You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to test-dev@httpd.apache.org by Jacek Prucia <ja...@acn.waw.pl> on 2003/03/13 10:46:44 UTC
flood proxy (was: [STATUS] (flood))
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:45:47 -0500
Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> wrote:
> flood STATUS: -*-text-*-
> Last modified at [$Date: 2002/09/06 10:24:42 $]
[...]
> * Write robust tool (using tethereal perhaps) to take network dumps
> and convert them to flood's XML format.
> Status: Justin volunteers. Aaron had a script somewhere that is
> a start.
Wouldn't it be better, if we use proxy instead of all-purpose network
software? I was thinking about mod_proxy_flood.so with some function attached
to request forwarding and a simple response handler which could allow users
to:
1. enable/disable flood proxy
2. edit gathered urls (only delete for now, later full edit)
3. dump flood file
It would be cool if we could extend mod_proxy, but if this is impossible
(because of some technical issues I'm not aware of) we might do our own thing.
Writting a small, customized proxy in C/APR, Perl, Python, whatever schouldn't
be all that hard.
regards,
Jacek Prucia
Re: flood proxy (was: [STATUS] (flood))
Posted by Jacek Prucia <ja...@acn.waw.pl>.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 06:34:37 -0800
Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
[...]
> > It would be cool if we could extend mod_proxy, but if this is impossible
> > (because of some technical issues I'm not aware of) we might do our own
> > thing. Writting a small, customized proxy in C/APR, Perl, Python, whatever
> > schouldn't be all that hard.
>
> If you use httpd-2.0 as a framework, I think you could get away with
> something like the following: install an input filter that intercepts all
> inbound data
At first I though about extending mod_proxy, but filters seem to be a bit
better choice.
I don't like the idea of swallowing all the data. We could at least allow to
specify some URL regexp like http://www.site.com/(.*), and store only bits
matching such patern.
> and writes the input body to a file in a special format that is
> essentially like flood's URL XML syntax for a urllist.
I was thinking about storing all the data in memory and dumping them on
demand, but this is hard (if possible at all) to achieve, so we might just
stick to file writes. Fine editing of such urllist would be the job of flood's
GUI.
If there are no special reasons against, I would like such module to be
configurable only through custom response handler. I get the feeling that a
bunch of server directives would trigger too much server restarts. But
that's just my opinion.
> If you'd like to pursue this, let me know and I can try to give more
> specifics. -- justin
I've never written anything for 2.0 (only two small, custom modules for 1.3),
so a tip or two from httpd-2.0 guru is very welcome :)
regards,
Jacek Prucia
Re: flood proxy (was: [STATUS] (flood))
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:46 AM +0100 Jacek Prucia
<ja...@acn.waw.pl> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better, if we use proxy instead of all-purpose network
> software? I was thinking about mod_proxy_flood.so with some function attached
> to request forwarding and a simple response handler which could allow users
> to:
Yup.
> It would be cool if we could extend mod_proxy, but if this is impossible
> (because of some technical issues I'm not aware of) we might do our own
> thing. Writting a small, customized proxy in C/APR, Perl, Python, whatever
> schouldn't be all that hard.
If you use httpd-2.0 as a framework, I think you could get away with something
like the following: install an input filter that intercepts all inbound data
and writes the input body to a file in a special format that is essentially
like flood's URL XML syntax for a urllist.
If you'd like to pursue this, let me know and I can try to give more
specifics. -- justin
Re: flood proxy (was: [STATUS] (flood))
Posted by Jacek Prucia <ja...@acn.waw.pl>.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:15:07 -0800
Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 01:46 AM, Jacek Prucia wrote:
[...]
> > Wouldn't it be better, if we use proxy instead of all-purpose network
> > software? I was thinking about mod_proxy_flood.so with some function
> > attached
> > to request forwarding and a simple response handler which could allow
> > users
> > to:
> >
> > 1. enable/disable flood proxy
> > 2. edit gathered urls (only delete for now, later full edit)
> > 3. dump flood file
>
> Not a bad idea. things like tethereal and tcptrace are definitately
> like you say all-purpose, but for just collecting URLs and timestamps,
> that's sounds like a good idea to me.
Great. When we have all technical issues sorted out, I'll replace relevant
entry in STATUS file with this new idea.
regards,
Jacek Prucia
Re: flood proxy (was: [STATUS] (flood))
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 01:46 AM, Jacek Prucia wrote:
>> * Write robust tool (using tethereal perhaps) to take network
>> dumps
>> and convert them to flood's XML format.
>> Status: Justin volunteers. Aaron had a script somewhere that
>> is
>> a start.
>
> Wouldn't it be better, if we use proxy instead of all-purpose network
> software? I was thinking about mod_proxy_flood.so with some function
> attached
> to request forwarding and a simple response handler which could allow
> users
> to:
>
> 1. enable/disable flood proxy
> 2. edit gathered urls (only delete for now, later full edit)
> 3. dump flood file
Not a bad idea. things like tethereal and tcptrace are definitately
like you say all-purpose, but for just collecting URLs and timestamps,
that's sounds like a good idea to me.
-aaron