2015-09-04 14:17:55 +00:00
|
|
|
How mitmproxy works
|
|
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitmproxy is an enormously flexible tool. Knowing exactly how the proxying
|
|
|
|
process works will help you deploy it creatively, and take into account its
|
|
|
|
fundamental assumptions and how to work around them. This document explains
|
|
|
|
mitmproxy's proxy mechanism in detail, starting with the simplest unencrypted
|
|
|
|
explicit proxying, and working up to the most complicated interaction -
|
|
|
|
transparent proxying of SSL-protected traffic [#ssl]_ in the presence of `Server Name Indication`_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explicit HTTP
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Configuring the client to use mitmproxy as an explicit proxy is the simplest
|
|
|
|
and most reliable way to intercept traffic. The proxy protocol is codified in the
|
|
|
|
`HTTP RFC`_, so the behaviour of both
|
|
|
|
the client and the server is well defined, and usually reliable. In the
|
|
|
|
simplest possible interaction with mitmproxy, a client connects directly to the
|
|
|
|
proxy, and makes a request that looks like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: http
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GET http://example.com/index.html HTTP/1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a proxy GET request - an extended form of the vanilla HTTP GET request
|
|
|
|
that includes a schema and host specification, and it includes all the
|
|
|
|
information mitmproxy needs to proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. image:: schematics/how-mitmproxy-works-explicit.png
|
|
|
|
:align: center
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The client connects to the proxy and makes a request.
|
|
|
|
2. Mitmproxy connects to the upstream server and simply forwards the request on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explicit HTTPS
|
|
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The process for an explicitly proxied HTTPS connection is quite different. The
|
|
|
|
client connects to the proxy and makes a request that looks like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: http
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONNECT example.com:443 HTTP/1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A conventional proxy can neither view nor manipulate an SSL-encrypted data
|
|
|
|
stream, so a CONNECT request simply asks the proxy to open a pipe between the
|
|
|
|
client and server. The proxy here is just a facilitator - it blindly forwards
|
|
|
|
data in both directions without knowing anything about the contents. The
|
|
|
|
negotiation of the SSL connection happens over this pipe, and the subsequent
|
|
|
|
flow of requests and responses are completely opaque to the proxy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The MITM in mitmproxy
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is where mitmproxy's fundamental trick comes into play. The MITM in its
|
|
|
|
name stands for Man-In-The-Middle - a reference to the process we use to
|
|
|
|
intercept and interfere with these theoretically opaque data streams. The basic
|
|
|
|
idea is to pretend to be the server to the client, and pretend to be the client
|
|
|
|
to the server, while we sit in the middle decoding traffic from both sides. The
|
|
|
|
tricky part is that the `Certificate Authority`_ system is
|
|
|
|
designed to prevent exactly this attack, by allowing a trusted third-party to
|
|
|
|
cryptographically sign a server's SSL certificates to verify that they are
|
|
|
|
legit. If this signature doesn't match or is from a non-trusted party, a secure
|
|
|
|
client will simply drop the connection and refuse to proceed. Despite the many
|
|
|
|
shortcomings of the CA system as it exists today, this is usually fatal to
|
|
|
|
attempts to MITM an SSL connection for analysis. Our answer to this conundrum
|
|
|
|
is to become a trusted Certificate Authority ourselves. Mitmproxy includes a
|
|
|
|
full CA implementation that generates interception certificates on the fly. To
|
|
|
|
get the client to trust these certificates, we :ref:`register mitmproxy as a trusted
|
|
|
|
CA with the device manually <certinstall>`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Complication 1: What's the remote hostname?
