - success
Fetch request - app health status
Failed WebSockect connection after a fetch request
Second WebSocket connection - missing Sec-WebSocket-Key
Nginx config for /ws.
location ^~ /ws {
proxy_http_version 1.1;
proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;
proxy_set_header Connection "upgrade";
proxy_set_header Host $http_host;
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto $scheme;
proxy_pass http://backend;
}
Has anyone encountered a similar problem?
Checked in Google Chrome Version 96.0.4664.93 and Firefox 95.0.1 Windows, Linux and Mac.
MacOS & Safari works.
The problem is probably in the HTTP2 implementation in Firefox & Chrome (Safari works OK). We were digging for three days and finally realized that after disabling the HTTP2 issue disappeared.
This is the response from DigitalOcean technical support:
We had recently enabled support for Websockets over HTTP2 (RFC 8441).
This adds support for browsers to reuse an existing HTTP2 connection
and will allow tunneling of WebSocket connections over an HTTP2
stream. As part of an immediate fix we have disabled this
functionality which informs browsers to create Websockets over HTTP1.1
(RFC 6455). We believe the bug is actually within Chrome/Firefox but
further testing is necessary to track down the issue. To our knowledge
the LB wasn't the issue as it was the browser that was not including
the required header Sec-WebSocket-Key.
I am building a website on server A (with domain name registered), used for people to create and run their "apps".
These "apps" are actually docker containers running on server B, in the container, there lives a small web app which can be accessed directly like:
http://IP_ADDR_OF_SERVER_B:PORT
The PORT is a random big number one which maps to the docker container.
Now I can make SSL certificate working on server A, so that it works fine by accessing:
https://DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_A
The problem is, I enclosed the "apps" in iframe by accessing "http" like above, therefore my browser(Chrome) refuse to open it and report error as:
Mixed Content: The page at 'https://DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_A/xxx' was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure resource 'http://IP_ADDR_OF_SERVER_B:PORT/xxx'. This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.
So, how should I deal with such issue?
I am a full stack green hand, I'd appreciate a lot if you can share some knowledge on how to build a healthy https website while solving such problem in a proper way.
Supplementary explanation
Ok I think I just threw out the outline of the question, here goes more details.
I see it is intact and straight forward to make the iframe requests to be served with https, then it won't confuse me anymore.
However the trouble is, since all the "apps" are dynamically created/removed, it seems I'll need to prepare many certificates for each one of them.
Will self signed certificate work without being blocked or complained by the browser? Or do I have a way to serve all the "apps" with one SSL certificate?
Software environment
Server A: Running node.js website listening to port 5000 and served with Nginx proxy_pass.
server {
listen 80;
server_name DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_A;
location / {
proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
proxy_set_header Host $http_host;
proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:5000;
}
}
server {
listen 443;
server_name DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_A;
ssl on;
ssl_certificate /etc/nginx/ssl/DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_A.cer;
ssl_certificate_key /etc/nginx/ssl/DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_A.key;
ssl_session_timeout 5m;
location / {
proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
proxy_set_header Host $http_host;
proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:5000;
}
}
Server B: Running node.js apps listening to different random big port numbers such as 50055, assigned dynamically when "apps" are created. (In fact these apps are running in docker containers while I think it doesn't matter) Can run Nginx if needed.
Server A and Server B talk with each other in public traffic.
Solution
Just as all the answers, especially the one from #eawenden, I need a reverse proxy to achieve my goal.
In addition, I did a few more things:
1. Assign a domain name to Server B for using a letsencrypt cert.
2. Proxy predefined url to specific port.
Therefore I setup a reverse proxy server using nginx on Server B, proxy all the requests like:
https://DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_B/PORT/xxx
to
https://127.0.0.1:PORT/xxx
Ps: nginx reverse proxy config on Server B
server {
listen 443;
server_name DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_B;
ssl on;
ssl_certificate /etc/nginx/ssl/DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_B.cer;
ssl_certificate_key /etc/nginx/ssl/DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_B.key;
ssl_session_timeout 5m;
rewrite_log off;
error_log /var/log/nginx/rewrite.error.log info;
location ~ ^/(?<port>\d+)/ {
rewrite ^/\d+?(/.*) $1 break;
proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:$port;
proxy_http_version 1.1;
proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;
proxy_set_header Connection "upgrade";
proxy_read_timeout 86400;
}
}
Thus everything seems to be working as expected!
