Forum Discussion
NimbostratusHTTP Explicit Proxy and http requests
Dear all,
we have used this iApp (https://devcentral.f5.com/codeshare/apm-explicit-proxy)
to install an explicit proxy under 11.5.1 HF7 where the client's browser is pointing
to this one. In the next step we have built a VS listening to the tunnel that the explicit
proxy has established. By applying an iRule or an APM profile for this VS we are
able to control the client's web access ie only selected hosts/uri are allowed to visit.
As long as we are calling sites with httpS://..... irule/APM profile are triggered
BUT using HTTP://.... no profile of the VS is triggered, although we disabled the VS
HTTP web access is granted. Very, very strange.
Why?
Many thanks for any explanation!
Rainer
Ah, so the difference here is in how explicit proxy handles http vs. https. Https traffic is in fact sent into the tunnel to be picked up by a wildcard virtual server as you discovered, however http traffic is sent directly to the end web server requested using routing specified under network->routes. As far as forcing non-encrypted http traffic to hit that virtual server requires some irule manipulation to accomplish that. A simpler strategy then trying to "virtual" the connection over to wildcard vs is in the HTTP_PROXY_REQUEST method on the explicit proxy VS you could run some of that same logic and block connections based on uri and/or ip right there.
5 Replies
Ah, so the difference here is in how explicit proxy handles http vs. https. Https traffic is in fact sent into the tunnel to be picked up by a wildcard virtual server as you discovered, however http traffic is sent directly to the end web server requested using routing specified under network->routes. As far as forcing non-encrypted http traffic to hit that virtual server requires some irule manipulation to accomplish that. A simpler strategy then trying to "virtual" the connection over to wildcard vs is in the HTTP_PROXY_REQUEST method on the explicit proxy VS you could run some of that same logic and block connections based on uri and/or ip right there.
Sample iRule Basic Logic
when CLIENT_ACCEPTED { block by IP } ; CLIENT_ACCEPTED when HTTP_PROXY_REQUEST { if {[HTTP::method] eq "CONNECT"} { HTTP Profile will forward via tunnel to transparent proxy return } otherwise you know it is non-tls and as such could use HTTP:: commands to parse request and decide on allow/disallow. } ; HTTP_PROXY_REQUEST
xunil321_122934James,
things become clearer and clearer. Many thanks, but WHY does the proxy
handles the http/ https traffic in a different way? Any idea behind this?This was the way the explicit proxy was designed, I cannot go into specifics as I am not aware of complete reasoning but because of the way TLS vs. non-TLS is handled using the CONNECT verb from the client side it was determined for various reasons at the time that any manipulation by HTTP traffic could be handled on the explicit VS directly as I mentioned above and then passed using routing to the end web server directly as opposed to going through another layered VS as is done for HTTPS to improve performance, etc... There is discussions about improving the options in the explicit proxy profile to potentially allow more options to this behavior in the future but as of now this is how it is designed. To allow for adding of disallowed ipuri's in a single place each of the irules (explicit+wildcard VS) could make calls to a datagroup(s) that would compare current connection ip/uri to disallowed ip/uri's in the datagroup(s) so that as an admin you would just need to update the datagroup(s) and both irules on different VS's would block those new ip/uri's dynamically based on that. Hopefully this helps!
