I have a ASP.NET MVC 4 app and I am using ELMAH to only send emails. It is sending me 2 emails per error, and the REMOTE PORT is different, but nothing else. And, that PORT # is not the port my app is accessing.
For instance, I am using localhost port 55116
Error 1 port: 51467
Error 2 port: 51469
Why am I getting two emails, and how can I reduce it to one?
Related
When I try to deploy a sample application 1 which runs on port 1001 using a Global Configurations properties file, the application deploys to both the servers.
I can test the application on 1001 port and 8086 port.
Subsequently, when I try to deploy Application 2 on 1002 port. I can see that the application gets partially deployed to Server 1 and can be tested successfully on port 1002.
Can anyone explain this behavior of the Mule Standalone instances.
I am a newbie and trying out different concepts on Mule 4
Server 1 Port: Default port
Server 2 Port: 8086
Group: QAGroup
POC with proprties file port 1001: 8086/1001- Running on Both nodes
Typeof: 8081 - Only running on Node 1
Logger: 8082 - Only Running on Node 1
Logger with proprties file port 1002: 1002- Only running on Node 1
Only one app can listen to one particular port. It looks that your servers have apps what ara already listening to this port. You, maybe, had tried somthing and then forgot about it. It is not actual flow or http listener. It is http listeneer configuartion in any flow of any project.
First of all I would check all log files for errors.
Or I would got to both serveres to the folder apps inside runtime folder and search for port numbers. For sure you will fimd duplicates.
To allow multiple apps listen to the same port like 80 or 443 you need Domain project with this http listenet as shared resource.
I have the following model that i drew below:
I have a number of processes running on the server. I want nginx or apache to direct the incoming clients through port 80 to one of the server processes to handle the requests. However each connection also establishes a websocket connection to the same process. This is currently initiated from the client side within javascript. At the moment for testing purposes I pass the port within the html rendered on the client. The client then takes this port and estabilishes a websocket connection to the same port that handled its request.
Moving forward to an nginx or apache envionment would it be possible not to pass the port value to the client and have nginx or apache know where it directed the incoming client and use the same port for the websocket connection?
This would have the benefit on not opening all the server ports 8000, 8001, 8002 in the diagram below to the public.
I have the following situation: 2 hosts, one is a client and the other an HTTPS server.
Client (:<brwsr-port>) <=============> Web server (:443)
I installed Fiddler on the server so that I now have Fiddler running on my server on port 8888.
The situation i would like to reach is the following:
|Client (:<brwsr-port>)| <===> |Fiddler (:8888) <===> Web server (:443)|
|-Me-------------------| |-Server--------------------------------|
From my computer I want to contact Fiddler which will redirect traffic to the web server. The web server however uses HTTPS.
On The server I set up Fiddler to handle HTTPS sessions and decrypt them. I was asked to install on the server Fiddler's fake CA's certificate and I did it! I also inserted the script suggested by the Fiddler wiki page to redirect HTTPS traffic
// HTTPS redirect -----------------------
FiddlerObject.log("Connect received...");
if (oSession.HTTPMethodIs("CONNECT") && (oSession.PathAndQuery == "<server-addr>:8888")) {
oSession.PathAndQuery = "<server-addr>:443";
}
// --------------------------------------
However when I try https://myserver:8888/index.html I fail!
Failure details
When using Fiddler on the client, I can see that the CONNECT request starts but the session fails because response is HTTP error 502. Looks like no one is listening on port 8888. In fact, If I stop Fiddler on the server I get the same situation: 502 bad gateway.
Please note that when I try https://myserver/index.html and https://myserver:443/index.html everything works!
Question
What am I doing wrong?
Is it possible that...?
I thought that since maybe TLS/SSL works on port 443, I should have Fiddler listen there and move my web server to another port, like 444 (I should probably set on IIS an https binding on port 444 then). Is it correct?
If Fiddler isn't configured as the client's proxy and is instead running as a reverse proxy on the Server, then things get a bit more complicated.
Running Fiddler as a Reverse Proxy for HTTPS
Move your existing HTTPS server to a new port (e.g. 444)
Inside Tools > Fiddler Options > Connections, tick Allow Remote Clients to Connect. Restart Fiddler.
Inside Fiddler's QuickExec box, type !listen 443 ServerName where ServerName is whatever the server's hostname is; for instance, for https://Fuzzle/ you would use fuzzle for the server name.
Inside your OnBeforeRequest method, add:
if ((oSession.HostnameIs("fuzzle")) &&
(oSession.oRequest.pipeClient.LocalPort == 443) )
{
oSession.host = "fuzzle:444";
}
Why do you need to do it this way?
The !listen command instructs Fiddler to create a new endpoint that will perform a HTTPS handshake with the client upon connection; the default proxy endpoint doesn't do that because when a proxy receives a connection for HTTPS traffic it gets a HTTP CONNECT request instead of a handshake.
I just ran into a similar situation where I have VS2013 (IISExpress) running a web application on HTTPS (port 44300) and I wanted to browse the application from a mobile device.
I configured Fiddler to "act as a reverse proxy" and "allow remote clients to connect" but it would only work on port 80 (HTTP).
Following on from EricLaw's suggestion, I changed the listening port from 8888 to 8889 and ran the command "!listen 8889 [host_machine_name]" and bingo I was able to browse my application on HTTPS on port 8889.
Note: I had previously entered the forwarding port number into the registry (as described here) so Fiddler already knew what port to forward the requests on to.
Currently i have facing one problem in portrestrictedcone nattype.When my udp client hit the server with test1.dns.com (to sepcific IP 111.111.111.111 and this ip is bind with DNS test1.dns.com) where i am getting response from different IP and not with 111.111.111.111, however the same scenario is working for fullcone nattype. If the server response from the same above ip i am able to get the response.
Currently there are two services running on the server on UDP, one is which is working in portrestrictedcone and send response on same IP as a result i am getting the response, however second service is not behaving in same was as first service works.
i am running both the services on same DNS as i have describe above.
Can i get the help what i need to change on the server or client side to get this resolve?
I think your problem is that you are not sending the packet to the port you received it from (Allocated by NAT). When you receive a packet, check the port that was used to send it then send your response to that port and not to a predefined port because the NAT might change it.
I am trying to set up an HTTPS site on IIS 7. I have added the certificate, set up the appropriate bindings and the site is accesible from within my company's intranet, however no one from the outside internet can access it. I have a 1:1 NAT forward set up for port 443 that should route requests to the IP address for my server. I have the same situation for port 80 and don't have any issues with http sites being accessible.
Any suggestions for what I might be missing here?
UPDATE:
As it turns out, the company that manages my company's firewall had added the exception for https and 443, and the correct routing, but hadn't added an exception for the process that handles https.
For starters, from outside, use telnet to see if you can even get to the port from outside:
telnet <host name or ip> 443
Note the space before the port.
If the telnet screen goes fully black, w cursor in top left, you can connect, so it is an iis issue.
If telnet just sits there, it is trying to connect but can't. It may finally throw "connection refused" or "could not connect." This means the problem is on the physical firewall (which needs the inbound path opened) or on the iis server itself (in its firewall or iis config)
In this case, next step:
Do the telnet operation on the IIS server itself, and from the same network as IIS (e.g. not through the firewall).
-- If this works: The problem is the network firewall config
-- If this does not work, you need to check the firewall on the IIS server itself (the windows firewall), and the IIS config itself
Note, on windows 7 and vista, telnet may not be present out of the box. Google how to enable it.