My Azure VM (Win 2008 R2 Datacenter) runs IIS 7.5 and hosts a half-dozen Web sites. I obtained and installed a certificate to enable SSL on one site. I tested the certificate with the downloaded SSL Diagnostics tool, and all appears great. The tool sent a sample SSL handshake with perfect results (diagnostic info along with the contents of the tiny test web page).
However, the web page is unobtainable using https://... from a browser on either the server or client. Localhost:443 or the server IP address:443 in a browser on the server also fails. No error messages are received, the browser just waits and waits.
What could it be?
If I use a browser on the server and input https://ip address without 443, I get this error in the browser: ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID. "Your connection is not private. Attackers might be trying to steal your information..." and it shows the info from the certificate, like the issuer etc. What's the deal?
Ugh. I needed to open port 443 in the Azure Portal, in my Network Security Group. Another question on StackOverflow steered me to that solution!
Related
I am new to mitm.
https://mitmproxy.org/
AppServer1 (A windows 2016 server) has our IIS website application (WebApp1) running (its running fine without any problems currently).
I have added an SSL certificate as well, and it is loading fine without any issues.Chrome shows that it is trusted ("Connection is secure" when navigating from inside and outside AppServer1 server but "within the LAN". So far we havnt allowed access to internet users as of yet until the app is completely ready.)
We have a business requirement where
we need to intercept all traffic/requests from users from outide AppServer1
and send them to another application that we created (UserRequestDashboardApp),
and ALSO we need mitm to send it to WebApp1 as well.
I have read the articles multiple times and from what I understand, reverse proxy mode is the correct option to for our requirement.
WebApp1 is running on url - customappservice1.com, port - 443
I then started mitm (version 4.0.4) with the following CMD command
.\mitmdump -p 8080 --mode reverse:https://customappservice1.com
I get the status proxy server listening at http://*:8080
I dont seem to see any traffic in the terminal when I type customappservice1.com on AppServer1 chrome browser or any server browser outside AppServer1.
The WebApp1 pages load fine from outside and inside AppServer1 server but no traffic at all on the terminal
Can anyone please help me to capture the traffic on the terminal as an initial step before sending the traffic/requests to UserRequestDashboardApp AND WebApp1?
I have tried running mitm normally and it works fine(I can see traffic/requests fine in the terminal)
I launched mitm in CMD (It says Proxy Server listening at http://*:8080)
I set the
Windows server proxy to = localhost
Port = 8080
Did you try configuring your requests to use the mitmproxy's address ?
Also, web browsers may have use a separate proxy configuration from the operating system's. So you may try configuring Chrome's proxy settings.
Problem: Since Chrome updated a while back (version 58?), I'm not able to access my computer's development Express web server with HTTPS from a remote machine on the same private LAN.
I have created a self-signed certificate on the server (my laptop), and it works great from the same machine via https://localhost:8383 (the local SSL port).
In the past I could bypass the warning on a remote machine on the same network but it has stopped working.
I've gone through the steps of creating a local secure DNS server on my own router with DD-WRT, and self-signed a new certificate with SAN so I could use a DNS host name to access it without specifying an IP address.
I'm able to get to the page after bypassing the message that warns the site's SSL certificate could not be verified. But that's not good enough because while the site will load, the underlying websocket service I'm using on the same port does not work, and so the application loads but is broken on the remote machine. Still works on the local machine because the certificate is valid.
It seems the issue centers around Websockets within Express.
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! This is a strictly secure environment that's meant to be used on a private network and it makes no sense for me to spend a bunch of money on a public certificate if that even matters.
Thank you.
It appears that the issue is with mobile Chrome and Safari on IOS -- I can get untrusted SSL certificates to work with websockets from another computer on the same network with the latest versions of Chrome and Safari. But on IOS (ipads and iphones), the page will load after being prompted, but Websockets FAIL to function whatsoever.
I've found a couple other people finding this issue.
My workaround for this problem was to revert away from SSL for my private network and completely avoid self-signed certificates.
In a private environment this is OK.
I'm trying to upgrade a websocket connection ws:// to wss:// using a nginx reverse proxy https://github.com/nicokaiser/nginx-websocket-proxy/blob/master/simple-wss.conf
but I seem to be having trouble with the certificate part. My server is located on the same network as the client. So Ideally I would want my users to log in to "https://example.com" and then the client makes a connection to "wss://192.168.1.xxx:xxxx".
