I'm a web developer and completely new to Loadrunner suite.
Our client has already provided us with some Loadrunner actions, that I need to run them to test a site that is hosted on the company's intranet that I'm currently working.
The computer I'm using can not handle more than 7 vusers, therefore I was requested to use Amazon EC2 for load generators.
Before I request my company to be charged with Amazon services I need to know, would I be able to test our internal page from my computer exactly as I do with the load generator on my localhost, or the page that will be tested needs to be publicly accessible from the internet?
Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks.
Please read carefully what James wrote. You said you are a web developer so the task that was given to you is roughly equivalent to "write a new DB access layer".
You didn't mention which protocol you are using but I will assume TruClient (based on the 7 vUsers per machine). I will also assume you are using the latest version of LoadRunner or at least something from the 12.6X family.
1) You already have a solution for AWS out of the box in the form of StormRunner (https://www.microfocus.com/en-us/products/stormrunner-load-agile-cloud-testing/overview). If you want to test if the solution works for you please request a couple of execution hours from the sales team and try it. If your company has a valid license for LoadRunner I don't think this will be an issue.
2) You have a simple integration into the controller application for EC2 and alike. In the controller go to Tools->Manage cloud accounts. If you run a small test the cost should not be too great I assume.
3) If you are a developer, we have a new offering called TruWeb which is a transport level protocol which should be more developer friendly. It will be able to run much more users per machine so you will be able to use it to test on EC2 micro machine (free tier). The caveat is that you will have to write some JavaScript code and not be able to reuse the actions given to you. You can download TruWeb from here - https://marketplace.microfocus.com/appdelivery/content/truweb and it comes with the LoadRunner installation out of the box since 12.58. If you need further assistance with TruWeb feel free to email us to - truweb_forum#microfocus.com
I hope this will give you some directions.
a) You need training. This is not a discipline that someone is socially promoted to and finds success
b) Expect that it will take at least six months to begin delivering value in this field, longer if you are not working with a mentor
c) This is a question of application communication architecture. Architecture is one of the foundation skills for a performance tester/engineer/architect.
d) It is not recommended that you use the controller as a load generator. It is not recommended that you use just one load generator. Both of which will cause your test to fail an audit from a more mature testing firm. Go with a minimum of three, two for primary load, one for a control set of a single virtual user of each type. Design your tests to allow for the examination of Control timing records compared to the global set to understand if you have an application issue or a load generator issue as part of your test design.
e) You will need to coordinate with your network team for two reasons. One, you may need to open outbound ports (covered in documentation) to allow your controller to communicate with your load generators. Two, you absolutely will have to coordinate a tunnel from the outside internet to your internal applications under test. Expect that security will be paramount only our requests and no other requests through the tunnel. There are many mechanisms to address this, from a custom HTTP header to certificates. Speak with your network security professionals for the setup and configuration which you will be able to implement.
The self paced training for loadrunner is available for download. It takes about three days to go through. This is the absolute minimum before you pick up this tool in anger. Ideally, you would go through training with a certified instructor and be paired with a mentor for a period. The length of time for the mentor is directly related to the number of foundation skills which you bring to the table.
Guys I really want to know how to hide my IP Address. And know why is it necessary to hide it?
I tried using anonymox, but I want to hide it without using any third party software.
You could try the methods listed here : https://pc4u.org/windows-10-how-to-connect-to-a-free-vpn-without-going-through-third-party-software/ if you don't want to use a third party software to hide your IP Address. You need to setup a VPN in your computer to achieve that. This will tunnel your network connection.
Source: pc4u.org
The only way to accomplish this without 3rd party software would be to use an online proxy and configure your browser to use said proxy. This will only change your IP as it appears to sites you visit through the browser and not other services you may be using on your computer.
The "best" way to "hide" or change your IP is to use a VPN (which you'll need software for). You can purchase a VPN service from one of Many providers. Some of the providers have their own apps that you can use, or, you can manually configure your own OpenVPN client. There are also many great scripts out there, AWS one-click servers, and cheap VPS providers that make it easier than ever to create your own VPN server. This might be over the "average" users head though...
