[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1081266: apache2: Reverse proxy via mod_rewrite broken after upgrade to 2.4.62-1~deb12u1



Hi,

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 05:07:29PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 06:59:51AM +0000, Markus Wollny wrote:
> > Package: apache2
> > Version: 2.4.62-1~deb12u1
> > Severity: important
> > X-Debbugs-Cc: markus.wollny@computec.de, team@security.debian.org
> > 
> > Dear Maintainer,
> > 
> > After upgrading apache2 packages, we noticed that our SEO rewriting rules in apache2 no longer worked and Tomcat tried to access non-existing file paths with URL encoded questionmarks.
> > 
> > I have first noticed that is issue affects Debian 12, but I can confirm that it also affects Debian 11, so this happens in oldstable, apache2 2.4.62-1~deb11u1, too.
> > 
> > To show the issue, you'll want to enable the following mods:
> > a2enmod lbmethod_byrequests proxy proxy_ajp proxy_balancer slotmem_shm rewrite
> > 
> > I have set up a balancer worker in mods-available/proxy_balancer.conf:
> > <Proxy balancer://tomcat>
> >         BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8009 secret=youllneverknow
> > </Proxy>
> > 
> > I have narrowed the issue down to using a proxy RewriteRule inside a Directory block. So to reproduce, set up /etc/apache2/sites-available/000-default.conf like this:
> > 
> > <VirtualHost *:80>
> >         ServerAdmin webmaster@localhost
> >         DocumentRoot /var/www/html
> > 
> >         ErrorLog ${APACHE_LOG_DIR}/error.log
> >         CustomLog ${APACHE_LOG_DIR}/access.log combined
> > 
> >         <Directory "/var/www/html">
> >                 DirectoryIndex index.html
> >                 RewriteEngine On
> >                 RewriteRule ^/?(.*?)$ balancer://tomcat/demo/index.jsp?rewrite=$1 [P,L,env=AJP_REDIRECT_REAL_URL:$1,QSA]
> >         </Directory>
> > </VirtualHost>
> > 
> > To illustrate the issue, I have set up a simple /demo/ application in Tomcat 10, but the problem is caused by the Apache2 webserver, so this part is not relevant here.
> > 
> > Before the upgrade, i.e. with apache <= 2.4.61-1~deb12u1, a request to http://127.0.0.1/foo/bar/?someparam will result in the following request being proxied to tomcat, as is expected:
> >         GET /demo/index.jsp?rewrite=foo/bar/&someparam
> > 
> > After the upgrade to 2.4.62-1~deb12u1, the same requests gets mangled:
> >         GET /demo/index.jsp%3Frewrite=foo/bar/&someparam?rewrite=foo/bar/&someparam
> > 
> > You can see that the complete parameter string is added twice now, with the leading ? being escaped the first time around, which in turn causes the path to be completely messed up, so Tomcat won't be able to find the file and returns a 404 status.
> > 
> > When turning on debug logging in apache2, one can see that the request path is still fine during mod_rewrite processing, it only gets broken during mod_proxy processing. The issue does not occur, when the RewriteRule is placed outside of the Directory block. Unfortunately, this is not a viable workaround for us, we really need to be able to use this inside <Directory> and we need the full flexibility of mod_rewrite too, so we cannot implement the same thing using ProxyPass, either. For now, the only resolution is to downgrade the apache2 packages:
> > 
> > apt -y --allow-downgrades install apache2=2.4.61-1~deb12u1 apache2-data=2.4.61-1~deb12u1 apache2-bin=2.4.61-1~deb12u1 apache2-utils=2.4.61-1~deb12u1
> > 
> > After the downgrade, the RewriteRule with the proxy directive is back to working as expected. As 2.4.62-1~deb12u1 contains security fixes, it feels like having to pin the previous apache2 version is not a good solution, but upgrading it is not possible until this is fixed.
> > 
> > If I had to guess, this may be caused by the following change:
> > mod_proxy: Fix canonicalisation and FCGI env (PATH_INFO, SCRIPT_NAME) for
> >      "balancer:" URLs set via SetHandler, also allowing for "unix:" sockets
> >      with BalancerMember(s).  PR 69168.  [Yann Ylavic]
> 
> Can you double-check is this #1079172 and as reported upstream in
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69197 ? 

Actually after a quick discussion with Bastien, he pointed out to
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69241 .

Regards,
Salvatore


Reply to: