I'm totally new to Python (as of half an hour ago) and trying to write a simple script to enumerate users on an SMTP server.
The users file is a simple list (one per line) of usernames.
The script runs fine but with each iteration of the loop it slows until, around loop 14, it seems to hang completely. No error - I have to ^c.
Can anyone shed some light on the problem please?
TIA,
Tom
#!/usr/bin/python
import socket
import sys
if len(sys.argv) != 2:
print "Usage: vrfy.py <username file>"
sys.exit(0)
#open user file
file=open(sys.argv[1], 'r')
users=[x.strip() for x in file.readlines()]
file.close
#Just for debugging
print users
# Create a Socket
s=socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
# Connect to the Server
connect=s.connect(('192.168.13.222',25))
for x in users:
# VRFY a user
s.send('VRFY ' + x + '\r\n')
result=s.recv(1024)
print result
# Close the socket
s.close()
Most likely your SMTP server is tarpitting your client connection. This is a defense against runaway clients, or clients which submit large volumes of "junk" commands. From the manpage for Postfix smtpd:
smtpd_junk_command_limit (normal: 100, stress: 1)
The number of junk commands (NOOP, VRFY, ETRN or RSET) that a
remote SMTP client can send before the Postfix SMTP server
starts to increment the error counter with each junk command.
The smtpd daemon will insert a 1-second delay before replying after a certain amount of junk is seen. If you have root access to the smtp server in question, try an strace to see if nanosleep syscalls are being issued by the server.
Here is a trace from running your script against my local server. After 100 VRFY commands it starts sleeping between commands. Your server may have a lower limit of ~15 junk commands:
nanosleep({1, 0}, 0x7fffda9a67a0) = 0
poll([{fd=9, events=POLLOUT}], 1, 300000) = 1 ([{fd=9, revents=POLLOUT}])
write(9, "252 2.0.0 pat\r\n", 15) = 15
poll([{fd=9, events=POLLIN}], 1, 300000) = 1 ([{fd=9, revents=POLLIN}])
read(9, "VRFY pat\r\n", 4096) = 10
s.recv blocks so if you have no more data on the socket then it will block forever.
You have to keep track of how much data you are receiving. You need to know this ahead of time so the client and the server can agree on the size.
Solving the exact same problem I also ran into the issue.
I'm almost sure #samplebias is right. I found I could work around the "tarpitting" by abusing the poor system even more, tearing down and rebuilding every connection:
#[ ...Snip... ]
import smtplib
#[ ...Snip... ]
for USER in open(opts.USERS,'r'):
smtpserver = smtplib.SMTP(HOST,PORT)
smtpserver.ehlo()
verifyuser = smtpserver.verify(USER)
print("%s %s: %s") % (HOST.rstrip(), USER.rstrip(), verifyuser)
smtpserver.quit()
I'm curious whether this particular type of hammering would work in a live environment, but too certain it would make some people very unhappy.
PS, python: batteries included.
In a glance, your code has no bugs. However, you shall notice that TCP isn't a "message" oriented protocol. So, you can't use socket.send in a loop assuming that one message will be actually sent through the medium at every call. Thus, if some calls starts to get buffered in the output buffer, and you just call socket.recv after it, your program will stuck in a deadlock.
What you should do is a threaded or asynchronous code. Maybe Twisted Framework may help you.
Related
I'm having a weird issue with pyserial, using Python 3.6.9, running under WSL Ubuntu 18.4.2 LTS
I've set up a simple function to send GCODE commands to a serial port:
def gcode_send(data):
print("Sending: " + data.strip())
data = data.strip() + "\n" # Strip all EOL characters for consistency
s.write(data.encode()) # Send g-code block to grbl
grbl_out = s.readline().decode().strip()
print(grbl_out)
It sort of works, but every command I send is 'held' until the next is sent.
e.g.
I send G0 X0 > the device doesn't react
I send G0 X1 > the device reacts to G0 X0
I send G1 X0 > the device reacts to G0 X1
and so on...
My setup code is:
s = serial.Serial(com, 115200)
s.write("\r\n\r\n".encode()) # Wake up grbl
time.sleep(2) # Wait for grbl to initialize
s.flushInput() # Flush startup text in serial input
I can work around the delay for now, but it's quite annoying and I can't find anyone else experiencing the same. Any idea what could be causing this?
There might be a lot of problems here, but rest assured that the pyserial is not causing it. It uses the underlying OS's API to communicate with the UART driver. That being said you first have to test your code with real Linux to see whether WSL is causing it. I.e. whether a Linux and Windows UART buffers are correctly synced.
I am sorry that I cannot tell whether a problem is in your code or not because I do not know the device you are using, so I cannot guess what is happening on its end of communication channel. Have in mind that Windows alone can act weirdly in best of circumstances, so, prepare yourself for some frustrations here. Check your motherboard or USB2Serial converter drivers or whatever hw you are using.
Next thing, you should know that sometimes, communication gets confusing if timeouts aren't set. Why? Nobody really knows. So try setting timeouts. Check whether you need software Xon/Xoff turned on or not, and other RS232 parameters that might be required by the device you are communicating with.
Also, see what is going on with s.readline(), I wouldn't personally use it. Timeouts might help or you can use s.read(1024) with timeouts. I do not remember right now, but see whether pyserial supports asynchronous communication. If it does, you can try using it instead of standard blocking mode.
Also, check whether you have to forcefully flush the serial buffer after s.write() or add a sleep after it. It might happen that the device doesn't get the message but the read request is activated. As the device didn't receive the command it doesn't respond. After you send another command, IO buffer is flushed and the previous one is delivered and so forth. Serial communication is fun, but when it hits a snag it can be a real P in the A, believe me.
Ow, a P.S. Check whether the device sends "\r\n\r\n" or "\r\n" only, or "\r" or "\n" in response. s.readline() might get confused. For a start, try putting there two s.readline()s one after another and print out each output. If the device sends double EOL then the one s.readline() is stopping on the empty line and your program receives an empty response, when you send another command s.readline() goes through the buffer and returns a full line that is already there but not read before.
Here it goes. The code promissed in the comment. Big portions of it removed and error checks too.
It is a typing terminal for using PyS60 Python console on Nokia smartphones in the Symbian series via bluetooth. Works fantastically.
from serial import *
from thread import start_new_thread as thread
from time import sleep
import sys, os
# Original code works on Linux too
# The following code for gettin one character from stdin without echoing it on terminal
# has its Linux complement using tricks from Python's stdlib getpass.py module
# I.e. put the terminal in non-blocking mode, turn off echoing and use sys.stdin.read(1)
# Here is Win code only (for brevity):
import msvcrt
def getchar ():
return msvcrt.getch()
def pause ():
raw_input("\nPress enter to continue . . .")
port = raw_input("Portname: ")
if os.name=="nt":
nport = ""
for x in port:
if x.isdigit(): nport += x
port = int(nport)-1
try:
s = Serial(port, 9600)
except:
print >> sys.stderr, "Cannot open the port!\nThe program will be closed."
pause()
sys.exit(1)
print "Port ready!"
running = 1
def reader():
while running:
try:
msg = s.read()
# If timeout is set
while msg=="":
msg = s.read()
sys.stdout.write(msg)
except: sleep(0.001)
thread(reader,())
while 1:
try: c = getchar()
except Exception, e:
running = 0
print >> sys.stderr, e
s.write('\r\n\x04')
break
if c=='\003' or c=='\x04':
running = 0
s.write('\r\n\x04')
break
s.write(c)
s.close()
pause()
I'm new to socket programming in python. Here is an example of opening a TCP socket in a Mininet host and sending a photo from one host to another. In fact I changed the code that I had used to send a simple message to another host (writing the received data to a text file) in order to meet my requirements. Although when I implement this revised code, there is no error and it seems to transfer correctly, I am not sure whether this is a correct way to do this transmission or not. Since I'm running both hosts on the same machine, I thought it may have an influence on the result. I wanted to ask you to check whether this is a correct way to transfer or I should add or remove something.
mininetSocketTest.py
#!/usr/bin/python
from mininet.topo import Topo, SingleSwitchTopo
from mininet.net import Mininet
from mininet.log import lg, info
from mininet.cli import CLI
def main():
lg.setLogLevel('info')
net = Mininet(SingleSwitchTopo(k=2))
net.start()
h1 = net.get('h1')
p1 = h1.popen('python myClient2.py')
h2 = net.get('h2')
h2.cmd('python myServer2.py')
CLI( net )
#p1.terminate()
net.stop()
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
myServer2.py
import socket
import sys
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
s.bind(('10.0.0.1', 12345))
buf = 1024
f = open("2.jpg",'wb')
s.listen(1)
conn , addr = s.accept()
while 1:
data = conn.recv(buf)
print(data[:10])
#print "PACKAGE RECEIVED..."
f.write(data)
if not data: break
#conn.send(data)
conn.close()
s.close()
myClient2.py:
import socket
import sys
f=open ("1.jpg", "rb")
print sys.getsizeof(f)
buf = 1024
data = f.read(buf)
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect(('10.0.0.1',12345))
while (data):
if(s.sendall(data)):
#print "sending ..."
data = f.read(buf)
print(f.tell(), data[:10])
else:
s.close()
s.close()
This loop in client2 is wrong:
while (data):
if(s.send(data)):
print "sending ..."
data = f.read(buf)
As the send
docs say:
Returns the number of bytes sent. Applications are responsible for checking that all data has been sent; if only some of the data was transmitted, the application needs to attempt delivery of the remaining data. For further information on this topic, consult the Socket Programming HOWTO.
