Chameth.com - posts like docker-automatic-nginx-proxy, why-you-should-be-using-https but not debugging-beyond-the-debugger, g15-ram-upgrade, intro-to-containers, tailscale-docker-gotcha

Docker reverse proxying, redux

2022-12-06T00:00:00Z

Six years ago, I described my system for configuring a reverse proxy for docker containers. It involved six containers including a key-value store and a webserver. Nothing in that system has persisted to this day. Don’t get me wrong – it worked – but there were a lot of rough edges and areas for improvement.

Microservices and their limitations

My goal was to follow the UNIX philosophy of “do one thing and do it well”. Unfortunately, that doesn’t really work when applied to network services that have to interact with one and other. UNIX tools are built upon a common file system and simple data passed over STDIN. Microservices don’t have that shared foundation. You could make one: companies that use microservices in anger often have a team that deals with the “developer experience” of creating and using microservices. But as a solo developer that’s not something I wanted to spend my time doing.

This became very apparent when trying to debug issues. In the UNIX world, if your series of commands piped together does something strange you can simply echo the data at various stages. Not so much when that data is flying around on a network, going into and out of things like etcd. Trying to figure out why a certificate hadn’t been acquired was a case of searching through logs from four containers, none of which had particularly good logging. There are many ways to get insight into what’s happening with microservices but, again, that’s not something I wanted to do myself.

Over time, and with experience in other projects, I came to realise that microservices only really make sense if you’re unable to deploy a monolith. For tech companies this naturally happens when different teams contribute to the same service: splitting it out into smaller services that are wholly owned by individual teams makes sense. For solo developers, that never happens. You can still gain the other benefits of microservices – such as code separation and having clearly defined APIs – by sticking to certain coding standards.

Proxy inconveniences

As well as being unhappy with the microservice nature of the solution, I wasn’t pleased with nginx. If you requested an unknown domain, nginx would use the first server block in its config to serve a response, instead of sending an “unrecognised name” alert as I wanted. It was a minor issue, but it irked me.

So from nginx I switched to haproxy. It has a strict-sni option when configuring TLS connections which makes it behave properly. It also performs a lot better for this type of workload than nginx. All was well for a while, but then I started getting alerts that requests were occasionally failing. I couldn’t reproduce the issue, but my nightly jobs to build and push containers managed to hit it nearly every night, causing them to fail.

After some investigation, I found that the haproxy developers had refactored the header parsing code, and neglected to properly reset flags when multiple requests were sent over the same connection. There was a patch, but it wasn’t released. No problem, I thought, I’ll just cherry-pick it onto the last release… Except that haproxy use Git in the most convoluted manner I’ve ever seen – they have one repository per release. This makes it harder to patch, but it also made me question whether I trusted them to ship stable software: there were no tests for the header parsing code (which is both fundamental and finicky, the perfect target for tests), the source code management was weird, and they didn’t seem in any rush to patch this bug.

Not long after that issue, Greg managed to encounter another bug where haproxy returned a 500 error whenever the upstream server replied with a particular, perfectly valid, header. The die was cast – it was time to move to something else.

Not Invented Here syndrome

Looking for a new solution, there were many more options than back in 2016. I’m still convinced, however, that anything exposed to the Internet should not have access to run docker containers. It’s the modern equivalent of running a CGI script as root. That single requirement eliminates most off-the-shelf solutions. What do you do when nothing quite meets your specific requirements? You make something yourself! My new solution has two components: Dotege and Centauri.

Dotege is a replacement for the microservices that monitored containers and obtained certificates. It’s fundamentally a templating engine - whenever the containers change, it evaluates a template and saves the result to disk. The template has access to details about the containers, their labels, ports, and so on. Dotege can also obtain certificates from Let’s Encrypt, and raise a signal against another process whenever the template or certificates change. I used this to generate the configuration and certificates used by haproxy for a while, and more recently changed the template so that it works for Centauri.

Centauri is my own reverse proxy. It’s configured using a simple text file and can also obtain certificates from an ACME provider. It doesn’t serve static content, has no knowledge about docker, and avoids the other bells and whistles that adorn most reverse proxies. It also has good test coverage to ensure that I don’t, say, accidentally break header parsing.

As a software engineer I enjoy writing software, but I also enjoy running simple, easy to understand software. That’s what I’ve achieved here: it’s very easy to identify where the problem is if anything goes wrong, both are small Go programs rather than vast sprawling C monstrosities, and their interaction is primarily through a file written to disk that can be inspected or edited as needed.

Why you should be using HTTPS

2016-06-17T00:00:00Z

The EFF’s HTTPS Everywhere logo

One of my favourite hobbyhorses recently has been the use of HTTPS, or lack thereof. HTTPS is the thing that makes the little padlock appear in your browser, and has existed for over 20 years. In the past, that little padlock was the exclusive preserve of banks and other ‘high security’ establishments; over time its use has gradually expanded to most (but not all) websites that handle user information, and the time is now right for it to become ubiquitous.

Why use HTTPS?

