http-proxy | HTTP Proxy with TLS support | Proxy library

rewrites are a convenient way of proxying requests without having to setup your own logic in a server - Next.js handles it for you instead.

Just like http-proxy-middleware, they allow you to map an incoming request path to a different destination. The main difference is that rewrites are also applied to client-side routing, when using Next.js' built-in router (through next/link or next/router) to navigate between pages.

From the rewrites documentation:

Rewrites act as a URL proxy and mask the destination path, making it appear the user hasn't changed their location on the site.

(...) Rewrites are applied to client-side routing, a will have the rewrite applied in the above example.

A common pattern is to prefix all your proxied URLs with /api or similar.

For example

I do not know your network/proxy setup, so I cannot really explain the behaviour of FTPClient. Your server seems to return IP address of the proxy in the PASV response. The default NAT resolver of FTPClient decides that the address is wrong (is it a local network host address?) and choses to use original FTP server's address instead.

While WinSCP does not do that and connects to the IP that the server returned.

To avoid the NAT resolver from messing with the address, use FTPClient.setPassiveNatWorkaround (though that's deprecated):

I worked it out; the issue was that I didn't realise that when you install Passenger as a dynamic module, you still need to do the same config as with a regular install. In particular, in your nginx.conf, you need to add this to the http block:

I had the same problem with literally the exact same number of vulnerabilities.

Check out the solution here

Please try this: Here is the setupProxy.js file:

It is not Nginx, it is Google Chrome browser, pressing F5 does not actually reload the javascript (if Disable Cache is not checked).

Uncomment this in your /etc/nginx/nginx.conf:

Oof. That's some spotty code. Cleaning up the missing stuff and misspelled stuff, I noticed:

• you might need to explicitly or implicitly flush the ostream (just good practice really)

• you're writing to an ssl stream before the handshake? Just write to the underlying socket if you wanted:

Option #2 seems ideal, not sure why you'd call it weird. You could indeed have your Gateway use the authService as an API:

Gateway basically checks for the cookie (if there is none, no need to even contact authService), passes it on to authService, then adds the response in e.g. req.auth.

The http-proxy-middleware middleware allows you to modify the request first, e.g. add another header with the JSON representation of req.auth. On your other services (i.e. shortenService) you can add a quick middleware that will decode the header (if present) and assign it to req.auth.

This approach give all your (future) services the exact same req.auth data, while only the Gateway had to communicate with the authService. It also allows some other handy things, e.g. only allowing authenticated services to even send requests to some of your services.