I have two applications with a single domain name (www.domain.com and test.domain.com).
First one has been developed in .NET 2 and the other one with .NET 4.
I have configured Web.Config as these steps:
I've set the same machine key for both of them.
I've set the cookie name.
I've set the domain name to "domain.com".
Also, I've set hard-coded cookie domain name to "domain.com" .
Everything was working fine when both of them were running on a single web server. Recently, I've been asked to move test.domain.com to another server. After moving, authentication ticket is not valid on the second server.
I tested both of them on a single server again and everything was working fine, but in two servers users can't access to test.domain.com. (Authentication Ticket is invalid)
Edited:
The second server is a virtual (VMWare) server. I don't have any problem in physical servers.
I checked the server's time to be synchronized. I also used Fiddler to see if the server does not get the auth ticket and their ticket is sent to the 2nd server.
Note: Servers are located in different networks and maybe proxy or firewall causes this (I've no idea)
Is there anything I missed?
Finally I've found it here:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/28/asp-net-security-update-now-available.aspx
One of ther server was not update, after installing the patch the issue solved!
Related
In my .net core 5 api I need to get the remote IP from request. It works fine on my test server.
Checked it several times from different networks.
BUT
on my client's server, I'm getting the same IP address regardless from where I'm calling the API.
So, my problem is that on my server everything works fine, but on client's server, I'm getting false IP address.
I've installed the .Net 5 SDK
I've compared it to my server and IIS (different versions of IIS, but configuration seems fine)
Any ideas?
I will assume that you have LB environment. SO most probably you getting the LB IP.
If this is the case. you should configure the LB to allow HTTP header transfer to the internal requests. Especially if you use internal HTTP direction across the DMZ.
mainly you can rely on "x-forwarded-for" and the proxy server (LB) will fill that in and pass it to your internal servers.
After talking to my client, apparently he knew that the server is in fact behind NAT (asked him about that before and he denied it🤷♂️)
I've created literally dozens and dozens of web servers in my day, but this is my first attempt with Windows Azure and I'm running into some problems. I just started migrating from AWS recently.
First of all, I'm running Ubuntu 13.04. Firewall disabled (for debugging), Apache2 installed correctly (using apt). SSH works fine as do many other services with both the DNS hostname and public IP. Virtual host is set up correctly and validated. However, I cannot access the HTTP website either through the Azure provided subdomain or the virtual IP. It just times out.
This is also my first time using Ubuntu 13.04 as well. So, through the powers of deduction, I'm assuming there is something I'm missing either with this new version of Ubuntu or some quirk in Azure. Does anyone have any suggestions?
SOLUTION
These steps to create "endpoint" works fine for all VPS:
open "virtual machine > endpoint > add endpoint"
choose "next"
set "name:http, protocol:tcp, public port:80, private port:80"
choose "complete"
and then must wait for activation and then for some time.
If you are using Azure Resource Groups along with your VMs (which is available on the new portal) you cannot use endpoints because it's not available there, so you should follow the following to open up the HTTP port or ANY other port:
1- Select the VM that you want to manage ports on.
2- In settings, click on Network Interfaces and select your network.
3- Go to Network Security Group and select your group.
4- Add Inbound or Outbound security rules depending on what you need.
Strange error with an Project using dojo:
if i call : http://localhost/project everything works like expected.
if i call : http://127.0.0.1/project everything works like expected.
if i call : http://192.168.2.1/project i get the following error (ONLY in IE6!):
"Bundle not found, locale.."
Any ideas?
Iam running Zend Server CE with PHP 5.2
if i add: 192.168.2.1 to "hosts" it works (windows)
Sounds like Zend server is performing some kind of virtual site support using the site name as a partial domain.
I can't say 100% if/how it is beacuse I don't use Zend, but I can explain the principle using Apache as an Example.
There are 3 ways in which a web site can be virtually hosted under a single web server application, this applies to most servers on the market today, Apache, IIS, nginx and many others.
It all boils down to one thing, giving one running server application instance the ability to host multiple individual websites.
The 3 methods of seperating sites are as follows:
By IP address : If you have multiple IP addresses (Usually -but not always beacuse you have multiple network interface cards) then you can tell your server application to listen to one IP for one site, another IP for another site and so on. If you browse to one IP you'll get one site, and likewise the other on the other IP.
By Port Number : If your using only one IP address, then you can bind to multiple port numbers, port 80 is generally the default for web servers, but by browsing to an address and pinning the port number on the end (http://mysite.com:99) you'll force the browser to use that port. You can then have multiple websites listening on different ports and select them manually at browse time as required.
