Comparison of the HOB WebSecureProxy and the Apache Web Server

Posted by hob Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:25:00 GMT

Our CEO, Klaus Brandstätter, explains in detail how the HOB Web Secure Proxy functions and how it differs from the architecture of the Apache Web Server. While the Apache Web Server (httpd) was designed to only manage short-living half-duplex Web transactions, the HOB WebSecureProxy is capable of handling long-living full-duplex VPN connections.

 

1. The Apache Web Server
The Apache Web Server was originally created in 1995. It was based on and derived from the earlier NCSA server, written by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (which also developed the Mosaic browser, predecessor to most of today's browsers, with a direct line to Netscape and Mozilla, and considerable influence over others, including MSIE). The first production server under the Apache name was version 1.0.0, released in December 1995.

The Apache Web Server is developed in the C programming language.

The Apache Web Server (httpd) consists of different modules which are loaded at start-time. These modules are Dlls (Dynamic-link library) or shared objects (.so). Since httpd version 2.0, most of these modules need certain load points defined thru the precompiler macro AP_MODULE_DECLARE_DATA.

The original World-Wide-Web worked as follows:
The client = browser creates a TCP connection to the Web server and sends an HTTP request. In the HTTP request, the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) contains the path and file-name on the disk of the Web server. The Web server just reads the file from disk, makes an HTTP header before the content, and sends all this back to the client = browser. In this form, HTTP is half-duplex, meaning the client sends a request and the server sends the response. The Apache Web server, from the ground up, is made for these short-living half-duplex requests.

The memory management of the Apache Web server has pools for the memory acquired. Components of the Apache Web Server, modules, get memory from one of the pools, but there is no explicit "free" command to get rid of this memory again. Freeing of memory in the Apache Web Server works the way, that at certain points, the memory of a complete pool is freed. The pool which has the shortest live-time is the pool associated with the request, meaning the request lives from the time the server has received the HTTP header from the client till the time the server has completely sent the response to the client. During the live-time of a single request, memory is not freed.

For the Apache Web Server, there are choices for the Multi-Processing-Module (MPM). Unix systems did not have threads for a long time. Only within the last few years have threads become available in Unix systems. So the original Apache Web Server used processes (forked) for processing parallel HTTP requests. For the lifetime of an HTTP request, the same process was used. This was common praxis in Unix, and the Apache MPM prefork works this way. As fork() never existed on Windows, the Apache Web Server used threads in Windows.

Newer Apache MPMs also support threads on Unix.

When the Apache Web Server / HTTP processes long-running Web transactions, for each of the long-running Web Transactions = connections, a process or thread stays in use. This means, that the operating system (Unix / Linux / Windows) needs to handle a large number of processes or threads, giving quite some overhead.

When multiple processes are used by the Apache Web Server (httpd), there needs to be communication between these processes - so-called inter-process-communication (IPC). Shared memory and Mutexes are used. In the older Unix systems, shared memory was always backed-up by a disk-file, so when bytes in the shared memory were changed, there had to be slow access to the disks.

Also the kernel needs to get involved in interprocess communication, and context switches are necessary. This also results in an additional penalty for performance, which would not be needed when a single process would be used.

Overall, using multiple processes for an advanced server means quite some overhead.

For server applications, the memory subsystem is an important design point. Also, copying of the data means high CPU-usage. With Apache httpd 2.0, the concept of filters and bucket brigades were introduced. By using bucket brigades, copying of memory can be avoided in many places.

The complete Apache Web Server (httpd) version 2.4.x, with all the modules distributed by the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), consists of something between 500 and 600 thousand lines of code.

Newer requirements, which implement a Rich Client over the public Internet, require full-duplex communication. For this full-duplex communication, WebSockets were created and implemented. But for the Apache Web Server, all this full-duplex communication does not fit to the concepts of the Apache Web Server, especially not for the memory management and also process and thread handling.

When the Apache Web Server is used with SSL (HTTPS), mostly mod_ssl is used. mod_ssl includes OpenSSL.

HOB has developed mod_hob_ssl for the Apache Web Server. mod_hob_ssl includes the highly secure HOB-SSL. mod_hob_ssl can be used in Linux Apache Web Servers, starting from version 2.0. mod_hob_ssl replaces mod_ssl. mod_hob_ssl is closed-source, not open-source.