As of now the browsers are blocking it because of NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID. I don't really know to produce a self signed certificate that the browsers will trust on the local network. Googling only gives me answers on how to do it if my server would be accessed using a domain name but I will always connect to a local network IP. Help is appreciated!
To anyone coming across this I managed to solve it using this post outlining the architecture https://support.plex.tv/articles/206225077-how-to-use-secure-server-connections/
What ended up happening was that we set up a url pointing to a server running nginx which parsed the subdomain and redirected the connection to that url. For example: wss://192-168-1-142.mydomain.com redirects to ws://192.168.1.142 which makes the browser trust the connection
Does this work?
Your post is a year old now and browsers have become stricter since then. Usually, a browser will produce 'mixed content' errors if you access HTTP content from a HTTPS page, and the only way to get round this is to change the site settings to allow insecure content, which is scary for users in the face of a big warning message.
If accessing an HTTPS web address redirects to an HTTP local IP address, won't the browser still complain about mixed content?
I have a similar situation to you. I am writing a Progressive Web Application (PWA) to control network music players on a home network. The players only support HTTP but a PWA requires HTTPS for services workers to work and to allow the app to be 'installed'.
My solution is to run a local server on the home network which can talk to the players over HTTP. Then I can access this server over HTTPS from my browser so that the browser itself is not making any HTTP calls.
This works fine if the server is on localhost because localhost is a special case where security rules are relaxed. But if the server is on another machine, how can I create an SSL certificate since (1) it seems that local IP addresses are not allowed in the Subject Alternative Name (SAN) section of the certificate, and (2) I won't know in advance what the IP address of the server will be.
If your workaround works, then the local server can use HTTP instead so I won't need a certificate. The local server can register itself with a web server, and then the browser can connect over HTTPS to the web server, which would redirect to the IP address of the local server over HTTP.
But does this trick work?
We have been battling with an issue where I've been getting a 5006 error using "SagePay Server" for 24 hours after moving a nopcommerce site to a new server with a different IP address.
We use a free cloudflare service with SSL enabled on Cloudflare in Full SSL mode and then a self signed certificate on our server so the connection is always secured end to end. This was also the same on the old server.
When moving servers we simply updated the IP address in couldflare to point at the new IP address but we started getting 5006 errors during the checkout process...
SagePay support told us they could not connect to our notification URL which was using SSL. Our server showed no attempt from their server to connect to ours yet SapePays log files show an "internal_error" with no more useful information.
However it is possible to the call the notification URL passed to SagePay from a browser and it works without issue.
After talking with SagePay on several occasions it would seem the SagePay system does not support websites / traffic using SSL with SNI which means they can not connect to the notification URL over SSL.
In a time when IPv4 addresses are fast running out I would imagine more and more people will start to use SNI for SSL so they can run multiple sites using SSL from one IPv4 address - a massive oversight on SagePay's part me thinks.
Contrary to JaxUK, I can confirm SagePay does support SSL/TLS with SNI. Hope this helps someone
I am working on Windows Server 2003 (IIS6), which has two asp.net sites running in seperate app pools. One of the sites has an ssl certificate installed and was running fine on https. The other site has no certificate and does not require https
The problem I have is that when I publish my app from vs2005 to the site with ssl the https urls stop working and I can only use http. The error I get is as follows
From Google Chrome: Error 104 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_FAILED): The attempt to connect to the server failed.
From IE7: Internet explorer cannot display the web page, could be unavailable, dns is not reachable etc
The strange thing is the first time this happened, https eventually became available but I don't know what triggered the availability but when I published an updated assembly to the bin folder of the site which does not require https, the OTHER site became unavailable on https again
Help much appreciated!
UPDATED: Thanks for the suggestions but it turns out that the firewall was not open on the ssl port
Check if the firewall port for SSL (443) wasn't accidentally closed 443. ;-)
If both webs use the same IP address, make sure, that only the web with the certificate uses the SSL port 443 (first property page). The input field should be empty for the insecure site.
If that is not the problem, you could try to debug stopping the web without certificate and restart the web server.