There are numerous advantages to using HTTPS, both for the users of a website and for the operator:

Privacy

The most obvious advantage is that HTTPS gives your users additional privacy. An insecure (HTTP) request can potentially be read by anyone on the same network, or the network operators, or anyone who happens to operate a network along the path between the user and the server.

Users on shared WiFi networks (such as those in coffee shops, hotels, or offices) are particularly vulnerable to passive sniffing by anyone else on that network. If the network is open (as is frequently the case) then anyone in radio range can see exactly what the user is up to.

Integrity

HTTPS also helps to maintain the integrity of your site. With a plain HTTP request, there’s nothing to stop anyone in between the server and the user from modifying the content of the request or the response. This is a frequent tactic used by annoying WiFi gateways (such as the ones you’d find in a hotel), dubious ISPs who want to serve you extra adverts, or just plain old nefarious attackers.

If you’re trying to convey some kind of information to users (and if you aren’t, why exactly are you running a website again?) it seems beneficial to both you and them if the information arrives as you intended, rather than in a modified form due to someone or something tampering with it.

Security

If your website has any kind of authentication, or session identifiers, it becomes extremely vulnerable to an attacker monitoring the traffic and stealing the credentials. This was starkly demonstrated in 2010 when Firesheep was released. This tool allowed anyone to quickly and automatically hijack social media accounts of anyone on the same network who was using HTTP to access them.

Even if your login pages are served over HTTPS, if you send a single session ID cookie over HTTP (such as a page you decided wasn’t particularly ‘important’) then an attacker can probably spoof the user’s session and gain full access to their account. Again, in the case of open WiFi networks that could be anyone in radio range.

Search engine rankings

Some search engines use HTTPS as a signal in their ranking algorithms. Google announced in 2004 that it was using the presence of HTTPS as a small positive signal, but that it may strengthen that signal over time as more and more websites switch to using a secure transport. It’s not unthinkable that at some point in the future there will be HTTPS-only search engines.

But… But… But…

There are lots of excuses for not implementing HTTPS. Most of them are either misguided or outdated.

It’s too expensive and/or complicated

In the past, getting HTTPS certificates was a pain. A number of free suppliers have existed for a while but the process for getting their certificates wasn’t particularly straight forward, and many imposed arbitrary restrictions on the certificate parameters. Even once you had the certificate, you had to fiddle about with your HTTP server configuration to make it work, remember to manually get a new certificate when the old one expired, and lots of other annoying busywork.

With the arrival of Let’s Encrypt, all that changed. You can retrieve and deploy a free HTTPS certificate with two or three commands. Renewal can be handled completely automatically with a single command executed by cron.

There’s no point; nothing on my site is sensitive

You might not think your content warrants privacy, but can you speak for everyone who accesses it? Even content that seems mundane to you — such as travel advice, or technical writing — could be used to build up a profile of a user. If an attacker is monitoring traffic in a coffee shop and sees a user looking at travel advice and weather forecasts for a foreign country, he could use that information to plan a burglary knowing that the user will be away. Similarly, some content which is perfectly mundane to you may actually be very sensitive in other countries with repressive governments. HTTPS makes it much harder for these people to snoop on traffic.

From another angle, if you’re offering any kind of information, instructions, or especially file downloads, there’s a severe risk to users if the content is modified on its way to them. An evil sysadmin could rewrite your travel advice to suggest visiting the local drug dealer’s hangout, or replace your download with a malware-infested version.

HTTPS is slower, uses more resources, etc

Back in 1995 this might have been a valid argument. Enabling HTTPS on a modern server will make an almost negligible difference to performance. If you also enable HTTP/2 (which most implementations only support over HTTPS), it’s likely to actually use fewer resources, and result in a faster, smoother experience for your users. HTTP/2 was designed to work with HTTPS, and designed with modern requirements and networking techniques in mind.

CloudFlare have an excellent demonstration of the benefits of HTTP/2, and it can show speed improvements of 2-3x in a typical environment. On top of being faster, HTTP/2 uses fewer connections which results in less resource overhead on both the server and the client.

So what are you waiting for?

If you run a website and aren’t using HTTPS, give it a try.

Automatic reverse proxying with Docker and nginx

2016-05-21T00:00:00Z

The Docker project logo

Over the past few weeks I’ve gradually been migrating services from running in LXC containers to Docker containers. It takes a while to get into the right mindset for Docker - thinking of containers as basically immutable - especially when you’re coming from a background of running things without containers, or in “full” VM-like containers. Once you’ve got your head around that, though, it opens up a lot of opportunities: Docker doesn’t just provide a container platform, it turns software into discrete units with a defined interface.

With all of your software suddenly having a common interface, it becomes trivial to automate a lot of things that would be tedious or complicated otherwise. You don’t need to manage port forwards because the containers just declare their ports, for example. You can also apply labels to the application containers, and then query the labels through Docker’s API.

