Search Results

Search found 5875 results on 235 pages for 'https'.

Page 12/235 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Allow connections to only a specific URL via HTTPS with iptables, -m recent (potentially) and -m string (definitely)

    - by The Consumer
    Hello, Let's say that, for example, I want to allow connections only to subdomain.mydomain.com; I have it partially working, but it sometimes gets in a freaky loop with the client key exchange once the Client Hello is allowed. Ah, to make it even more annoying, it's a self-signed certificate, and the page requires authentication, and HTTPS is listening on a non-standard port... So the TCP/SSL Handshake experience will differ greatly for many users. Is -m recent the right route? Is there a more graceful method to allow the complete TCP stream once the string is seen? Here's what I have so far: #iptables -N SSL #iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -j SSL #iptables -A SSL -m recent --set -p tcp --syn --dport 400 #iptables -A SSL -m recent --update -p tcp --tcp-flags PSH,SYN,ACK SYN,ACK --sport 400 #iptables -A SSL -m recent --update -p tcp --tcp-flags PSH,SYN,ACK ACK --dport 400 #iptables -A SSL -m recent --remove -p tcp --tcp-flags PSH,ACK PSH,ACK --dport 400 -m string --algo kmp --string "subdomain.mydomain.com" -j ACCEPT Yes, I have tried to get around this with nginx tweaks, but I can't get nginx to return a 444 or abrupt disconnect before the client hello, if you can think of a way to achieve this instead, I'm all ears, err, eyes. (As suggested by a user, bringing this inquiry over from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4628157/allow-connections-to-only-a-specific-url-via-https-with-iptables-m-recent-pote)

    Read the article

  • apache front-end rewriting URL to different https ports?

    - by khedron
    Hi all, One of my users is having some trouble with forwarding to an internal web app from a public address. Everything worked fine for him when the situation was like this: front page: http://www.myexample.com/ public ref to internal app: http://www.example.com/app-8903/app.html secretly goes to: http://secret.example.com:8903/app-8903/app.html This is to say, my user is providing the very last URL, with the port information duplicated in the URL base, and they were using that to give a public face that hid both the port and the internal machine name. You could still read the port in the URL base if you looked, but the obvious reference and machine name were hidden. Doing it this way, he could have several different instances of the application running on secret.example.com with different ports, and on the front end it just looked like it was changing the URL directory/base. Now the user wants to do the same thing over https:, and the people helping him with apache config say it can't be done. Is that so? Without being there to tinker with the configuration myself, I'm not sure what his IT people have tried, but reading through the apache2 SSL FAQ and other docs, it seems like it should be possible to rewrite URLs to different ports and still use https:.

    Read the article

  • Serving WordPress menu links in only HTTPS or HTTP depending on how it's accessed

    - by Gelatin
    I have a WordPress site which uses WordPress HTTPS to enable SSL when users access it via that protocol. However, currently the menu links point back to the HTTP version. I want users to be linked to HTTPS pages while accessing the site over HTTPS, but not when accessing it over HTTP. Is this possible? Note: I have tried changing the menu options to use // and / for the links, but in both cases they are just rendered as HTTP links.

    Read the article

  • Why I am getting "Problem loading the page" after enabling HTTPS for Apache on Windows 7?

