-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 33
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
nginx: forward HTTPS requests to UNIX sockets #126
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks ok to me.
server { | ||
listen 443; | ||
proxy_protocol on; | ||
proxy_pass unix:/var/run/nginx/$ssl_preread_server_name.https.sock; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is preventing a user from making this socket without "ownership" of the domain? Why should we use this instead of a socket in $HOME? Why would we use /var/run instead of /run?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/run works, I didn't know /run is a common place to hold those files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well technology, he cannot.
You can only listening a socket by creating it, meaning if the socket file presents, you cannot listen it without removing it. So users won't be able to hijack a socket in most cases.
By putting every domain under same folder, we don't need to regenerate and reload ngnix. This also solves the issue that multiple users trying to bind to same domain name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The weakness seems to be that they can claim any unclaimed hostname, so they could grab something like admin.hashbang.sh if it wasn't bound already. They could create listeners for whole blocks of hostnames and eat up the namespace.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, but I guess you shouldn't use shell server for that purpose if you want a really stable bind. This is the same limitation that current ad-hoc port based http server has. Anyone can grab a port and take it forever.
So I don't think it's a big disadvantage compared to any other approaches, unless we introduce a humans to approve each domain before take the bind.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Someone more clever than me might find a way to bind it to their username?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ping?
#105