Reverse proxying and SSL termination with Nginx and Let’s Encrypt

A fairly significant chunk of the software I run has a web interface. I don’t really want to expose and remember dozens of non-standard ports, so I configure an nginx instance as a reverse proxy. I’m of the opinion that all web traffic should be encrypted, so I also have to provide nginx with trusted certificates to use for each site it reverse proxies. Let’s Encrypt makes the process of obtaining free, trusted certificates approximately a thousand times easier than it was previously, but my workflow still ends up looking like this:

Create a new config file from a template and save it in /etc/nginx/sites-available
Temporarily disable SSL for the site as there’s no valid certificate yet
Enable the site by symlinking to it from /etc/nginx/sites-enabled
Reload nginx
Run the Let’s Encrypt client to obtain certificates
Enable SSL and for the site
Reload nginx

… And that’s not including the extra steps when I miss a semi-colon, accidentally skip a step and have to spend time figuring out why it’s not working, or any of the other human-induced problems that creep in.

I’d been toying with making a script to run through these steps manually for me, if I gave it a domain name and a reverse proxy target, but I never got around to it. Now I’m moving things to Docker, though, there’s an opportunity to automate the entire thing with no human interaction at all.

Existing solutions

It seemed like this probably wasn’t a unique idea, so I had a look around for existing solutions. The most popular by far seems to be nginx-proxy by Jason Wilder. This is based on his docker-gen project that takes a template and populates values from docker containers.

It’s a good solution, but there were a few bits I didn’t like. Firstly, templates don’t really lend themselves well to every step of the process: to request Let’s Encrypt certificates, the container uses a template to create a shell script which it then sources. Each container that generates a template also needs access to the Docker socket. Both of those cause an itch in the back of my head and make me want to say phrases like “attack surface”. I don’t think there’s actually a problem, but it doesn’t really sit well with me.

Secondly, the whole system seems slightly too tightly coupled for my liking. The Let’s Encrypt component needs to modify the nginx config in order to obtain the certificate, while the main nginx component is also making different changes to add and remove sites. It feels like if it doesn’t just work, it’s going to be difficult to debug and pry apart the different components.

Another potential solution is Rancher. This is a complete platform for managing containers, and I’m fairly sure if configured right it can grab certificates from Let’s Encrypt and do SSL termination using haproxy. I tried it for a bit but the whole platform seemed a bit overkill for my purposes, and I didn’t want to invest the time I’d need to fully understand it all.

Rolling my own

In the end I decided to roll my own solution. Here’s a high-level overview of how it all works:

Diagram showing components of a reverse proxy implementation

As you probably noticed, there are quite a few containers involved. Each one performs a small, well-defined task, and its output can easily be inspected in either a volume or a database. I think there’s some similarity to piping commands together on a command line — it’s a lot easier to reason about simpler commands like head, cut and tr than it would be one giant command that combined them. And, if it does go wrong, you can inspect the pipe at each stage to see where the problem is happening.

service-reporter and etcd

The first part of the chain is my service-reporter container. This uses the Docker API to get a list of containers, and store information about them in etcd. Etcd is a distributed key-value store (similar in some ways to redis or memcached). The container also watches for containers that are added and removed, and keeps etcd updated appropriately.

As the service metadata is stored in a database, no other part of the system needs to interact with Docker. If the Docker API changes, or the host configuration changes, then only this container has to be updated.

service-letsencrypt and letsencrypt-lexicon

The left fork of the diagram deals with obtaining SSL certificates. To keep it separate from the nginx configuration, it uses DNS-based challenge to prove that we control the domains. It does this by plumbing together two great open source projects: letsencrypt.sh, a Let’s Encrypt client implemented in bash with support for the dns-01 challenge type, and Lexicon, a python library for updating DNS records using a variety of providers.

My service-letsencrypt container connects to etcd and pulls a list of containers that have a label with the key com.chameth.vhost. It uses this to build a plain text list of certificates we require (in a format understood by letsencrypt.sh), and then monitors etcd for changes and repeats as necessary.

The letsencrypt-lexicon container runs letsencrypt.sh, using Lexicon to perform the required DNS updates, and produces certificates. The nice thing about this is that it can be used in a completely standalone fashion (you can just write a domains.txt yourself). It uses iowait to watch the domains text file for updates, and automatically reruns when there are changes. It also runs once a day to renew any certs that are coming up for expiry.

service-nginx and nginx

The right fork of the diagram is concerned with nginx. My service-nginx container again connects to etcd and pulls a list of containers. It uses a couple of labels to determine the vhost, proxy port, and proxy protocol. It then feeds these values into a template to create a server block for each site, configured with SSL certificates and a reverse proxy setup. The template covers only the very minimal settings, with the expectation that everything else will be done in the global config (things such as SSL ciphers, redirection from HTTP, etc).

This container works completely independently of the Let’s Encrypt side. You can use the Let’s Encrypt containers and mount the certificate volume, or you could just provide your own certificates. It doesn’t really make any difference.

Putting it all together

The only downside to having many small containers is that it’s a bit of a nuisance to get them all set up. Fortunately, Docker has a solution for this in the form of Docker compose. This allows you to write a YAML file defining all of the services you want to run, and bring them up or down in one go. It can handle volumes, dependencies, networking, etc. I’ll be publishing a docker-compose.yml file to get this entire stack up and running soon.