By Host Name Header: This is by far the most common way of supporting multiple sites, all web servers that understand the HTTP/1.1 protocol have to obey a header field in the request that contains the host name, when a request comes in for EG: http://mysite,com/ then there will be an entry in the request header that looks like 'Host: mysite.com' the webserver can then use that to say, oh yes.. I know which one that is.. and it then selects and serves the correct website.
The problems start to arise however when you start to use IP addresses that generally cannot be resolved or have no DNS name, because the web server then doesn't know which hostname to tag it to.
As an example in Apache, if you set up a virtual host, then try to browse that server using just the IP address, you'll get the default server, which in many cases won't even be configured to respond correctly or display anything.
To compound this, going up to web application layer, many frameworks also do their own checks on hostnames and other variables passed to them by the web server, and many make decisions on how to operate based on this information.
If you've gotten to the default web application by IP address, then there's a high chance that the framework may get confused at being presented with an IP address as a host name.
As the OP noted, in many cases, you can add a name to your hosts file and use this as a poor man's DNS substitute, the file to modify can be found in the following locations:
c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\ - on windows
and
/etc/
on Linux/Unix
The file is generally just called 'hosts' and is a plain text file. Adding a line like:
123.456.789.123 myserver
Will tie http://myserver/ to http://123.456.789.123/
If you can, and your doing a lot of web applications it may be worth setting up your own DNS server, most Linux distros will allow you to install 'Bind' and I do also believe there is a version available for windows too.
I'm not going to go into the pro's and cons of private DNS servers here, it's a whole other subject in itself, but if your likely to be doing a lot of additions to your hosts, then in the long run you'll find it a better option.
I have a half-dozen domains (with associated domain names), hosted locally on Windows/Apache and accessible to the wider internet. At the moment, the name servers are provided by my domain name register at extra cost. I would like to host a domain name service (on the same machine as is hosting the websites).
I have tried BIND without success, I was unable to configure it correctly. I was confused about zones and the syntax of configuration, as well as how to test if it is configured correctly!
Most guides seem directed at users who wish to replicate DNS entries for local caching, whereas I simply want to host a name server (locally) which directs users to my local machine, when they request any of the half-dozen websites I host.
Is there a simple application to host limited Domain Name Service this on Windows (Vista Business), or an obvious tutorial that I haven't found yet? Or was I on the right track with BIND and missing something?
Bind is probably the best choice. The guides you're referring to are talking about configuring a caching resolver. What you want is an authoritative name server. Bind can be a pain to configure because there are so many options, but it's probably worth persevering.
Depends what your budget is..
The DNS Server on Windows 2003 Server is pretty good and easy to configure.
There's a bunch of alternatives list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_DNS_server_software
Simple DNS Plus could maybe do the trick for your case, but I haven't tried it.
Another option is maybe to use Bind and try to find a GUI for it, there's a few existing, usually web based, like webmin and such...
I have a Web application and a WCF service hosted on the same Windows 2003 development server. They each have their own IIS website node responding to drs.displayscreen.web and drs.displayscreen.service host headers respectively. The hosts file contains entries for both headers pointing back to 127.0.0.1. The web site has a service reference to drs.displayscreen.service.
Both applications work perfectly when their application pool uses the 'Network Service' account.
I need to perform some COM processing under the hood on the service so I want to run the applications under a customised identity. Both sites run on a new application pool.
When I change the application pool identity to use a new windows account created for the purpose, I get the following (inner) exception:
[EndpointNotFoundException: Could not connect to http://drs.displayscreen.service/Handler.svc. 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 192.168.98.2:8080. ]
192.168.98.2:8080 is the address of a DNS server that is no longer in use. It is not referenced anywhere in the solution. It is not referenced by ipconfig at all.
I have made sure that the new account is a member of IIS_WPG and I have run aspnet_regiis -ga . I have also given the account explicit permission to read the hosts file.
Why does the application attempt to use the defunct DNS server to resolve the temporary url (drs.displayscreen.service) instead of the hosts file entry? It has to be a permission of some sort because it does not have this problem when running under the network service account. Help!!
Well, it appears that the answer might involve a bug in the .Net framework. I found a blog posting that clued me in to the fact that the MS .Net implementation of SocketCache.GetSocket might cache invalid sockets and another one that suggests a workaround/hack in the form of an explicit don't-use-proxies configuration setting.
We don't actually use a proxy server in the environment where this problem cropped up but it appears that SocketCache.GetSocket is overridden or behaves differently when the don't-use-proxies setting is in place. Strangely, removing the setting causes the problem to come back so obviously the SocketCache is not repaired when a valid ip/hostname is discovered and successfully used. According to the author of the first post mentioned above, the bug does not exist in Mono. :)