Thanks again to all the answerers.
I have mix content issue on dynamic request
add_header 'Content-Security-Policy' 'upgrade-insecure-requests';
This resolve my issue with ngnix server
The best way to do it would be to have a reverse proxy (Nginx supports them) that provides access to the docker containers:
A reverse proxy server is a type of proxy server that typically sits
behind the firewall in a private network and directs client requests
to the appropriate backend server. A reverse proxy provides an
additional level of abstraction and control to ensure the smooth flow
of network traffic between clients and servers.
- Source
Assign a domain name or just use the IP address of the reverse proxy and create a trusted certificate (Let's Encrypt provides free certificates). Then you can connect to the reverse proxy over HTTPS with a trusted certificate and it will handle connecting to the correct Docker container.
Here's an example of this type of setup geared specifically towards Docker: https://github.com/jwilder/nginx-proxy
The error message is pretty much telling you the solution.
This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.
If the main page is loaded over HTTPS, then all the other page content, including the iframes, should also be loaded over HTTPS.
The reason is that insecure (non-HTTPS) traffic can be tampered with in transit, potentially being altered to include malicious code that alters the secure content. (Consider for example a login page with a script being injected that steals the userid and password.)
== Update to reflect the "supplemental information" ==
As I said, everything on the page needs to be loaded via HTTPS. Yes, self-signed certificates will work, but with some caveats: first, you'll have to tell the browser to allow them, and second, they're really only suitable for use in a development situation. (You do not want to get users in the habit of clicking through a security warning.)
The answer from #eawenden provides a solution for making all of the content appear to come from a single server, thus providing a way to use a single certificate. Be warned, reverse proxy is a somewhat advanced topic and may be more difficult to set up in a production environment.
An alternative, if you control the servers for all of the iframes, may be to use a wildcard SSL certificate. This would be issued for example for *.mydomain.com, and would work for www.mydomain.com, subsite1.mydomain.com, subsite2.mydomain, etc, for everything under mydomain.com
Like others have said, you should serve all the content over HTTPS.
You could use http proxy to do this. This means that server A will handle the HTTPS connection and forward the request to server B over HTTP. HTTP will then send the response back to server A, which will update the response headers to make it look like the response came from server A itself and forward the response to the user.
You would make each of your apps on server B available on a url on domain A, for instance https://www.domain-a.com/appOnB1 and https://www.domain-a.com/appOnB2. The proxy would then forward the requests to the right port on server B.
For Apache this would mean two extra lines in your configuration per app:
ProxyPass "/fooApp" "http://IP_ADDR_OF_SERVER_B:PORT"
ProxyPassReverse "/fooApp" "http://IP_ADDR_OF_SERVER_B:PORT"
The first line will make sure that Apache forwards this request to server B and the second line will make sure that Apache changes the address in the HTTP response headers to make it look like the response came from server A instead of server B.
As you have a requirement to make this proxy dynamic, it might make more sense to set this proxy up inside your NodeJS app on server A, because that app probably already has knowledge about the different apps that live on server B. I'm no NodeJS expert, but a quick search turned up https://github.com/nodejitsu/node-http-proxy which looks like it would do the trick and seems like a well maintained project.
The general idea remains the same though: You make the apps on server B accessible through server A using a proxy, using server A's HTTPS set-up. To the user it will look like all the apps on server B are hosted on domain A.
After you set this up you can use https://DOMAIN_NAME_OF_SERVER_A/fooApp as the url for your iFrame to load the apps over HTTPS.
Warning: You should only do this if you can route this traffic internally (server A and B can reach each other on the same network), otherwise traffic could be intercepted on its way from server A to server B.
I'm attempting to use phoenix for websockets on my production server hosted on Digital Ocean and I keep getting
WebSocket connection to 'ws://104.236.16.92/ws' failed:
Error in connection establishment: net::ERR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED
I can't seem to find anything on this issue or what can fix it. The websockets were working fine on my local machine.
If had similar error and it was due to cowboy handling the connection behind nginx proxy. In my nginx proxy_params, I had to add the following configuration to make websockets work
proxy_http_version 1.1; # recommended with keepalive connections
# WebSocket proxying - from http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/websocket.html
proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;
proxy_set_header Connection "upgrade";
This actually turned out to be not enough RAM. I was using the lowest droplet in which websockets do not work. Upgrading to the tier solved my issue.
I am working on a Tornado app that uses websocket handlers. I'm running multiple instances of the app using Supervisord, but I have trouble load balancing websocket connections.
I know nginx does not support dealing with websockets out of the box, but I followed the instructions here http://www.letseehere.com/reverse-proxy-web-sockets to use the nginx tcp_proxy module to reverse proxy websocket connections. However, this did not work since the module can't route websocket urls (ex: ws://localhost:80/something). So it would not work with the URL routes I have defined in my Tornado app.
From my research around the web, it seems that HAProxy is the way to go to load balance my websocket connections. However, I'm having trouble finding any decent guidance to setup HAProxy to load balance websocket connections and also be able to handle websocket URL routes.
I would really appreciate some detailed directions on how to get this going. I am also fully open to other solutions as well.
it's not difficult to implement WebSocket in haproxy, though I admit it's not yet easy to find doc on this (hopefully this response will make one example). If you're using haproxy 1.4 (which I suppose you are) then it works just like any other HTTP request without having to do anything, as the HTTP Upgrade is recognized by haproxy.
If you want to direct the WebSocket traffic to a different farm than the rest of HTTP, then you should use content switching rules, in short :
frontend pub-srv
bind :80
use_backend websocket if { hdr(Upgrade) -i WebSocket }
default_backend http
backend websocket
timeout server 600s
server node1 1.1.1.1:8080 check
server node2 2.2.2.2:8080 check
backend http
timeout server 30s
server www1 1.1.1.1:80 check
server www2 2.2.2.2:80 check
If you're using 1.5-dev, you can even specify "timeout tunnel" to have a larger timeout for WS connections than for normal HTTP connections, which saves you from using overly long timeouts on the client side.
You can also combine Upgrade: WebSocket + a specific URL :
frontend pub-srv
bind :80
acl is_websocket hdr(Upgrade) -i WebSocket
acl is_ws_url path /something1 /something2 /something3
use_backend websocket if is_websocket is_ws_url
default_backend http
Last, please don't use the stupid 24h idle timeouts we sometimes see, it makes absolutely no
sense to wait for a client for 24h with an established session right now. The web is much more
mobile than in the 80s and connection are very ephemeral. You'd end up with many FIN_WAIT sockets
for nothing. 10 minutes is already quite long for the current internet.
Hoping this helps!
WebSockets does not traverse Proxies too well since after the handshake they are not following the normal HTTP behavior.
Try use the WebSocket (wss://) protocol (secured WS). this will use the Proxy CONNECT API which will hide the WebSocket protocol.
I used https://launchpad.net/txloadbalancer to do loadbalancing with Tornado websocket handlers. It's simple and worked well (I think).
http nginx (only nginx v1.3+)
upstream chatservice {
#multi thread by tornado
server 127.0.0.1:6661;
server 127.0.0.1:6662;
server 127.0.0.1:6663;
server 127.0.0.1:6664;
}
map $http_upgrade $connection_upgrade {
default upgrade;
'' close;
}
virtual host
server {
listen 80;
server_name chat.domain.com;
root /home/duchat/www;
index index.html index.htm;
location / {
try_files $uri $uri/ #backend;
}
location #backend {
proxy_pass_header Server;
proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
proxy_http_version 1.1;
proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;
proxy_set_header Connection "upgrade";
proxy_set_header Host $host;
proxy_pass http://chatservice;
internal;
}