I am trying to hit an API using IP port. But the Machine is behind a VPN. Even though my local is connected to the VPN, the HTTP connection is refused. Is there any provision to setup up VPN/Proxy in Karate Framework?
Yes. Please refer to the documentation: https://github.com/intuit/karate#managing-headers-ssl-timeouts-and-http-proxy
Related
I am using Ansible in my current application to deploy my code. I using SSH connections to connect to servers(host) ,where code needs to be deployed. We are migrating to new servers where SSH connection is not available only webssh connection is available.
Can i still use ansible to connect to new servers?
With webSSH, webterminals, Ajax terminals, and such solutions you make it possible to access the SSH service via your web browsers. The necessary code is usually made of JavaScript, Ajax, Websockets or others.
Can I still use Ansible to connect to new servers?
Out of the box there is connection plugin I am aware of.
If you have connection module available which addresses your webterminal, probably yes. An other option can be to use REST API if such is implemented in your webterminal.
I currently have the following network setup and would like to be able to make WebRTC calls between the two clients in different networks.
I enabled IPv4 forwarding on the openSuse Leap 15.2 server and both devices have either 192.168.2.1 or 192.168.4.1 as their default gateway. The web application as well as the signaling service are both hosted on this server as well.
With the Firewall disabled the call works as suspected, but with the Firewall on the call no longer works. I thought about hosting a Coturn STUN/TURN server on this server, as I've read that you should provision one, if you run into troubles with a firewall.
Is a setup like this doable with lets say Coturn and what would the configuration look like for a scenario like this?
I ended up solving it as I describe in my GitHub issue for this matter.
is it possible to setup an ssl connection on playbook? I found SecureSocket class in the api but it seems playbook platform doesnt support ssl connections. Any ideas?
It depends what you're trying to connect to, but if it's a web server, then you can use URLRequest to connect via https, which uses an SSL connection.
I don't think there's currently a general way to do it in AIR, without using a third-party library, however.
Not sure if i'm really up-to-date, but i'm looking in a way to convert my existing project to use HTML5 websockets.
Here's my situation :
- Client runs a modified java vnc applet with extra parameter (CONNECT).
- Modified stunnel listenin on webserver (with both public, private IP) port 443
- Client connects to 443 and sends (prior to RFB) a HTTP packet like :
'CONNECT 10.0.0.1:4001'
- Stunnel opens a new stream to 10.0.0.1:4001 using SSL wrapper
- VNC Server (#10.0.0.1:4001) responds, connection is established.
Now I want to get rid of the Java Applet and switch to Websocket using NoVNC.
I want to be able to :
- Open a single port on the webserver (HTTPS preferably)
- Have client connect using HTML5 only (no more java applet)
I cannot change :
- VNCServer will still be listening on private LAN only.
- VNCServer will still listen to a bunch of ports, each corresponding to
a virtual server
Questions are :
- How to give NoVNC the notion of target HOST:PORT ?
- Is stunnel still be usable ? Or should I change to websocket proxy ?
If anyone has a starting point, i'd really appreciate !
Disclaimer: I created noVNC so my answer may be heavily biased ;-)
I'll answer you second question first:
stunnel cannot be used directly by noVNC. The issue is that the WebSockets protocol has an HTTP-like initial handshake and the messages are framed. In addition, until binary payload support is added to WebSockets, the payload is base64 encoded by the websockets proxy (websockify). Adding the necessary support to stunnel would be non-trivial but certainly doable. In fact noVNC issue #37 is an aspirational feature to add this support to stunnel.
First question:
noVNC already has a concept of HOST:PORT via the RFB.connect(host, port, password) method. The file vnc_auto.html at the top level shows how to get noVNC to automatically connect on page load based on the host, port and password specified as URL query string parameters.
However, I think what you are really asking is how do you get noVNC to connect to alternate VNC server ports on the backend. This problem is not directly addressed by noVNC and websockify. There are several ways to solve this and it usually involves an out-of-band setup/authorization mechanism so that the proxy can't be used to launch attacks by arbitrary hosts. For example, at my company we have a web based management framework that integrates noVNC and when the user wants to connect to the console, an authenticated AJAX call is used to configure the proxy for that particular user and the system they want to connect to. Our web management interface is internal only.
Ganeti Web Manager uses a similar model and the source is available. They have a fork of VNCAuthProxy that has WebSockets support. They use a control channel from the web interface to the VNCAuthProxy to setup a temporary password associated with a specific VNC server host:port.
Also OpenStack (Nova) integrates noVNC uses a similar out-of-band token based model to allow access with their nova-vncproxy.
Some links:
Ganeti Web Manager
Wiki page about how noVNC works in Ganeti Web Manager
Ganeti Web Manager sources
Ganeti Web Manager VNCAUthProxy sources
Using noVNC in Nova/OpenStack
OpenStack fork of noVNC
Old nova-vnc-proxy code
Current nova vnc proxy code
I am consuming a web service in .NET application with WCF client.
The Endpoint's address of the service is over port 4338, and it is over HTTPS, secured with WS-Security standard.
So the address is something like :
https://[servername]:4338/[servicename]/
I was not able to communicate to the service with just running the application.
it gave me the following error :
Could not connect to [servername]:4338
TCP error code 10060: A connection
attempt failed because the connected
party did not properly respond after a
period of time, or established
connection failed because connected
host has failed to respond
[servername]:4338
But when I run Fiddler to investigate the http communication, the application start to work, and I will be able to communicate to the service.
As well, I want to add that I have a different service on the same web server that hosts the first service, and that second service's address is hosted on port 8080, and I am able to communicate with it with WCF client (without running Fiddler).
So, I googled and I found that it might be related to the proxy settings. Do you know what the problem is, and how can I solve it?
Thanks
Fiddler acts as an Internet proxy server. In general, any symptom of the form: "it works when I use Fiddler" means "it works when there's a (different) proxy server".
Check your proxy server settings. In particular, as empi suggested, try it in a browser. If it works there, it could be due to the fact that the browser has the proxy settings configured, and that you do not have them configured for WCF.
If you have proxy set in Internet Explorer, it may cause the problem. What happens when you open https://[servername]:4338/[servicename]/ in Internet Explorer?
Thanks empi for the reply.
I found the answer.
Actually in our company we have a proxy settings through "Automatic configuration script"
and depends on the web sites we are targeting internally, the script will point us to the proper proxy.
So, from the script I got the proper proxy address.
and in my .NET application I added this code
WebRequest.DefaultWebProxy = new WebProxy("http://xx.xx.xx.xx:8080");
and that fixed the problem
So WCF client was not detecting the setting of the automatic script.
and this is the reason it worked when I run Fiddler, because Fiddler listen to the http communication, and send it again through the settings.