Open sleeyax opened 2 years ago
I spent hours trying to debug and understand this issue and I think I finally figured it out! Just had to learn more about the HTTP proxy CONNECT sub-protocol to get a better understanding.
In short, what should happen is basically the following:
However, there's currently an issue in the implementation of this flow. See the code snippets below.
Here, conn, err := hpd.forwardDial(network, hostPort)
actually calls NetDialTLSContext
if it's set. But in this context it is only the first step in the flow, resulting in connection errors because the proxy doesn't understand TLS yet:
https://github.com/gorilla/websocket/blob/78cf1bc733a927f673fd1988a25256b425552a8a/proxy.go#L34-L39
If we change this to a regular net.Dial
, the first and second step in the flow are fixed. But we're not there yet.
We get the established proxy connection here: https://github.com/gorilla/websocket/blob/78cf1bc733a927f673fd1988a25256b425552a8a/client.go#L320
But there's currently no API to convert an existing TCP connection net.Conn
into a TLS connection tls.Conn
. The NetDialTLSContext
method requires you to do the dial again, so that's unusable at this point. Therefore, an API change to add such method is required. For example:
// client.go
type Dialer struct {
// ...
ProxyTLSConnection func(ctx context.Context, proxyConn net.Conn) (net.Conn, error)
}
Now, further down in the code we can establish the TLS connection to the target host through the proxy connection by calling this new method (if it is defined):
// client.go
if u.Scheme == "https" {
if d.ProxyTLSConnection != nil && d.Proxy != nil {
// If we are connected to a proxy, perform the TLS handshake through the existing tunnel
netConn, err = d.ProxyTLSConnection(ctx, netConn)
} else if d.NetDialTLSContext == nil {
// ...
}
}
Now the third and final step in the flow is fixed!
I hope my detailed explanation is clear and helpful to someone. I'll open a PR soon.
What bothers me about this is the fact that in net/http
's Transport
type one can specify a Proxy
field as well as a DialTLSContext
func which is exactly what NetDialTLSContext
in gorilla was supposed to mirror. I therefore suspect that it is possible to fix this without requiring an API change.
Before posting this comment, I went ahead and had a quick peek at the source code. Even the golang source code has some weird behavior if DialTLSContext
and Proxy
are set. Unless I'm misreading this, it turns out that they actually skip the user defined DialTLSContext
if the matched proxy URL has an HTTP scheme seen here. If the target's scheme is HTTPS they will upgrade the connection using their own TLS dial function with the user defined TLSClientConfig
seen here, completely skipping DialTLSContext
. Interestingly, if the proxy scheme is HTTPS, then they will attempt to establish a TLS connection using DialTLSContext
directly against the proxy.
In other words, they "fixed" this issue in their code by completely ignoring it.
Describe the bug I can't connect to a websocket server over a HTTP proxy when I set both
NetDialTLSContext
andProxy
fields on thewebsocket.Dialer
struct. See the code snippet below for more details, it's best explained by code.Versions Go version:
go1.18.1 linux/amd64
. Package version:v1.5.0
.Steps to Reproduce
Expected behavior The websocket dialer should be able to establish a websocket connection over a HTTP proxy while also applying a custom TLS connection without issues.
Code Snippets The following code results in an error like
websocket: bad handshake
orunexpected EOF
(depends on the proxy):When I check the request in burp, it looks like this:
As highlighted in red, the host URL became
http://echo.websocket.events:443/
, which obviously should just behttps://echo.websocket.events/
. I've been trying to debug why this is happening exactly all day but can't seem to find the culprit so I need help.If I remove
NetDialTLSContext
and just specifyTLSClientConfig
everything works as expected. Same result with theProxy
field removed. The issue only occurs when both of these fields are set.Am I missing something obvious?