# Nginx Webdav & POST method **URL:** \ **Category:** NGINX\ **Created:** [October 16, 2013, 11:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-webdav-post-method/236975 "2013-10-16T11:53:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![alcina](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/a587f6/32.png) [@alcina](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/alcina)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 11:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-webdav-post-method/236975/1 "2013-10-16T11:53:53Z")
Hello, We have an appliance which trying to perform POST methods against the Nginx server. However this doesn’t seem to be supported. Could you please confirm me that ? And is there a workaround in order to allow POST requests ? Regards, Smana ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-webdav-post-method/236975/2 "2013-10-16T13:14:31Z")
Hello! On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:53:20AM +0200, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > We have an appliance which trying to perform POSTmethods against the Nginx > server. > However this doesn’t seem to be supported. > Could you please confirm me that ? > And is there a workaround in order to allow POST requests ? POST requests are more or less undefined in WebDAV (apart from relatively new RFC5995, which defines a discovery mechanism through which servers can advertise support for POST requests with “add collection member” semantics). What do you expect to happen on POST with WebDAV resources? – Maxim D. [http://nginx.org/en/donation.html](http://nginx.org/en/donation.html) ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-webdav-post-method/236975/3 "2013-10-16T13:33:14Z")
Thank you Maxim, Actually it’s a video encoding appliance which seems to push files with POST request. Please find below the error logs : 2013/10/16 09:19:14 [error] 17204#0: \*237 no user/password was provided for basic authentication, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “PROPFIND /864/ HTTP/1.1”, host: “x.x.x.x” 2013/10/16 09:19:27 [error] 17204#0: \*253 no user/password was provided for basic authentication, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “PROPFIND /864/ HTTP/1.1”, host: “x.x.x.x” 2013/10/16 09:20:23 [error] 17204#0: \*282 no user/password was provided for basic authentication, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “OPTIONS /864/ HTTP/1.1”, host: “x.x.x.x” 2013/10/16 09:20:33 [error] 17204#0: \*283 no user/password was provided for basic authentication, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “OPTIONS /864/ HTTP/1.1”, host: “x.x.x.x” 2013/10/16 09:20:38 [error] 17204#0: \*284 user “(” was not found in “/etc/nginx/.864\_htpasswd”, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “OPTIONS /864/ HTTP/1.1”, host: “x.x.x.x” 2013/10/16 09:20:39 [error] 17204#0: \*285 no user/password was provided for basic authentication, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “POST /864/index1\_00001.ts HTTP/1.1”, host: “x.x.x.x” 2013/10/16 09:20:39 [error] 17204#0: \*286 no user/password was provided for basic authentication, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “OPTIONS /864/ HTTP/1.1”, host: “95.81.159.200” 2013/10/16 09:20:39 [error] 17204#0: \*287 no user/password was provided for basic authentication, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “POST /864/index2\_00001.ts HTTP/1.1”, host: “x.x.x.x” 2013/10/16 09:20:41 [error] 17204#0: \*288 no user/password was provided for basic authentication, client: x.x.x.x, server: localhost, request: “POST /864/index1\_00001.ts HTTP/1.1”, host: “x.x.x.x” Don’t take care of the authentication issue, that’s another issue. Smana ----- Mail original ----- De: “Maxim D.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) À: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Octobre 2013 13:13:53 Objet: Re: Nginx Webdav & POST method Hello! On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:53:20AM +0200, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > We have an appliance which trying to perform POST methods against the Nginx > server. > However this doesn’t seem to be supported. > Could you please confirm me that ? > And is there a workaround in order to allow POST requests ? POST requests are more or less undefined in WebDAV (apart from relatively new RFC5995, which defines a discovery mechanism through which servers can advertise support for POST requests with “add collection member” semantics). What do you expect to happen on POST with WebDAV resources? – Maxim D. [http://nginx.org/en/donation.html](http://nginx.org/en/donation.html) * * * nginx mailing list removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx](http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx) ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-webdav-post-method/236975/4 "2013-10-16T13:35:34Z")
Hello! On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:32:19PM +0200, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > Actually it’s a video encoding appliance which seems to push files with > POSTrequest. It seems that appliance needs to be fixed to properly use WebDAV, there is the PUT method to put files. – Maxim D. [http://nginx.org/en/donation.html](http://nginx.org/en/donation.html) ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-webdav-post-method/236975/5 "2013-10-16T14:09:28Z")
Thanks Maxim, I’ll contact their support in order to understand its behavior. See you, Smana ----- Mail original ----- De: “Maxim D.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) À: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Octobre 2013 13:35:13 Objet: Re: Nginx Webdav & POST method Hello! On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:32:19PM +0200, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote: > Actually it’s a video encoding appliance which seems to push files with > POST request. It seems that appliance needs to be fixed to properly use WebDAV, there is the PUT method to put files. – Maxim D. [http://nginx.org/en/donation.html](http://nginx.org/en/donation.html) * * * nginx mailing list removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx](http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx) ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-webdav-post-method/236975/6 "2013-10-16T15:51:43Z")
Lol, thanks Jonathan. I’ll let you know what the devs will reply to this issue. You’re right, this should be done from their side as Nginx is rfc compliant ^^ But your hack can be usefull under certain circumtances 😛 Regards, Smana ----- Mail original ----- De: “Jonathan M.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) À: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Envoyé: Mercredi 16 Octobre 2013 15:40:42 Objet: Re: Nginx Webdav & POST method On 16 Oct 2013 13:09, \< removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid \> wrote: > Thanks Maxim, > I’ll contact their support in order to understand its behavior. If you discover that it does indeed use POSTs in an nginx-incompatible way, you could use nginx to hack the request into something usable. [ NB I’d only do this for an absolutely immutable appliance; in any other situation I’d personally tell the devs their code was broken and we couldn’t help: don’t inherit other people’s technical debt without a commitment to a fix! ] There’s a directive (proxy\_method?) which changes the verb when used in a proxy\_pass’d context. You could just have a double pass through nginx, with the publicly-listening server{} solely being responsible for doing s/POST/PUT/ , before proxy\_pass’ing to the actual webdav server via a 127.0.0.0/8 address. Use a map to define the verb, I suggest. If it’s not clear from the above how to do this, let me know and I’ll run up a test and guide you towards some config. I suggest it’s not very difficult to do, however 😉 Yes, this is an utterly horrible hack. No, I have never used it in production. Yes, there is an lie hidden in this paragraph. Cheers, Jonathan * * * nginx mailing list removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx](http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx) ---
**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-webdav-post-method/236975/7 "2013-10-16T15:41:12Z")
On 16 Oct 2013 13:09, [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Thanks Maxim, > I’ll contact their support in order to understand its behavior. If you discover that it does indeed use POSTs in an nginx-incompatible way, you could use nginx to hack the request into something usable. [ NB I’d only do this for an absolutely immutable appliance; in any other situation I’d personally tell the devs their code was broken and we couldn’t help: don’t inherit other people’s technical debt without a commitment to a fix! ] There’s a directive (proxy\_method?) which changes the verb when used in a proxy\_pass’d context. You could just have a double pass through nginx, with the publicly-listening server{} solely being responsible for doing s/POST/PUT/ , before proxy\_pass’ing to the actual webdav server via a 127.0.0.0/8address. Use a map to define the verb, I suggest. If it’s not clear from the above how to do this, let me know and I’ll run up a test and guide you towards some config. I suggest it’s not very difficult to do, however 😉 Yes, this is an utterly horrible hack. No, I have never used it in production. Yes, there is an lie hidden in this paragraph. Cheers, Jonathan