The benefit of using a VPN is that it not only changes your IP, also encrypt your traffic.
It should be noted that VPN's are not 100% fool-proof. If not configured properly, you will expose your real IP. In addition, many VPN providers are not reputable.
The best recommendation I can make on this and every other topic on online privacy is this site here:
https://privacytools.io
This is (IMO) the best, most comprehensive source of information about protecting your privacy online. They will guide you in the right direction regarding VPN's, proxies, securing your browser, and much, much more. Check it out. Seriously...
OpenVPN has builds for all operating systems. https://openvpn.net
Like i said though, you'll have to purchase access (or if you're brave, find a free 'solution') from a provider and then configure OpenVPN to use your purchased credentials. This is usually about 5$ a month (for the solid / no logs / unlimited bandwidth ones ). There are many, many posts about setting up OpenVPN here on stackoverflow.
Finally, as far as the proxies go, again, you can purchase access to some of the reputable ones or search for a free one - though, in my experience the free proxies are very touch and go.
I'm working on an external web site (in DMZ) that needs to get data from our internal production database.
All of the designs that I have come up with are rejected because the network department will not allow a connection of any sort (WCF, Oracle, etc.) to come inside from the DMZ.
The suggestions that have come from the networking side generally fall under two categories -
1) Export the required data to a server in the DMZ and export modified/inserted records eventually somehow, or
2) Poll from inside, continually asking a service in the DMZ whether it has any requests that need serviced.
I'm averse to suggestion 1 because I don't like the idea of a database sitting in the DMZ. Option 2 seems like a ridiculous amount of extra complication for the nature of what's being done.
Are these the only legitimate solutions? Is there an obvious solution I'm missing? Is the "No connections in from DMZ" decree practical?
Edit: One line I'm constantly hearing is that "no large company allows a web site to connect inside to get live production data. That's why they send confirmation emails". Is that really how it works?
I'm sorry, but your networking department are on crack or something like that - they clearly do not understand what the purpose of a DMZ is. To summarize - there are three "areas" - the big, bad outside world, your pure and virginal inside world, and the well known, trusted, safe DMZ.
The rules are:
Connections from outside can only get to hosts in the DMZ, and on specific ports (80, 443, etc);
Connections from the outside to the inside are blocked absolutely;
Connections from the inside to either the DMZ or the outside are fine and dandy;
Only hosts in the DMZ may establish connections to the inside, and again, only on well known and permitted ports.
Point four is the one they haven't grasped - the "no connections from the DMZ" policy is misguided.
Ask them "How does our email system work then?" I assume you have a corporate mail server, maybe exchange, and individuals have clients that connect to it. Ask them to explain how your corporate email, with access to internet email, works and is compliant with their policy.
Sorry, it doesn't really give you an answer.
I am a security architect at a fortune 50 financial firm. We had these same conversations. I don't agree with your network group. I understand their angst, and I understand that they would like a better solution but most places don't opt with the better choices (due to ignorance on their part [ie the network guys not you]).
Two options if they are hard set on this:
You can use a SQL proxy solution like greensql (I don't work for them, just know of them) they are just greensql dot com.
The approach they refer to that most "Large orgs" use is a tiered web model. Where you have a front end web server (accessed by the public at large), a mid-tier (application or services layer where the actual processes occurs), and a database tier. The mid-tier is the only thing that can talk to the database tier. In my opinion this model is optimal for most large orgs. BUT that being said, most large orgs will run into either a vendor provided product that does not support a middle tier, they developed without a middle tier and the transition requires development resources they dont have to spare to develop the mid-tier web services, or plain outright there is no priorty at some companies to go that route.
Its a gray area, no solid right or wrong in that regard, so if they are speaking in finality terms then they are clearly wrong. I applaud their zeal, as a security professional I understand where they are coming from. BUT, we have to enable to business to function securely. Thats the challange and the gauntlet I always try and throw down to myself. how can I deliver what my customer (my developers, my admins, my dbas, business users) what they want (within reason, and if I tell someone no I always try to offer an alternative that meets most of their needs).
Honestly it should be an open conversation. Here's where I think you can get some room, ask them to threat model the risk they are looking to mitigate. Ask them to offer alternative solutions that enable your web apps to function. If they are saying they cant talk, then put the onus on them to provide a solution. If they can't then you default to it working. Site that you open connections from the dmz to the db ONLY for the approved ports. Let them know that DMZ is for offering external services. External services are not good without internal data for anything more than potentially file transfer solutions.
Just my two cents, hope this comment helps. And try to be easy on my security brethren. We have some less experienced misguided in our flock that cling to some old ways of doing things. As the world evolves the threat evolves and so does our approach to mitigation.
Why don't you replicate your database servers? You can ensure that the connection is from the internal servers to the external servers and not the other way.
One way is to use the ms sync framework - you can build a simple windows service that can synchronize changes from internal database to your external database (which can reside on a separate db server) and then use that in your public facing website. Advantage is, your sync logic can filter out sensitive data and keep only things that are really necessary. And since the entire control of data will be in your internal servers (PUSH data out instead of pull) I dont think IT will have an issue with that.
The connection formed is never in - it is out - which means no ports need to be opened.
I'm mostly with Ken Ray on this; however, there appears to be some missing information. Let's see if I get this right:
You have a web application.
Part of that web application needs to display data from a different production server (not the one that normally backs your site).
The data you want/need is handled by a completely different application internally.
This data is critical to the normal flow of your business and only a limited set needs to be available to the outside world.
If I'm on track, then I would have to say that I agree with your IT department and I wouldn't let you directly access that server either.
Just take option 1. Have the production server export the data you need to a commonly accessible drop location. Have the other db server (one in the DMZ) pick up the data and import it on a regular basis. Finally, have your web app ONLY talk to the db server in the dmz.
Given how a lot of people build sites these days I would also be loath to just open a sql port from the dmz to the web server in question. Quite frankly I could be convinced to open the connection if I was assured that 1. you only used stored procs to access the data you need; 2. the account information used to access the database was encrypted and completely restricted to only running those procs; 3. those procs had zero dynamic sql and were limited to selects; 4. your code was built right.
A regular IT person would probably not be qualified to answer all of those questions. And if this database was from a third party, I would bet you might loose support if you were to start accessing it from outside it's normal application.
Before talking about your particular problem I want to deal with the Update that you provided.
I haven't worked for a "large" company - though large is hard to judge without a context, but I have built my share of web applications for the non profit and university department that I used to work for. In both situations I have always connected to the production DB that is on the internal Network from the Web server on the DMZ. I am pretty sure many large companies do this too; think for example of how Sharepoint's architecture is setup - back-end indexing, database, etc. servers, which are connected to by front facing web servers located in the DMZ.
Also the practice of sending confirmation e-mails, which I believe you are referring to confirmations when you register for a site don't usually deal with security. They are more a method to verify that a user has entered a valid e-mail address.
Now with that out of the way, let us look at your problem. Unfortunately, other than the two solutions you presented, I can't think of any other way to do this. Though some things that you might want to think about:
Solutions 1:
Depending on the sensitivity of the data that you need to work with, extracting it onto a server on the DMZ - whether using a service or some sort of automatic synchronization software - goes against basic security common sense. What you have done is move the data from a server behind a firewall to one that is in front of it. They might as well just let you get to the internal db server from the DMZ.
Solution 2:
I am no networking expert, so please correct me if I am wrong, but a polling mechanism still requires some sort of communication back from the web server to inform the database server that it needs some data back, which means a port needs to be open, and again you might as well tell them to let you get to the internal database without the hassle, because you haven't really added any additional security with this method.
So, I hope that this helps in at least providing you with some arguments to allow you to access the data directly. To me it seems like there are many misconceptions in your network department over how a secure database backed web application architecture should look like.
Here's what you could do... it's a bit of a stretch, but it should work...
Write a service that sits on the server in the DMZ. It will listen on three ports, A, B, and C (pick whatever port numbers make sense). I'll call this the DMZ tunnel app.
Write another service that lives anywhere on the internal network. It will connect to the DMZ tunnel app on port B. Once this connection is established, the DMZ tunnel app no longer needs to listen on port B. This is the "control connection".
When something connects to port A of the DMZ tunnel app, it will send a request over the control connection for a new DB/whatever connection. The internal tunnel app will respond by connecting to the internal resource. Once this connection is established, it will connect back to the DMZ tunnel app on port C.
After possibly verifying some tokens (this part is up to you) the DMZ tunnel app will then forward data back and forth between the connections it received on port A and C. You will effectively have a transparent TCP proxy created from two services running in the DMZ and on the internal network.
And, for the best part, once this is done you can explain what you did to your IT department and watch their faces as they realize that you did not violate the letter of their security policy, but you are still being productive. I tell you, they will hate that.
If all development solutions cannot be applied because of system engineering restriction in DMZ then give them the ball.
Put your website in intranet, and tell them 'Now I need inbound HTTP:80 or HTTPS:443 connections to that applications. Set up what you want : reverse proxies, ISA Server, protocols break, SSL... I will adapt my application if necessary.'
About ISA, I guess they got one if you have exchange with external connections.
Lot of companies are choosing this solution when a resource need to be shared between intranet and public.
Setting up a specific and intranet network with high security rules is the best way to make the administration, integration and deployment easier. What is easier is well known, what is known is masterized : less security breach.
More and more system enginers (like mines) prefer to maintain an intranet network with small 'security breach' like HTTP than to open other protocols and ports.
By the way, if they knew WCF services, they would have accepted this solution. This is the most secure solution if well designed.
Personnaly, I use this two methods : TCP(HTTP or not) Services and ISA Server.
I am willing to build an email application which runs on the server side.
Not being familiar with any particular server I wonder if I can get some recommendations based on your experience.
I look for a stable, production ready and scalable daemon, which provide an easy-to-use c/cpp api interface.
I am willing to hook at the incoming and outgoing mails and manipulate them before shipment or placed in the inbox.
Note:
MS Exchange or any other not open-source are not an option
Must run on linux
Sendmail, as it has the advantage, that none of your (potential) customers can complain about it behaving in a nonstandard way - Sendmail is the de facto standard.
Of course everything else might be against it - but nobody in the world has a mail server which won't speak to sendmail.
I'm assuming of course here, that you want your mail server to be able to talk to other OEM mail servers, as this is pretty much a requirement of any such application.
If on the other hand, your mail server only needs to talk to other instances of itself (or other bespoke things you have control over and plan to test with), feel free to ignore this suggestion.
Apache James is an open-source Java-based mail server with great options for extensibility.
I'm looking to implement a basic product activation scheme such that when the program is launched it will contact our server via http to complete the activation. I'm wondering if it is a big problem (especially with bigger companies or educational organizations) that firewalls will block the outgoing http request and prevent activation. Any idea how big as issue this may be?
In my experience when HTTP traffic is blocked by a hardware firewall then there is more often than not a proxy server which is used to browse the internet. Therefore it is good practice to allow the user to enter proxy and authentication details.
The amount of times I have seen applications fail due to not using a corporate proxy server and therefore being blocked by the firewall astonishes me.
there are personal software solutions to purposely block outgoing connections. Check out little snitch. This program can set up rules that explicitly block your computer from making connections to certain domains, IP's and / or Ports. A common use for this program is to stop one's computer from "phoning home" to an activation server.
I can't tell you how prevalent this will be, sorry. But I can give you one data point.
In this company Internet access is granted on an as needed basis. There is one product I have had to support which is wonderful for its purpose and reasonably priced, but I will never approve its purchase again - the licensing is too much of a hassle to be worth it.
I'd say that it may not be common, but if any one of your customers is a business it's likely that you will encounter someone who tryes to run your software behind a restricted internet connection or a proxy. Your software will need to handle this situation, otherwise you will ahve a pissed off customer who cannot use your product, and you will lose the sale for sure.
If you are looking for a third party tool, I've used InstallKey (www.lomacons.com) for product activations. This thing has functionaility that allows for validating with and without an internet connection.