I've setup an vsftpd on my Ubuntu 16.04 using this tutorial.
I can connect to server using FileZilla but not through PhpStorm. It issues this error when I try to upload a file to server:
Failed to transfer file 'C:\xampp\htdocs\sherkat\artisan.php': cant open output connection for file "ftps://SERVER-IP/artisan.php". Reason: "500 Illegal PORT command.".
What's wrong with my config?
The FTP protocol supports two modes for the data connection. In the traditional mode, called "active" (which is the default), on each command sent by the client the server creates a connection back to the client and uses it to send the response. This is impossible on the most setups nowadays (actually, in the past 20+ years) because of firewalls.
There is another mode, called "passive", where the data connection for the response is also initiated by the client. It works through firewalls without problems.
Press the "Advanced options..." button, check the "Passive mode" option and you're good to go!
As a side note, a better way is to use the SFTP protocol. If you can connect through SSH to your Ubuntu box, most probably you can also use SFTP to transfer files to it, without any other setup. FTP is an old and convoluted protocol. SFTP uses a secure connection (maybe it's not that important for you), and a simpler protocol.
Related
I have this project for my classes i'm currently workin' on. here it is:
WebPage client for Telnet not on standard ports, with ability to choose a port and connect
I have machines with telnet servers on them, just waiting for connection.
So my idea was to set up a nodeJS with express server on a dedicated machine. This would handle connections through telnet and host a page for clients, that would use socket.io to exchange information with server side.
But as i'm new to such technologies (telecommunications student) i wonder if it is possible. I spotted something like this - jsterm.com by Peter Nitsch, but i see there are some massive gaps in code and the demo does not really work so i don't know if it actually works. Did anyone try this?
My other problem is - when i send information to nodeJS server through websockets, which seems achievable for me, what do i do with this information? Do i just set up another websocket to pass the same data i got from client websocket directly to the telnet port?
Can sockets connect directly to specific port, without any websocket waiting on the other side?
If my idea is wrong, could anyone help me - maybe there exists some nice solution - i was thinking about Anyterm for example but i see that it requires an apache server and runs completely different technologies...
Just to be clear, WebSocket connections are not raw TCP socket connections. They have extra header information in each packet, browser to server data is masked using a running XOR, etc.
In order for the browser to communicate with a normal TCP server (e.g. a telnet server) you will need some sort of bridge service. It just so happens that such a thing already exists. websockify is a server that accepts WebSocket connections and bridges them to a raw TCP server.
In fact, the websockify project already includes a working telnet client as an example application. However, note that one limitation of websockify (for security reasons) is that the client cannot pick an arbitrary server address/port to connect to. The target address(es) must be predefined, either as a single target specified on the command line for websockify, or as multiple targets specified in a configuration file (and selected via a token in the WebSocket connect string).
There are multiple implementations of websockify in different languages (python, C, node, ruby, Clojure) however, only the python version currently supports multiple targets via a configuration file.
Disclaimer: I created websockify.
I have a Kiosk that connects to a local socket server so it can access some hardware. If the kiosk code is stored locally, it can access the socket perfectly.
However, and I know for good reason, if the kiosk code is hosted on a remote server, it can not access the local socket server because of a sandbox violation.
The problem is that all of these kiosks are hosted on AppEngine, so when I am done making changes, it takes hours to render out to a single HTML file, and change all the css/js location links.
Is there anyway possible for the allow the SWF file to access the local socket server when it is hostel remotely?
Also,
The socket server is a Java app that I dont have the source to. I run it locally through the terminal
I've had the same problem.
The thing is that with Flash player 10 security with sockets has become much stricter. Just placing crossdomain.xml on the server won't do anything - you actually have to send the crossdomain policy file to any client who connects.
The simplest solution is provided by Adobe - they've provided a couple of scripts, one perl and one python, which will set up a policy file server. You can find them here:
Setting up a socket policy server
The scenario:
You're behind a proxy server on Windows. You've configured TortoiseHg to use a proxy server; that is you've entered a server name/IP and port number. You are able to connect to the internet using Internet Explorer. But when you try to pull or push and it produces the error message "SSL error: unknown protocol".
(I plan to answer this myself.)
The cause is that Internet Explorer is using an automatic proxy configuration script and TortoiseHg is using a particular proxy server. IE is not using the same proxy server because the automatic script picked a different proxy server.
The solution is to enter the proxy server used by TortoiseHg in IE's connection settings, or figure out which proxy server you're using at the moment and tell TortoiseHg to use that one. You may need to browse an external web site before TortoiseHg can connect.
You can figure out which proxy server you're using by browsing with IE and then running the DOS command:
netstat
and you'll see some connections in the Foreign Address column on port 80 or 8080 (common proxy server ports).
In addition to your excellent tip, I offer one more...
If your company is using an automatic proxy script, then the proxy used for web browsing may not be the one you need for Mercurial. Thus if you try the proxy you find via netstat, and you get "getaddrinfo failed" errors in tortoise, then try this...
Get the proxy script address: IE->config->Internet Options->Connection->LAN ?Settings. Copy the url from the "Address" box.
Browse to that address and save the file to disk.
Open that file in notepad and scroll to the end, it probably ends with something like-- return "PROXY ipaddresshere:port" that's the IP and port you need.
Plug that IP and port into tortoise: right-click the repo, click settings, click proxy, put the ip and port into the Host field. I generally don't need user and password so try without it first.
I have a testapp consisting of an HTML5/WebSocket client and an HTTP/WS server. Both servers are in C#; the HTTP server is my own simple thing and the WS server is also homebrew based on concepts from http://nugget.codeplex.com/. HTTP server is listening on 0.0.0.0:5959 and WS server on 0.0.0.0:5960 (accept connections from any client, but on different ports).
My index.html includes some JavaScript that opens a WebSocket to 'ws://'+document.location.hostname+':5960/' (that is, to the same IP address that the webpage came from, but on port 5960). The WS server sends sample data every 100ms. All in all, it's a pretty straightforward demo.
I'm using Chrome 12.0 on Windows7.
I've found that the HTTP server works from any client, either a browser on my machine pointed to 127.0.0.1:5959 or localhost:5959, AND it works when any machine (mine or a remote machine... "remote" being a different PC on my desk :) hits my server machine's work-internal 10-net address 10.122.0.159:5959. Everything works as expected in HTTP land.
However, the WebSocket only works on 127.0.0.1 and localhost; remote machines can successfully fetch HTML from 10.122.0.159:5959 but the WebSocket will NOT connect to 10.122.0.159:5960. In fact, when I point my local browser to it's own 10-net address (10.122.0.159:5959) I get the same result - HTML loads but WebSocket does not connect.
Any ideas as to why this might be happening?
Does CORS require that the WS be using the same port as the HTTP request originated from? If so, is there a special exception to the rule for 127.0.0.1?
Many thanks,
-Dave
Update
It seems to be caused by a proxy server blocking ws:// requests. Our company employs a proxy server for content filtering and all the usual stuff, and our browsers are configured to use it.Chrome uses IE's proxy settings, and IE's default settings are for localhost to not use a proxy server. When I check the box to have local connections also use the proxy server, my ws:// requests to localhost get blocked. Conversely, when I uncheck the "use proxy server" box my server does rx the WS request. Similarly with the remote machine, if I turn off the proxy on the remote machine my server does rx the ws:// request.
So it's a proxy thing, not a CORS or socket thing, and now I'm off to explore proxy settings with our IT folks.
There is no WebSocket limitation on cross-origin except what is governed by the CORS security in the handshake.
It sounds like something is wrong with your WebSocket server and it is only listening on localhost for connections. I would add some debug output to the OnClientConnect routine in Nugget (WebSocketServer.cs) so you can see when socket connections happen. If you really think it isn't a problem with the server then I would suggest using wireshark and comparing the localhost connection to the remote connection.
Also, if you are using the SilverLight WebSocket prototype (README) in IE 9, then you are restricted to ports 4502-4534 for WebSocket connections. It's possible that for localhost this restriction is lifted.
It is/was indeed a proxy thing.
Rather than asking our IT folks to make changes (good luck with that, eh?) I simply turned off proxy for 10.122.0.159 ([Howto for IE/Chrome][1]). I briefly experimented with turning it off for the ws:// protocol but couldn't get it to work, so for now just opening that one IP address does the trick.
Since our shared hosting server doesn't allow us to setup Tomcat I decided to install it on our local machine. The local Tomcat server allows us to listen to a certain port for Bancnet transactions which will then be processed and written to the remote site.
Question:
Is it safe for me to set the local PHP application to connect directly to the remote mySQL server? Any suggestions on how to make the connection secure. BTW, I have a self-signed certificate installed in the localhost but not sure how this applies to remote mySQL connection.
You could create a ssh tunnel between MySQL server and client. For more resiliency, use autossh.
If you don't connect over SSL or some other encrypted tunnel, I would absolutely assume that anything you send or receive from MySQL is done so in clear text that can be intercepted and used for malicious purposes from any link along the way. This might be fine for testing purposes with dummy data, but before you put this in production use or pull down live user data for testing, you really should either make arrangements for the data to be stored local to the web app or for there to be an encrypted connection.
Giving you a full overview of how to set up SSL connections to MySQL is beyond the scope of Stack Overflow and it's a bit complicated, but if you want to proceed, check out the documentation and do some research, there are some good informational resources out there.
I'm a bit confused as to the architecture you are trying to describe. What's running where?
If you can't install Tomcat then you probably won't be able to install anything like VPN software on the box.
MySQL can encrypt using SSL provided it has been enabled at compile time and at run time.
Alternatively, it should be fairly trivial to build a webservices tier on top of the remote database.
I would recommend switching to a VPS or managed host though.