    - by Anish
    I enabled HTTPS on the Apache server (2.2.15) Windows 7 Enterprise by uncommenting: Include /private/etc/apache2/extra/httpd-ssl.conf in C:\Program Files (x86)\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\conf\httpd.conf and modifying C:\Program Files (x86)\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\conf\httpd-ssl.conf to include: DocumentRoot "C:/Program Files (x86)/Apache Software Foundation/Apache2.2/htdocs" ServerName myserver.com:443 ServerAdmin [email protected] ... SSLCertificateFile "SSLCertificateFile "C:/Program Files (x86)/Apache Software Foundation/Apache2.2/conf/cert.pem SSLCertificateKeyFile "SSLCertificateFile "C:/Program Files (x86)/Apache Software Foundation/Apache2.2/conf/key.pem" Then I restart apache (going to start-All Progranms-Apache Server 2.2-Control-restart) and go to localhost on port 443 in Firefox , where I get: <<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> <html> <head> <title>Index of /</title> </head> <body> <h1>Index of /</h1> <ul><li><a href="MyPageLinks/"> Links/</a></li> ..... .... </ul> </body></html> But on Display of WebPage I see: Unable to connect Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at localhost. *The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments. *If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network onnection. *If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web. I read: Why am I getting 403 Forbidden after enabling HTTPS for Apache on Mac OS X? and added default web server configuration block to match my DocumentRoot The error Log C:\Program Files (x86)\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\logs\error.log gives following error: The Apache2.2 service is running. (OS 5)Access is denied. : Init: Can't open server certificate file C:/Program Files (x86)/Apache Software Foundation/Apache2.2/conf/cert.pem I checked the permissions for cert.pem and it indicates: All the permissions (Full control, Read, Read and modify, execute, Write) are marked for Admin and I am currently logged in as Admin. I tried using oldcert.pem and oldkey.pem on the same server and it works fine. Is there anything that I missed?

    Read the article

  • Is there a security concern exposing NTLM authentication over http or should it only be https?

    - by Shane
    We are setting up a SharePoint 2010 site. Don't worry, this is not a Sharepoint question, just adding it for context. Most of the site will be anonymous, but some users are able to authenticate in and edit content. They use NTLM (users exist in AD). Is there any concern about exposing NTLM login for users that can modify content over the internet via http or should that only be exposed via https?

    Read the article

  • How can I generate a client proxy for a WCF service with an HTTPS endpoint?

    - by ng5000
    Might be the same issue as this previuos question: WCF Proxy but not sure... I have an HTTPS service connfigured to use transport security and, I hope, Windows credentials. The service is only accessed internally (i.e. within the intranet). The configuration is as follows: <configuration> <system.serviceModel> <services> <service name="WCFTest.CalculatorService" behaviorConfiguration="WCFTest.CalculatorBehavior"> <host> <baseAddresses> <add baseAddress = "https://localhost:8000/WCFTest/CalculatorService/" /> </baseAddresses> </host> <endpoint address ="basicHttpEP" binding="basicHttpBinding" contract="WCFTest.ICalculatorService" bindingConfiguration="basicHttpBindingConfig"/> <endpoint address="mex" binding="mexHttpsBinding" contract="IMetadataExchange"/> </service> </services> <bindings> <basicHttpBinding> <binding name="basicHttpBindingConfig"> <security mode="Transport"> <transport clientCredentialType = "Windows"/> </security> </binding> </basicHttpBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="WCFTest.CalculatorBehavior"> <serviceAuthorization impersonateCallerForAllOperations="false" principalPermissionMode="UseWindowsGroups" /> <serviceCredentials > <windowsAuthentication allowAnonymousLogons="false" includeWindowsGroups="true" /> </serviceCredentials> <serviceMetadata httpsGetEnabled="True"/> <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="False" /> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> </configuration> When I run the service I can't see the service in IE. I get a "this page can not be displayed" error. If I try and create a client in VS2008 via the "add service reference" wizard I get this error: There was an error downloading 'https://localhost:8000/WCFTest/CalculatorService/'. There was an error downloading 'https://localhost:8000/WCFTest/CalculatorService/'. The underlying connection was closed: An unexpected error occurred on a send. Authentication failed because the remote party has closed the transport stream. Metadata contains a reference that cannot be resolved: 'https://localhost:8000/WCFTest/CalculatorService/'. An error occurred while making the HTTP request to https://localhost:8000/WCFTest/CalculatorService/. This could be due to the fact that the server certificate is not configured properly with HTTP.SYS in the HTTPS case. This could also be caused by a mismatch of the security binding between the client and the server. The underlying connection was closed: An unexpected error occurred on a send. Authentication failed because the remote party has closed the transport stream. If the service is defined in the current solution, try building the solution and adding the service reference again. I think I'm missing some fundamental basics here. Do I need to set up some certificates? Or should it all just work as it seems to do when I use NetTcpBinding? Thanks

    Read the article

  • .NET - Is it possible to proxy a HTTPS request using HttpListener & HttpWebRequest? (or is it not p

    - by Greg
    Hi, Question - Is it possible to proxy a HTTPS request using HttpListener & HttpWebRequest? (or is it not possbile due to the encryption?) I have got a .NET proxy working by using HttpListener & HttpWebRequest using the approach here. I'm trying to extend this at the moment to listen for HTTPS too (refer this question) however I'm wondering if I'm trying to tackle something that is not possible...That is if this code works by listening for the HTTPS request (using HttpListener) and then copying headers & content across to a new HttpWebRequest, is this flawed as it may not be able to decrypt the request to get the content? But then normal proxy servers obviously can proxy HTTPS, so I guess perhaps it will work because it will just copy across the encrypted content?

    Read the article

  • IE Mixed Content Warining when using https URLs and http:443 URLs?

    - by Campbeln
    I'm getting the good ole' "This page contains both secure and nonsecure items." dialog in IE when connecting to an HTTPS site. No big deal... I've just got something coming in over a non-secure connection so that should be an easy fix, right? So I go into "View Web Page Privacy Policy..." to look to see where I've included an HTTP file, and this is what I see... https://blah/path/to/file.htm https://blah/path/to/file.js http://blah:443/path/to/file.css Um... ok... so... there is an HTTP only URL being requested, but it is going over port 443 ("https://blah/" is shorthand for "http://blah:443/") so... What is the deal with this!? IE 7.0.5730.13 can't possibly be THAT stupid, can it? Is there an IIS setting that needs to be tweaked?

    Read the article

  • Best way in asp.net to force https for an entire site?

    - by theminesgreg
    About 6 months ago I rolled out a site where every request needed to be over https. The only way at the time I could find to ensure that every request to a page was over https was to check it in the page load event. If the request was not over http I would response.redirect("https://mysite.com") Is there a better way -- ideally some setting in the web.config?

    Read the article

  • Apache sends plain-text response when accessing SSL-enabled site without HTTPS

    - by animuson
    I've never encountered something such as this before. I was attempting to simply redirect the page to the HTTPS version if it determined that HTTPS was off, but instead it's displaying an HTML page rather than actually redirecting; and even odder, it's displaying it as text/plain! The VirtualHost Declaration (Sort of): ServerAdmin [email protected] DocumentRoot "/path/to/files" ServerName example.com SSLEngine On SSLCertificateFile /etc/ssh/certify/example.com.crt SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/ssh/certify/example.com.key SSLCertificateChainFile /etc/ssh/certify/sub.class1.server.ca.pem <Directory "/path/to/files/"> AllowOverride All Options +FollowSymLinks DirectoryIndex index.php Order allow,deny Allow from all </Directory> RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off RewriteRule .* https://example.com:6161 [R=301] The Page Output: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>301 Moved Permanently</title> </head><body> <h1>Moved Permanently</h1> <p>The document has moved <a href="https://example.com:6161">here</a>.</p> <hr> <address>Apache/2.2.21 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/1.0.0e DAV/2 Server at example.com Port 443</address> </body></html> I've tried moving the Rewrite stuff up above the SSL stuff hoping it'd do something and nothing happens. If I view the page with via HTTPS, it displays fine like it should. It's obviously detecting that I'm trying to rewrite the path, but it's not acting. The Apache error log does not indicate anything to me that might have gone wrong. When I remove the RewriteRules: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>400 Bad Request</title> </head><body> <h1>Bad Request</h1> <p>Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.<br /> Reason: You're speaking plain HTTP to an SSL-enabled server port.<br /> Instead use the HTTPS scheme to access this URL, please.<br /> <blockquote>Hint: <a href="https://example.com/"><b>https://example.com/</b></a></blockquote></p> <p>Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.</p> <hr> <address>Apache/2.2.21 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/1.0.0e DAV/2 Server at example.com Port 443</address> </body></html> I get the standard "you can't do this because you're not using SSL" response, which is also provided in text/plain rather than being rendered as HTML. This would make sense, it should only work for HTTPS-enabled connections, but I still want to redirect them to the HTTPS connection when it determines that it is not enabled. Thinking I could circumvent the system: I tried adding a ErrorDocument 400 https://example.com:6161 to the config file instead of using RewriteRules, and that just gave me a new message, still no cheese. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>302 Found</title> </head><body> <h1>Found</h1> <p>The document has moved <a href="https://example.com:6161">here</a>.</p> <hr> <address>Apache/2.2.21 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/1.0.0e DAV/2 Server at example.com Port 443</address> </body></html> How can I force Apache to actually redirect rather than displaying a "301" page that shows HTML in plain-text format?

