Skip to main content

ssl - Serving port 443 over http creates 400 Bad Request Error instead of redirect

itemprop="text">

So for posterity sake, I am trying to
configure my server so that even when someone tries to go to go to http://
domain.com:443, they would be correctly redirected to the https version of the site
(https:// domain.com).



When testing something
like http:// domain.com:443, it does not redirect correctly to https:// domain.com, I
instead get hit with a 400 Bad Request page with the following
content:




Bad
Request




Your browser sent a request
that this server could not understand.
Reason: You're speaking plain HTTP to
an SSL-enabled server port.
Instead use the HTTPS scheme to access this URL,
please.



Apache/2.4.18 (Ubuntu) Server at
sub.domain.com Port
443




I tried
including the following lines in my 000-default.conf in the
*:80>:




RewriteEngine
On
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off
RewriteRule (.*)
https://%{SERVER_NAME}/$1
[R,L]


But it didn't
work.



This issue occurs on all domains,
subdomains and the server IP itself.



Possibly
related, trying to do a dry run of letsencrypt returns the
following:




 Domain:
domain.com
Type: connection
Detail: Failed to connect to
123.123.123.123:443 for TLS-SNI-01

challenge


For each and
every domain listed in the sites-enabled folder.



Answer




TL;TR: you cannot serve both HTTP and HTTPS on the same port
(443).




While it would be in theory
possible to figure out based on the first data from the client if the client is sending
a HTTP request (i.e. GET .. or similar) or is starting a TLS
handshake (\x16\x03...) most web servers don't do this. Instead
they expect the client to behave properly, that is use plain HTTP on one port (usually
80) and HTTPS on another port (usually 443).



Your URL of
http://example.com:443 is causing the browser to make a plain
HTTP request to port 443. But the server is expecting TLS there which means that your
plain HTTP request is unexpected. Apache is at least nice enough to check if the
incoming data for a plain HTTP request in this case so that it can offer you a more
useful description:





Reason: You're speaking plain HTTP to an SSL-enabled server port. Instead use
the HTTPS scheme to access this URL,
please.




If you try
such requests with other servers then they would either close the connection without any
error at all or just hang because they are still hoping to get a TLS handshake from the
client.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able