I have a docker container which exposes a RESTful API on a specific port (e.g. 4567) on a host machine. According to security requirements, I need to block all requests coming to this port (i.e. 4567) except the one coming from a specific application (say a scheduler like oozie). I'm not very familiar with firewalls, but I'm guessing the first part (blocking on access to the port) can be done in the firewall, but how can I open access to only one application?
Related
I have a little server in my local network that provides several web services. Each service can be accessed by entering the ip of the server followed by the respective port.
Now I always have to remember which service is behind which port and it would be nicer to have specific subdomains forwarded to these ports. For example
ip:1234 -> foo.server.local
ip:4321 -> bar.server.local
How can this be done? I have pihole running on the server and had hoped to get this done using pihole but I was not successful.
What you are looking for is to set up a Domain Name Server (DNS). phoenixnap.com/kb/raspberry-pi-dns-server This guide should help.
You use a domain to direct to an IP:port combo. Like you could direct 123.12.12.12:8080 to some.thing and 123.12.12.12:8081 to any.address.
The domain name is arbitrary and masks the whole IP:port address.
I have a server and I am using Ubuntu 20.04, nginx , mosquitto and node-red and docker , let's call the website http://mywebsite.com. The problem that I am facing that I have created a client lets call it client1 in docker so the URL will be http://mywebsite.com/client1
and I want to establish an MQTT connection via mosquitto and I'm sending the data on topic test
The problem that on node red node of MQTT when I write the IP address of my mosquitto container it works
But if I change the IP address 192.144.0.5 with mywebsite.com/client1 I can't connect to mosquitto and I can't send or receive any form of data
any idea on how to solve this problem
OK, you are going to have several problems here.
You can not do path based proxying with MQTT. If you want to have multiple MQTT brokers (1 per client) bound to a single public facing domain/IP address then they are all going to have to run on separate ports (other than the default 1883).
Nginx can do MQTT protocol proxying (e.g. like this), so you can use this to expose the different ports and forward them to the separate instances of mosquitto, but even if you had a different hostname (all pointing at the same IP address) nginx has no way to know which host name was used because there is no equivalent to the HOST HTTP header to direct it. If you were to use MQTT with TLS then you may be able to get it to work with SNI, but I've never seen anybody do that yet (possible docs for SNI based routing here) It works, explanation about how to do it here.
If you use MQTT over Websockets then you should be able to use hostname based routing.
Path based proxying for Node-RED currently doesn't work properly if you enable admin authentication, because the admin auth tokens are currently stored in browser local storage and only scoped to the hostname, not the hostname + path. This will mean that a client will only ever be able to log into one instance at a time.
You can work round this by using host based proxying, e.g. http://client1.mywebsite.com
A fix for this is on the backlog for Node-RED, probably (no promises) to be looked at after version 1.2.0 ships
I'm using docker in swarm mode for the services in my application and traefik to handle, well, the traffic. My goal is to make a separate service for each API section my application has (so for example requests on domain.com/api/foo_api go to the foo_api service and requests on domain.com/api/bar_api go to the bar_api service.
Now all this is pretty straightforward with traefik. However, I'm also using the API services with other internal services not related to the API. They use a websocket connection to the internal docker URL, so currently it's ws://api:api_port/ws. However, if I split up the API part I'd need something like ws://foo_api:foo_api_port/ws which obviously leaves the service only access to the foo_api, not every other one.
So my question is: Can I route this websocket traffic with traefik similiar to how I do it externally, but internally in the docker net?
Traefik is a north-south reverse proxy. Most people historically in traditional infrastructure would use NGINX or Apache to address inbound - good to see you using a more modern tool. What you are describing is an east-west pattern of communication inside your firewall behind traefik (assuming you control all ingress through traefik).
Have you considered using service discovery and registry capabilities with tools like Hashicorp Consul - https://consul.io?
The idea of having service discovery is so that your containers / services inside the swarm can be discovered and made available through the registry and referenced in proximation to each other by name without the pains of manual labor in building and maintaining complicated name-IP-lookups. Most understand this historically in a more persistent model behind DNS SRV which requires external query. Consul can still support that legacy reference integration as well.
This site might help you along: https://attx-project.github.io/Consul-for-Service-Discovery-on-Docker-Swarm.html
They appear to have addressed a similar case to yours. And the work is likely reusable with a few tweaks.
I have a series of microservices that I have been testing. Originally it was using Service Fabric however I have switched to using Consul, Fabio, Nomad which I like better.
In development on my machine things work well however I am running into some issues actually getting Fabio to work in a cluster format.
I have a cluster of 5 nodes each running Consul, Fabio, Nomad.
Each service gets a dynamic port at runtime and successfully registers itself.
On the node which the service is running Fabio correctly forwards traffic.
However if the same fabio url is used on a different node then traffic is forwarded to the correct node/port however that is closed so the connection doesn't work.
For instance if ServiceA running on MachineA on port 1234 then http://MachineA:9999/ServiceA correctly works.
However http://MachineB/ServiceA fails after MachineA tries to initiate a connection to MachineB on port 1234.
A solution would be to add firewall rules, I would imagine, however this requires all the Services to run as Admin which I don't want.
Is there a way to support this through Fabio?
I'm using a dedicated server on aruba with ZyWall firewall. I have two ports listening in the server, using telnet from inside I can connect to both the ports. If I try to telnet from outside I can access only to one of them.
I have not internal firewall, and I don't understand how I can see if the ZyWall is blocking the port access or it is forwarding all connections to that port to another ip.
Have you any suggestion?
I found the solution. I accessed the firewall web interface from a firefox installed in the dedicated server behind the firewall (the web interface is not accessible from outside), then I made two steps:
I added a rule on which I permit the access to the target port. I made this using the "Service" tab in the Security->Firewall menù.
In the matrix between LAN, WAN, DMZ etc.. I modified the rule "from WAN to LAN" and I added the rule made in the previous step.
Now it works!