    Read the article

  • How do http proxies determine https traffic with a single port?

    - by badunk
    If a proxy receives the tcp packet, then the destination ip address and port are that of the proxy. In that case, I imagine the only way a proxy can still resolve the intended destination is either through routing the source ip address/port or through the host field in the http header. Is this correct? In both Fiddler and Charles http proxies, I noticed that the tool accepts both http and https connections through a single port that you can specify. What do these tools do to tell the difference between the two types of connections?

    Read the article

  • Is visiting HTTPS websites on a public hotspot secure?

    - by Calmarius
    It's often said that HTTPS SSL/TLS connections are encrypted and said to be secure because the communication between the server and me is encrypted (also provides server authentication) so if someone sniffs my packets, they will need zillions of years to decrypt if using brute force in theory. Let's assume I'm on a public wifi and there is a malicious user on the same wifi who sniffs every packet. Now let's assume I'm trying to access my gmail account using this wifi. My browser does a SSL/TLS handshake with the server and gets the keys to use for encryption and decryption. If that malicious user sniffed all my incoming and outgoing packets. Can he calculate the same keys and read my encrypted traffic too or even send encrypted messages to the server in my name?

    Read the article

  • Can I pass HTTPS traffic from one port to another?

    - by Kit Sunde
    I'm doing a proxy_pass in nginx on port 80 to 8000 on my remote server, and then a port forward from 8000 to 80 from the remote to my localhost. This works great, but I'd also like to do it with https but it seems like nginx needs a valid cert to pass the traffic on. Is there a way for my remote server to simply forward the trafic from port 443 to say 8443 (and then I'll forward remote 8443 to local 443). Then terminate ssl on my development machine instead instead of needing to do it on the remote server? My remote runs ubuntu and my localhost runs osx.

    Read the article

  • All HTTPS, or is it OK to accept HTTP and redirect (secure vs. user friendly)

    - by tharrison
    Our site currently redirects requests sent to http://example.com to https://example.com -- everything beyond this is served over SSL. For now, the redirect is done with an Apache rewrite rule. Our site is dealing with money, however, so security is pretty important. Does allowing HTTP in this way pose any greater security risk than just not opening or listening on port 80? Ideally, it's a little more user-friendly to redirect. (I am aware that SSL is only one of a large set of security considerations, so please make the generous assumption that we have done at least a "very good" job of covering various security bases.)

