Re: is this a bug in IIS5.0 ?

From: Russ (Russ.Cooper@RC.ON.CA)
Date: 04/09/02

Date:         Tue, 9 Apr 2002 14:03:54 -0400
From: Russ <Russ.Cooper@RC.ON.CA>

Several respondents all concurred, this isn't a bug in IIS.

Azubi IFK LabTec <> said;

>Why should that be a bug?
>You would like IIS to respond like http://server_ip:80/test/ (same
>as: http://server_ip/test/) and if IIS would respond with such a
>Redirect URL, that would be a bug! IIS just knows he's on port 79...
>and there's no file called / now he needs to redirect you...
>but he cannot redirect you just to /test/ he needs to send you the
>real domain...
>The Domain IS server_ip with port 79
>IIS is working fine...
>Anything different would be a mistake.

Raymond Zwarts <> said;

>First of all, I think the 'flamuko' is a typo in you message and should
>have read test as well.
>If that assumption is correct then all the behaviour you are describing
>is standard behaviour observed by all webservers. How is IIS to know
>that you are redirecting traffic?
>Port tunnel should (or could) re-write the Location string which is
>sent back to the user, but IIS can't if it doesn't know about the

Eric Chamberlain <echamber@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> said;

>I would not call this a bug in IIS. IIS has no way of knowing that you
>are basically doing PAT and changing the port. IIS is issuing the URL
>with the correct port, based on the inbound port. Remember that if
>is no port number displayed, it is really FQDN:80.
>What you are asking is that for an inbound request on port 79, the
>server should reply with port 80, when to the server, no service exists
>on port 80.
>If there is a bug, it is in the SteelBytes product, it should be
>checking for port numbers on the returned URL and changing the URL to
>the redirected port.

Russ - NTBugtraq Editor