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To proceed with this plan, we need to know the domain name to use in the
|
|
|
|
interception certificate - the client will verify that the certificate is for
|
|
|
|
the domain it's connecting to, and abort if this is not the case. At first
|
|
|
|
blush, it seems that the CONNECT request above gives us all we need - in this
|
|
|
|
example, both of these values are "example.com". But what if the client had
|
|
|
|
initiated the connection as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: http
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONNECT 10.1.1.1:443 HTTP/1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using the IP address is perfectly legitimate because it gives us enough
|
|
|
|
information to initiate the pipe, even though it doesn't reveal the remote
|
|
|
|
hostname.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitmproxy has a cunning mechanism that smooths this over - :ref:`upstream
|
|
|
|
certificate sniffing <upstreamcerts>`. As soon as we
|
|
|
|
see the CONNECT request, we pause the client part of the conversation, and
|
|
|
|
initiate a simultaneous connection to the server. We complete the SSL handshake
|
|
|
|
with the server, and inspect the certificates it used. Now, we use the Common
|
|
|
|
Name in the upstream SSL certificates to generate the dummy certificate for the
|
|
|
|
client. Voila, we have the correct hostname to present to the client, even if
|
|
|
|
it was never specified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Complication 2: Subject Alternative Name
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enter the next complication. Sometimes, the certificate Common Name is not, in
|
|
|
|
fact, the hostname that the client is connecting to. This is because of the
|
|
|
|
optional `Subject Alternative Name`_ field in the SSL certificate
|
|
|
|
that allows an arbitrary number of alternative domains to be specified. If the
|
|
|
|
expected domain matches any of these, the client will proceed, even though the
|
|
|
|
domain doesn't match the certificate Common Name. The answer here is simple:
|
|
|
|
when we extract the CN from the upstream cert, we also extract the SANs, and
|
|
|
|
add them to the generated dummy certificate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Complication 3: Server Name Indication
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the big limitations of vanilla SSL is that each certificate requires its
|
|
|
|
own IP address. This means that you couldn't do virtual hosting where multiple
|
|
|
|
domains with independent certificates share the same IP address. In a world
|
|
|
|
with a rapidly shrinking IPv4 address pool this is a problem, and we have a
|
|
|
|
solution in the form of the `Server Name Indication`_ extension to
|
|
|
|
the SSL and TLS protocols. This lets the client specify the remote server name
|
|
|
|
at the start of the SSL handshake, which then lets the server select the right
|
|
|
|
certificate to complete the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SNI breaks our upstream certificate sniffing process, because when we connect
|
|
|
|
without using SNI, we get served a default certificate that may have nothing to
|
|
|
|
do with the certificate expected by the client. The solution is another tricky
|
|
|
|
complication to the client connection process. After the client connects, we
|
|
|
|
allow the SSL handshake to continue until just _after_ the SNI value has been
|
|
|
|
passed to us. Now we can pause the conversation, and initiate an upstream
|
|
|
|
connection using the correct SNI value, which then serves us the correct
|
|
|
|
upstream certificate, from which we can extract the expected CN and SANs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Putting it all together
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets put all of this together into the complete explicitly proxied HTTPS flow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. image:: schematics/how-mitmproxy-works-explicit-https.png
|
|
|
|
:align: center
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The client makes a connection to mitmproxy, and issues an HTTP CONNECT request.
|
|
|
|
2. Mitmproxy responds with a ``200 Connection Established``, as if it has set up the CONNECT pipe.
|
|
|
|
3. The client believes it's talking to the remote server, and initiates the SSL connection.
|
|
|
|
It uses SNI to indicate the hostname it is connecting to.
|
|
|
|
4. Mitmproxy connects to the server, and establishes an SSL connection using the SNI hostname
|
|
|
|
indicated by the client.
|
|
|
|
5. The server responds with the matching SSL certificate, which contains the CN and SAN values
|
|
|
|
needed to generate the interception certificate.
|
|
|
|
6. Mitmproxy generates the interception cert, and continues the
|
|
|
|
client SSL handshake paused in step 3.
|
|
|
|
7. The client sends the request over the established SSL connection.
|
|
|
|
8. Mitmproxy passes the request on to the server over the SSL connection initiated in step 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transparent HTTP
|
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a transparent proxy is used, the HTTP/S connection is redirected into a
|
|
|
|
proxy at the network layer, without any client configuration being required.
|
|
|
|
This makes transparent proxying ideal for those situations where you can't
|
|
|
|
change client behaviour - proxy-oblivious Android applications being a common
|
|
|
|
example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To achieve this, we need to introduce two extra components. The first is a
|
|
|
|
redirection mechanism that transparently reroutes a TCP connection destined for
|
|
|
|
a server on the Internet to a listening proxy server. This usually takes the
|
|
|
|
form of a firewall on the same host as the proxy server - `iptables`_ on Linux or
|
|
|
|
pf_ on OSX. Once the client has initiated the connection, it makes a vanilla HTTP request,
|
|
|
|
which might look something like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: http
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GET /index.html HTTP/1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that this request differs from the explicit proxy variation, in that it
|
|
|
|
omits the scheme and hostname. How, then, do we know which upstream host to
|
|
|
|
forward the request to? The routing mechanism that has performed the
|
|
|
|
redirection keeps track of the original destination for us. Each routing
|
|
|
|
mechanism has a different way of exposing this data, so this introduces the
|
|
|
|
second component required for working transparent proxying: a host module that
|
|
|
|
knows how to retrieve the original destination address from the router. In
|
|
|
|
mitmproxy, this takes the form of a built-in set of
|
|
|
|
modules_ that know how to talk to each platform's redirection mechanism.
|
|
|
|
Once we have this information, the process is fairly straight-forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. image:: schematics/how-mitmproxy-works-transparent.png
|
|
|
|
:align: center
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The client makes a connection to the server.
|
|
|
|
2. The router redirects the connection to mitmproxy, which is typically listening on a local port
|
|
|
|
of the same host. Mitmproxy then consults the routing mechanism to establish what the original
|
|
|
|
destination was.
|
|
|
|
3. Now, we simply read the client's request...
|
|
|
|
4. ... and forward it upstream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transparent HTTPS
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first step is to determine whether we should treat an incoming connection
|
|
|
|
as HTTPS. The mechanism for doing this is simple - we use the routing mechanism
|
|
|
|
to find out what the original destination port is. By default, we treat all
|
|
|
|
traffic destined for ports 443 and 8443 as SSL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From here, the process is a merger of the methods we've described for
|
|
|
|
transparently proxying HTTP, and explicitly proxying HTTPS. We use the routing
|
|
|
|
mechanism to establish the upstream server address, and then proceed as for
|
|
|
|
explicit HTTPS connections to establish the CN and SANs, and cope with SNI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. image:: schematics/how-mitmproxy-works-transparent-https.png
|
|
|
|
:align: center
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-08 13:36:24 +00:00
|
|
|
1. The client makes a connection to the server.
|
|
|
|
2. The router redirects the connection to mitmproxy, which is typically listening on a local port
|
|
|
|
of the same host. Mitmproxy then consults the routing mechanism to establish what the original
|
|
|
|
destination was.
|
|
|
|
3. The client believes it's talking to the remote server, and initiates the SSL connection.
|
|
|
|
It uses SNI to indicate the hostname it is connecting to.
|
|
|
|
4. Mitmproxy connects to the server, and establishes an SSL connection using the SNI hostname
|
|
|
|
indicated by the client.
|
|
|
|
5. The server responds with the matching SSL certificate, which contains the CN and SAN values
|
|
|
|
needed to generate the interception certificate.
|
|
|
|
6. Mitmproxy generates the interception cert, and continues the client SSL handshake paused in
|
|
|
|
step 3.
|
|
|
|
7. The client sends the request over the established SSL connection.
|
|
|
|
8. Mitmproxy passes the request on to the server over the SSL connection initiated in step 4.
|
2015-09-04 14:17:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. rubric:: Footnotes
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-07 08:52:18 +00:00
|
|
|
.. [#ssl] I use "SSL" to refer to both SSL and TLS in the generic sense, unless otherwise
|
|
|
|
specified.
|
2015-09-04 14:17:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _Server Name Indication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication
|
|
|
|
.. _HTTP RFC: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230
|
|
|
|
.. _Certificate Authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority
|
|
|
|
.. _Subject Alternative Name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SubjectAltName
|
|
|
|
.. _iptables: http://www.netfilter.org/
|
|
|
|
.. _pf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PF_\(firewall\)
|
2016-02-16 19:49:10 +00:00
|
|
|
.. _modules: https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy/tree/master/mitmproxy/platform
|