    Read the article

  • How to redirect http requests to http (nginx)

    - by spuder
    There appear to be many questions and guides out there that instruct how to setup nginx to redirect http requests to https. Many are outdated, or just flat out wrong. server { listen *:80; server_name <%= @fqdn %>; #root /nowhere; #rewrite ^ https://$server_name$request_uri? permanent; #rewrite ^ https://$server_name$request_uri permanent; #return 301 https://$server_name$request_uri; #return 301 http://$server_name$request_uri; #return 301 http://192.168.33.10$request_uri; return 301 http://$host$request_uri; } server { listen *:443 ssl default_server; server_name <%= @fqdn %>; server_tokens off; root <%= @git_home %>/gitlab/public; ssl on; ssl_certificate <%= @gitlab_ssl_cert %>; ssl_certificate_key <%= @gitlab_ssl_key %>; ssl_protocols SSLv3 TLSv1 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2; ssl_ciphers AES:HIGH:!ADH:!MDF; ssl_prefer_server_ciphers on; location / { # serve static files from defined root folder;. # @gitlab is a named location for the upstream fallback, see below try_files $uri $uri/index.html $uri.html @gitlab; } # if a file, which is not found in the root folder is requested, # then the proxy pass the request to the upsteam (gitlab puma) location @gitlab { proxy_read_timeout 300; # https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/694 proxy_connect_timeout 300; # https://github.com/gitlabhq/gitlabhq/issues/694 proxy_redirect off; ect.... I've restarted after every configuration change, and yet I still only get the 'Welcome to nginx' page when visiting http://192.168.33.10. whereas https://192.168.33.10 works perfectly. Why will nginx still not redirect http requests to https? tailf /var/log/nginx/access.log 192.168.33.1 - - [22/Oct/2013:03:41:39 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 304 0 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0" 192.168.33.1 - - [22/Oct/2013:03:44:43 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 133 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0" tailf /var/log/nginx/gitlab_error.lob 2013/10/22 02:29:14 [crit] 27226#0: *1 connect() to unix:/home/git/gitlab/tmp/sockets/gitlab.socket failed (2: No such file or directory) while connecting to upstream, client: 192.168.33.1, server: gitlab.localdomain, request: "GET / HTTP/1.1", upstream: "http://unix:/home/git/gitlab/tmp/sockets/gitlab.socket:/", host: "192.168.33.10" Resources http://wiki.nginx.org/Pitfalls How to make nginx redirect How to force or redirect to SSL in nginx? nginx ssl redirect Nginx & Https Redirection https://www.tinywp.in/301-redirect-wordpress/ How to force or redirect to SSL in nginx?

    Read the article

  • Virtualhost one https site, the rest http

    - by RJP1
    I have a linode server with Apache2 running a handful of sites with virtualhosting. All sites work fine on port 80, but one site has a ssl certificate and also runs okay. My problem is as follows: The non-https sites, if visiting https://domain.com - show the contents of the only secure site... Is there a way of disabling the *:443 match for these non-secure sites? Thanks! EDIT (more information): Here's a typical config in sites-available for a normal insecure http site: <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName www.insecure.com ServerAlias insecure.com ... </VirtualHost> The secure https site is as follows: <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName www.secure.com Redirect permanent / https://secure.com/ </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName secure.com RedirectMatch permanent ^/(.*) https://secure.com/$1 </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:443> SSLEngine on SSLProtocol all SSLCertificateChainFile ... SSLCertificateFile ... SSLCertificateKeyFile ... SSLCACertificateFile ... ServerName secure.com ServerAlias secure.com ... </VirtualHost> So, visiting: http:/insecure.com - works http:/www.insecure.com - works http:/secure.com - redirects to https:/secure.com - works http:/www.secure.com - redirects to https:/secure.com - works https:/insecure.com - shows https:/secure.com - WRONG!

    Read the article

  • Internet Explorer Warning when embedding Youtube on HTTPS site?

    - by pellepim
    Our application is run over HTTPS which rarely presents any problems for us. When it comes to youtube however, the fact that they do not present any content over SSL connections is giving us some head ache when trying to embed clips. Mostly because of Internet Explorers famous little warning message: "Do you want to view only the webpage content that was delivered securely? This page contains content that will not be delivered using a secure HTTPS ... etc" I've tried to solve this in several ways. The most promising one was to use the ProxyPass functionality in Apache to map to YouTube. Like this: ProxyPass: /youtube/ http://www.youtube.com ProxyPassReverse: /youtube/ http://www.youtube.com This gets rid of the annoying warning. However, the youtube SWF fails to start streaming The SWF i manage to load into the browser simply states : "An error occurred, please try again later". Potential solutions are perhaps: Download youtube FLV:s and serve them out of own domain (gah) Use custom FLV-player and stream only FLV:s from youtube over a https proxy? Update 10 March: I've tried to use Googles Youtube API for ActionScript to load a player. It looked promising at first and I was able to load a player through my https:// proxy. However, the SWF that is loaded contains loads of explicit calls to different non-ssl urls to create authentication links for the FLV-stream and for loading different crossdomain policies. It really seems like we're not supposed to access flv-streams directly. This makes it very hard to bypass the Internet Explorer warning, short of ripping out the FLV:s from youtube and serving them out of your own domain. There are solutions out there for downloading youtubes FLV:s. But that is not compliant with the Youtube terms of use and is really not an option for us.

    Read the article

  • How do I trust a self signed cert using https?

    - by dave
    Edit: I originally thought the server's certificate was self signed. Turns out it was signed by a self-signed CA certificate. I'm trying to write a Node.js application that accesses an HTTPS site that's protected using a self-signed certificate certificate signed by a private, self-signed CA certificate. I'd also like to not completely disable certificate checking. I tried putting the self signed certificate server's certificate in the request options, but that doesn't seem to be working. Anyone know how to do this? I expect the following code to print statusCode 200, but instead it prints [Error: SELF_SIGNED_CERT_IN_CHAIN]. I've tried similar code with request with the same results. var https = require('https'); var fs = require('fs'); var opts = { hostname: host, port: 443, path: '/', method: 'GET', ca: fs.readFileSync(serverCertificateFile, 'utf-8') }; var req = https.request(opts, function (res) { console.log('statusCode', res.statusCode); }); req.end(); req.on('error', function (err) { console.error(err); });

    Read the article

  • Avoid Internet Explorer Warning when embedding Youtube on HTTPS site?

    - by pellepim
    On a HTTPS site embedding youtube clips works great in all browser, except Internet Explorer where I get this famous little warning message: "Do you want to view only the webpage content that was delivered securely? This page contains content that will not be delivered using a secure HTTPS ... etc" I've tried to solve this in several ways. The most promising one was to use the ProxyPass functionality in Apache to map to YouTube. Like this: ProxyPass: /youtube/ http://www.youtube.com ProxyPassReverse: /youtube/ http://www.youtube.com This gets rid of the annoying warning. However, the youtube SWF fails to start streaming The SWF i manage to load into the browser simply states : "An error occurred, please try again later". Potential solutions are perhaps: Download youtube FLV:s and serve them out of own domain (gah) Use custom FLV-player and stream only FLV:s from youtube over a https proxy?

    Read the article

  • Should I distinguish OpenIDs based on protocol prefix or not? http vs https

    - by Joannes Vermorel
    I have implemented a straightforward OpenID support for my ASP.NET app with DotNetOpenAuth. Yet I recently realized that the implementation was treating http://johndoe.example.com/ as a distinct user compared to https://johndoe.example.com. This lead to quite a few confused users. I am unsure what to do at this point. Is this a bug or a feature? Indeed, I can consider this behavior as a feature: if the user specifies the HTTPS, the user might not want the system to accept HTTP auth in the first place. On the other hand: if the user specifies HTTPS out of sheer cluelessness (the casual web visitor is clueless concerning the purpose of the "S" part), then rejecting it's authentication attempt is confusing. What is considered as the best practice?

    Read the article

  • Why does 301 redirect work for http but not for https?