 

2. The HOB WebSecureProxy (WSP)
Development of the HOB WebSecureProxy (WSP) started in the year 2000. The first versions of the WSP were used for 3270 (IBM mainframes) and RDP (Microsoft Remote Desktop Protocol for WTS = Windows Terminal Servers).

Before HOB developed the WSP, starting in 1982, HOBCOM, an IBM mainframe application, was developed by HOB. HOBCOM was made for Rich Clients, meaning full-duplex communication over SNA (IBM Systems Network Architecture). HOBCOM was already made to manage terminals and printers, also providing HOBTEXT, word processing on the IBM mainframe. HOBCOM was able to handle hundreds or even thousands of parallel connected devices.

HOB learnt techniques for handling multiple clients from the IBM transaction managers CICS (Customer Information Control System) or IMS (Information Management System). CICS and IMS are still widely in use.

So HOB uses the concept of a transaction manager in HOBCOM and also in the newer WSP (WebSecureProxy). CICS and IMS are also made for half-duplex communication, so HOB changed parts of the concept for full-duplex communication.

The WSP is mostly built around non-blocking APIs. In the WSP, there is a variable number of networking threads. These networking thread handle sockets for listen, TCP-sessions or UDP. One networking thread handles n sockets, for example 60. So, when a client has no associated server over TCP, one networking thread handles around 60 clients when n is 60. When the WSP session with the client also has a TCP connection with a server, one networking thread handles around 30 clients (when n is 60).

APIs in Unix permit these networking threads to handle more sockets, but then these networking threads could become a bottleneck (since a thread can run only on a single CPU core), and for the user, the solution would get less reactive.

When there is a networking event, or any other event in the WSP for a certain WSP session with a client, a work thread (some call it worker) is scheduled and the work thread processes what needs to get done. The work thread is left after the actual instructions, leaving the work thread waiting for other WSP sessions with clients.

As the work threads always use a CPU core, not waiting for blocking APIs, the number of work threads configured for the WSP should relate to the number of CPU cores in the server.

When all work threads are busy, and there is more work to do, the work goes to a certain backlog and is processed as soon as one of the work threads gets free.

Usage of the memory subsystem is an important design point for big applications. In the WSP, there are buffers of a certain fixed size which are used for networking buffers and also intermediate data. These buffers are called work areas. These work areas are acquired from the C library (malloc()), but not freed after usage (which is mostly for a short time only). In the WSP, these work areas are recycled. So, when work areas are needed, the caller mostly gets a recycled work area of fixed size. WSP sessions use these work areas, and when work is done (work processing a single event), a small garbage collector, in the context of a single WSP session, returns work areas which are no longer being used, back for recycling.

The WSP uses lock-free queues, something that can only be programmed in Assembler language.

The WSP uses gathers, similar to the Apache bucket brigade, to avoid frequent copying of data. When gathers are used, input data (or after SSL decryption) may be sent directly to the server without being copied.

The WSP maintains end-to-end flow-control for all types of sessions (TCP or other) thru the WSP.

The WSP always, or mostly, works with SSL connections; SSL on server side and sometimes also SSL on client side. The WSP is not made for a specific protocol like HTTP. But as a base functionality, the WSP knows the protocol going thru the SSL tunnel, like RDP, 3270, HOB-PPP-T1, SSTP or HTTP.

There is the base WSP, and, as the WSP follows the concept of a transaction program manager (TPM), there are different kinds of external components. These external components are Dlls or .so (shared object), loaded when the WSP is started. One type of these external components is called Server-Data-Hook, short SDH. A SDH follows a similar concept as the Apache filter. Another important component is the Authentication Library.

When there is an incoming TCP connection to the WSP, after the SSL handshake, the client sends something so that the used protocol (inside the SSL tunnel) is defined. This protocol may be HTTP, but it also may be any other protocol. With the WSP, when, for example, RDP for Windows Terminal Servers is tunneled thru SSL, there is not any HTTP involved. Inside the SSL there is just plain RDP, meaning no additional overhead.

To find out the protocol, and to determine what the WSP does for a certain client, mostly an extended version of the protocol Socks 5 is used. The client sends the protocol, and there is authentication and selection of the server over the WSM protocol - WebSecureProxy socks mode. No HTTP or HTML is involved.

