- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:37:30 +1100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Oh, and of the 3589 attempts to get a Server header, fully 1099 got some sort of HTTP (or lower layer) error; haven't dug into that yet, though. I did, however, see some SMTP servers listening on port 80 in earlier testing... Cheers, On 21/02/2013, at 6:35 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > On 21/02/2013, at 6:29 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 06:21:02PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> >>> On 21/02/2013, at 6:06 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >>> >>>> That's a great test, thanks for reporting this ! >>>> I think that some experiments may be pursued using : >>>> - valid, known methods and versions (eg: POST * HTTP/1.1) >>>> - Connection header >>>> >>>> I suspect that POST will be blocked on a large number of minimal web >>>> servers (the least compliant ones), add to that "*" which will most >>>> often not be accepted, and HTTP/1.1 without a Host header field might >>>> help getting a quick fail. At this point, I don't know if a Connection >>>> header could help or not (typically Upgrade). >>> >>> Hm. POST has a body, so some might try to buffer it, hanging. Anyway, that's a theory; let's look at the numbers: >>> >>> POST * HTTP/1.1\r\n\r\n >>> 27607 CLOSE >>> 232 CONN_ERR >>> 7309 TIMEOUT >>> >>> Yep, not as good. >> >> Indeedr, thanks! >> >> Do you know if the ones which timeout in your tests respond to >> anything ? And if so, maybe we'll find some patterns (eg: just >> a few very specific implementations) that are worth studying ? >> >> It's also possible that those are blocked by IDS/IPS in front >> of them simply dropping packets, at which point trying completely >> valid requests might help. > > > Here's the top 50 Server strings from the 3589 TIMEOUTs from the best one so far (the tail is *long*): > > 587 Microsoft-IIS/6.0 > 386 Apache > 379 - > 280 Microsoft-IIS/7.5 > 56 Microsoft-HTTPAPI/2.0 > 49 Microsoft-IIS/7.0 > 46 Apache-Coyote/1.1 > 44 Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat) > 37 Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) > 26 IBM_HTTP_Server > 19 Microsoft-IIS/5.0 > 18 nginx > 17 BigIP > 16 Apache/2.2.16 (Debian) > 15 Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) > 12 Sun-ONE-Web-Server/6.1 > 12 Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) > 10 Mbedthis-Appweb/2.4.2 > 10 LiteSpeed > 9 Lotus-Domino > 8 Netscape-Enterprise/6.0 > 8 Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) > 8 Apache/1.3.31 > 7 FlashCom/3.5.7 > 7 Apache/2 > 7 > 6 squid/3.0.STABLE20 > 6 Servidor-Web > 6 Oracle-iPlanet-Web-Server/7.0 > 6 nginx/0.7.67 > 6 Microsoft-IIS/6.0, 2 > 6 Apache/2.2.22 (Ubuntu) > 5 Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 > 5 FileMakerPro/6.0v4 WebCompanion/6.0v3 > 5 FileMakerPro/6.0v4 WebCompanion/6.0v1 > 5 Apache/2.2.3 (Linux/SUSE) > 5 Apache/2.2.15 (CentOS) > 5 Apache/2.2.10 (Linux/SUSE) > 4 Zeus/4.3 > 4 nginx/1.2.4 > 4 Apache/2.2.22 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.22 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 Resin/3.1.6 > 4 Apache/2.2.0 (Fedora) > 3 Zope/(Zope 2.10.13-final, python 2.4.6, linux2) ZServer/1.1 Plone/3.3.6 > 3 none > 3 Apache/2.4.3 (Unix) > 3 Apache/2.2.3 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.19 mod_ssl/2.2.3 OpenSSL/0.9.8d > 3 Apache/2.2.21 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.21 OpenSSL/0.9.8a DAV/2 PHP/5.3.2 > 3 Apache/2.2.20 (Ubuntu) > 3 Apache/2.2.17 (Fedora) > 3 Apache/2.2.12 (Linux/SUSE) > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 07:37:57 UTC