    - by Tom G
    Through my domain registrar I have set up a domain, essayme.co.uk, to automatically forward to https://google.com. If I go to http://essayme.co.uk it works as expected and redirects me to https://google.com. $curl -i http://essayme.co.uk HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently Cache-Control: max-age=900 Content-Type: text/html Location: https://google.com Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5 X-AspNet-Version: 4.0.30319 X-Powered-By: ASP.NET Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:14:16 GMT Content-Length: 0 Age: 0 Connection: keep-alive However, if I go to https://essayme.co.uk it just freezes and times out. $curl -i https://essayme.co.uk curl: (7) Failed connect to essayme.co.uk:443; Operation timed out What is happening in the second case? (and, if possible, how can I get the redirect to work for https?) Problem background/clarification: I don't have an SSL certificate for the essayme.co.uk domain above, but I do for my live domain (let's call it mywebsite.com), and I was seeing the exact same problem on this domain (hence why I'm trying to debug the problem). Unfortunately I can't experiment with the live domain (as it's live) and I would like to avoid having to buy a second certificate for essayme.co.uk just for debugging (unless absolutely necessary). The problem I was seeing: my live domain, mywebsite.com (not its real name), has a valid SSL certificate. Visiting https://www.mywebsite.com displayed the webpage as expected. I had set up forwarding (like in the question above) from the naked domain (mywebsite.com) to https://www.mywebsite.com) Visiting http://mywebsite.com redirected to https://www.mywebsite.com as expected. However, visiting https://mywebsite.com would freeze and time out (as in the question above). I also tried forwarding it to http://www.otherwebsite.com as an experiment (i.e. forwarding to another site that does not use SSL), but the result was the same: Visiting http://mywebsite.com redirected to http://www.otherwebsite.com as expected. Visiting https://mywebsite.com would freeze and time out again. So I set up essayme.co.uk as an experiment to try and understand why it doesn't work.

    Read the article

  • Squid+iptables: how do i allow https to pass-through and bypassing Squid?

    - by logansama
    Hello, Basically started with Squid and iptables today (google is your friend). This stuff is going to be the death of me. I have Squid3 setup on Ubuntu 9.04 server as Transparent Proxy. It works sweetly when i use the proxy-box as my default gateway etc. The iptable rules for this setup was part of the tutorial. :P I can unfortunately not access https sites (such as Gmail or anything on port 443 basically). This is because Squid dont like what it cannot cache, which in this case is the https traffic. I would like to add an iptable rule so that i can basically access https sites and use Skype. Basically allow these types of traffic to pass through without going through Squid proxy? (bypassing it so to speak) Would anyone perhaps know how to do this or have a link to any sources that would assist me in figuring it out? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Redirect from https://mydomain.com to http://mydomain.com

    - by Charlie
    Many of my visitors have bookmarked my site already wtih https://mydomain.com. Under the bad advice of a programmer, I put my whole Joomla site under ssl. I do not sell anything or provide any member services. I asked him many times if it would slow my site down - he said it wouldn't. I knew it did, I've researched on this site and realized it does slow the site down because of no cache of the pages. Understood. Please, someone tell me how to get away from it now. I'm not sure how to approach this, should I add something to my htaccess or my main index.php file? I've looked all over the net, there is much advice for adding redirectives for going from http to https, but very few answers regarding the opposite of going from https to http. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • Why do we need REST service security if we have HTTPS

    - by Vangel
    I refer to this excellent article http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/designing-a-secure-rest-api-without-oauth-authentication/ which speaks of amazon like security for web service. However I was asked a question in the team of why do we need it if we already use HTTPS. I was unable to answer as it really seems to me they may be right although gut tells me otherwise. Also is there places when providing REST services where HTTPS may not work? Like 3rd party websites? If anyone has experience in securing Web Services over the public interwebs please shed some light with your experience. Thanks in advance. EDIT: To clarify I am not speaking of user authentication but more of client authentication. The user authentication can be assumed to be plain text over HTTPS+ REST. My worry is that this still allows anyone to use the web service without my client to access it since everything is plai text although over HTTPS the client end point can still use my web service without the client application.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >