nginx: reject requests with unexpected Host header#809
Merged
matthew-white merged 39 commits intogetodk:nextfrom Dec 10, 2024
Merged
nginx: reject requests with unexpected Host header#809matthew-white merged 39 commits intogetodk:nextfrom
matthew-white merged 39 commits intogetodk:nextfrom
Conversation
added 30 commits
October 9, 2024 07:41
alxndrsn
commented
Dec 3, 2024
added 2 commits
December 3, 2024 06:25
alxndrsn
pushed a commit
to alxndrsn/odk-central
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2024
Working on getodk#809 I noticed that the location of SSL certs is based either on the domain name, or on the method of supply of SSL certs. Cert provision approach should probably not affect the nginx "server_name" setting. Also, the old variable name `CNAME` (short for "certificate name?") is easily confused with the DNS concept of CNAME records ("canonical names").
2 tasks
alxndrsn
commented
Dec 3, 2024
brontolosone
requested changes
Dec 6, 2024
Contributor
brontolosone
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have fears, please see comments
alxndrsn
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
Working on #809 I noticed that the location of SSL certs is based either on the domain name, or on the method of supply of SSL certs. Cert provision approach should probably not affect the nginx "server_name" setting. Also, the old variable name `CNAME` (short for "certificate name?") is easily confused with the DNS concept of CNAME records ("canonical names").
brontolosone
approved these changes
Dec 9, 2024
yanokwa
approved these changes
Dec 9, 2024
alxndrsn
pushed a commit
to alxndrsn/odk-central
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 10, 2024
This comment was merged as part of getodk#809, but was not correct by the time the PR was merged.
alxndrsn
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 10, 2024
This comment was merged as part of #809, but was not correct by the time the PR was merged.
yanokwa
pushed a commit
to yanokwa/odk-central
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Working on getodk#809 I noticed that the location of SSL certs is based either on the domain name, or on the method of supply of SSL certs. Cert provision approach should probably not affect the nginx "server_name" setting. Also, the old variable name `CNAME` (short for "certificate name?") is easily confused with the DNS concept of CNAME records ("canonical names").
yanokwa
pushed a commit
to yanokwa/odk-central
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Co-authored-by: alxndrsn <alxndrsn>
yanokwa
pushed a commit
to yanokwa/odk-central
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
This comment was merged as part of getodk#809, but was not correct by the time the PR was merged.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Supersedes #747
Blocked by #814
What has been done to verify that this works as intended?
Tests.
Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?
#747 was also considered - this is up for debate.
How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?
Shouldn't change normal usage.
Does this change require updates to documentation? If so, please file an issue here and include the link below.
Probably not.
Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:
nextbranch OR only changed documentation/infrastructure (masteris stable and used in production)