That the client first sends the protocol is very important, since a client that uses the RDP protocol (for Windows Terminal Servers) cannot connect to an IBM mainframe, which normally uses the protocol telnet 3270.

The basic WSP supports authentication against:

  • configured users
  • Radius
  • LDAP
  • Kerberos

Authentication against SAML is in the pipeline. The Authentication Library or a Server-Data-Hook uses the authentication support built into the basic WSP. The WSP supports multitenancy, meaning the users can be organized in groups, and each group can authenticate differently. Any number of Radius servers, LDAP servers or KDCs (Kerberos Key Distribution Center) can be configured and is supported. The WSP also supports any number of input points (called "connection" in the XML configuration), meaning Internet address and associated TCP ports (normally 80 and 443), each with certificates for SSL. But at this moment, the configuration tool (WSP-GUI) is limited here; the configuration can still be done by manual XML configuration.

On Unix (including Linux), the WSP needs to call APIs which require superuser rights. This includes bind and listen for well-known ports like 80 and 443. For the WSP on Unix, there is a so-call Listen-Gateway. The WSP is connected to the Listen-Gateway over Unix-domain-sockets and sends commands for special APIs which require superuser rights. The communication is encrypted and protected against replay-attacks. The small Listen-Gateway needs to run with superuser rights, and so the WSP itself can run without superuser rights and is more secure.

The HOB RD VPN version 2.1 on Linux, including the WSP and its external components, and also the Java application HOBLink JWT (RDP client), are certified according to Common Criteria EAL 4+. Of special interest in the Common Criteria certification was HOB-SSL including the Random-Generator. So HOB can prove that the WSP and HOB-SSL are really secure.

The WSP has numerous diagnostic and trace facilities, called WSP-trace. The WSP-trace can make finely grained recordings of single events or a single client. The WSP-trace is designed in such a way that it also can be used in production environments.

When the configuration of the WSP is changed, it is not necessary to stop and restart the WSP. The WSP can take over the new configuration on the fly. In this way, sessions which were started before the configuration change continue to use the old configuration. Sessions with the WSP, that are started after the configuration change, use the new configuration parameters.

A single WSP can serve more than 100,000 clients simultaneously, depending on the server it runs on. More than 100,000 simultaneous clients have been successfully tested on a server with 4 sockets for Intel CPUs. Each client produced the load of a typical RDP connection, equivalent to a VPN connection between a client and a gateway.

The WSP has cluster functionality, with load-balancing, to find the WSP with the least load for a client. There is communication over TCP between the cluster members, including the load of the WSP. Any number of WSPs can form a cluster, giving a single image for any number of clients.

The WSP is developed in the C and C++ programming languages with small parts in Assembler language.

HOB RD VPN version 2.1 consists of more than 1.2 million lines of code, including the WebSecureProxy, its external components, and the parts running on the client, mostly programmed in Java or JavaScript.

 

3. Conclusion
The Apache Web Server (httpd) was designed and developed to manage short-living half-duplex Web transactions. The HOB WebSecureProxy was designed and developed for Rich Clients, for long-living full-duplex VPN connections.

 

no comments |

HOB WebSecureProxy Stress Test - 100,000 Concurrent Sessions

Posted by hob Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:47:00 GMT

Recently, HOB succesfully tested the operation of 100,000 concurrent RDP sessions with the highly performant and Common Criteria EAL 4+ certified HOB WebSecureProxy (= WSP). The WSP is part of the highly secure and comprehensive SSL Remote Access Suite HOB RD VPN.

Description Of The Test Arrangement: Test makes use of 3 machines (equal hardware – Power edge R930 – list price: 91.327€ per Server). Operating system on all machines: Linux - Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS 64-bit).

The WSP has 2 network adapters in separate networks. The other 2 machines are connected to the WSP via 10Gbit Ethernet.

WSP Test 100.000 Sessions 1

To setup 100.000 sessions via WSP, test tools xbttcp95 & xbttcp23 were used. xbbttcp95 establishes an SSL connection to WSP and sends test data which are forwarded to the test server xbttcp23. The amount of data sent in every connection are typical for an RDP connection. Each instance of xbttc95/23 made 500 connections (so 200 instances of each tool are started). For load-balancing reasons, 100 instances of both tools are started on both machines called „Server/Client“.

WSP Test 100.000 Sessions 2

After all 100.000 sessions are running, network thruput is measeured on WSP machine using nload is meassured. Additional „real“ RDP connection is set up using JWT 3.3 to a Windows 2012R2 terminal server to get an subjective impression of performance.

Test Results
100.000 were setup successfully and running for several hours. Network thruput was 3.3 Gbit/s. Using real RDP connection it was possible to login and work on terminal server in an acceptable manner.

Additional Notes
Cipher suite used in test AES256_SHA256. There was no significant difference of the thruput when AES-NI was enabled or disabled.

no comments |

Our experience working with SSL VPNs and the integration of HOBLink JWT

Posted by Chipper Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:35:00 GMT

As written in the previous entry, SSL VPN solutions have not entirely replaced IPSec VPN solutions. But they sure are trying hard to.

Where IPSec VPNs would open the entire network at once, SSL VPNs have slowly but surely undertaken the task of moduling the possibilities. Should a user only have access to an internal Web server, the administrator can limit him to just that. Should he only have access to a specific Terminal Server, or his office PC, he can also limit him to just that. But it also means that the SSL VPN must have the correct tools to make the connection to these allowed targets.

Imagine a restricted building where a card can either open all doors or be entirely rejected, that's your IPSec gateway. Imagine now an improved system where you can code each card to open certain doors, great! But what good is this if there is no elevator, or hallway to go the doors you have clearance to?

 

Where the IPSec solutions mostly rely on the software installed on the client computer for access (use your own feet, a climbing rope, or a flying jetpack if you can – clearance is there, you provide the connection), SSL VPN appliances want to provide this software itself. The goal is to limit the requirement on the client PC to what is probably already installed on it (namely a Web browser and tools like Java or ActiveX – we don't assume you have anything else than 2 legs, feet and well... some shoes). This makes the administrators' work easier (working on a single, familiar, accessible point) and the users' interface more independent of their PC. So these appliances come with plenty of tools which cover most of the needs of a regular user. But then some rooms are not used so often, or some client PC are even more different than your usual unusual PC, and these cases are not covered by the « out-of-the-box » appliance (« Sorry, you're too tall for this safety elevator and there's no stair »!). Then all of a sudden the advantages of the solution become a difficulty: The administrator is limited by the appliance's possibilities, and the user can't do anything on his homebrewed client system to change anything. The software on the appliance has to evolve.

 

It is this way that we are receiving more and more interest from SSL VPN customers in our Java RDP client: HOBLink JWT.

Most SSL VPN appliances come with a usual RDP client, Microsoft, Citrix, and an open source Java client. This basically covers the needs of Microsoft OS clients, and if ever you are connecting from a Mac, or a Linux, well this open source client should cover your basic needs until you can find better.

More and more customers' answer to this is “that's not good enough”. Surely it must be possible to connect from my Mac to my office PC without having to give up on my keyboard layout, printer, dual-screen, or any normal option you need to work correctly. What about 64-bit OS? they are not a rarity anymore and should be covered (The average human population is getting bigger with time and there is no doubt that the computer world is changing much faster!).

HOBLink JWT is our answer. A Java RDP client that can be hosted on a Web server behind your SSL VPN appliance (ie no installation either on the client nor on the Terminal Server / Office PC), with full functionality and running independently of the platform.

 

We followed the demand and started with the world leader of SSL VPNs: Juniper. More and more customers hosted HOBLink JWT on a Web server behind the VPN, and it would act as it normally does with a link (bookmark) on the users' interface. But we wanted to push it a bit further, using the possibility in the Juniper VPN to host Java applets directly on the appliance. This does not only save on a Web server, but also improves the speed of the connection. Working together with Juniper, this was made possible for JWT 3.2, and now further improved for JWT 3.3 on the Juniper releases 6.4R1+.

Soon HOBLink JWT will be integrated directly in the appliance, to ease the process for the end customers.

SSL VPNs are going one step further in replacing IPSec VPN solutions, and your elevators are about to become much more flexible – no less secure.

 

02/08/2010

Laurent « Chipper » Vaucheret

Support Engineer, HOB Inc.

no comments |


tp://fredericdevillamil.com')) %>
Powered by typo