You're not even attempting to do this. So, while it probably works on localhost, on a lightly-loaded machine, with smallish files, it's going to break as soon as you try to use it for real.
As the help says, you need to do something to deliver the rest of the buffer. Since there's probably no good reason you can't just block until it's all sent, the simplest thing to do is to call sendall:
Unlike send(), this method continues to send data from bytes until either all data has been sent or an error occurs. None is returned on success. On error, an exception is raised…
And this brings up the next problem: You're not doing any exception handling anywhere. Maybe that's OK, but usually it isn't. For example, if one of your sockets goes down, but the other one is still up, do you want to abort the whole program and hard-drop your connection, or do you maybe want to finish sending whatever you have first?
You should at least probably use a with clause of a finally, to make sure you close your sockets cleanly, so the other side will get a nice EOF instead of an exception.
Also, your server code just serves a single client and then quits. Is that actually what you wanted? Usually, even if you don't need concurrent clients, you at least want to loop around accepting and servicing them one by one.
Finally, a server almost always wants to do this:
s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
Without this, if you try to run the server again within a few seconds after it finished (a platform-specific number of seconds, which may even depend whether it finished with an exception instead of a clean shutdown), the bind will fail, in the same way as if you tried to bind a socket that's actually in use by another program.
First of all, you should use TCP and not UDP. TCP will ensure that your client/server has received the whole photo properly. UDP is more used for content streaming.
Absolutely not your use case.
def mp_worker(row):
ip = row[0]
ip_address = ip
tcp_port = 2112
buffer_size = 1024
# Read the reset message sent from the sign when a new connection is established
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
try:
print('Connecting to terminal: {0}'.format(ip_address))
s.connect((ip_address, tcp_port))
#Putting a breakpoint on this call in debug makes the script work
s.send(":08a8RV;")
#data = recv_timeout(s)
data = s.recv(buffer_size)
strip = data.split("$", 1)[-1].rstrip()
strip = strip[:-1]
print(strip)
termStat = [ip_address, strip]
terminals.append(termStat)
except Exception as exc:
print("Exception connecting to: " + ip_address)
print(exc)
The above code is the section of the script that is causing the problem. It's a pretty simple function that connects to a socket based on a passed in IP from a DB query and receives a response that indicates the hardware's firmware version.
Now, the issue is that when I run it in debug with a breakpoint on the socket I get the entire expected response from the hardware, but if I don't have a breakpoint in there or I full on Run the script it only responds with part of the expected message. I tried both putting a time.sleep() in after the send to see if it would get the entire response and I tried using the commented out recv_timeout() method in there which uses a non-blocking socket and timeout to try to get an entire response, both with the exact same results.
As another note, this works in a script with everything in one main code block, but I need this part separated into a function so I can use it with the multiprocessing library. I've tried running it on both my local Windows 7 machine and on a Unix server with the same results.
I'll expands and reiterate on what I've put into a comment moment ago. I am still not entirely sure what is behind the different behavior in either scenario (apart from timing guess apparently disproved by an attempt to include sleep.
However, it's somewhat immaterial as stream sockets do not guarantee you get all the requested data at once and in chunks as requested. This is up for an application to deal with. If the server closes the socket after full response was sent, you could replace:
data = s.recv(buffer_size)
with recv() until zero bytes were received, this would be equivalent of getting 0 (EOF) from from the syscall:
data = ''
while True:
received = s.recv(buffer_size)
if len(received) == 0:
break
data += received
If that is not the case, you would have to rely on fixed or known (sent in the beginning) size you want to consider together. Or deal with this on protocol level (look for characters, sequences used to signal message boundaries.
I just recently found out a solution here, and thought I'd post it in case anyone else has issue, I just decided to try and call socket.recv() before calling socket.send() and then calling socket.recv() again afterwards and it seems to have fixed the issue; I couldn't really tell you why it works though.
data = s.recv(buffer_size)
s.send(":08a8RV;")
data = s.recv(buffer_size)
I want to talk with a proxy soft, here is official socket example.
This soft would send traffic statistic to connected cli every 10 seconds. I also need to send commands and get command results on same connection.
It cost me some time to figure out that I can't create two socket clients and connect to same server to get different results.
My problem: how do I manage user config while recording traffic statistic ?
Test:
When add a port, would get ok after several cli.recv(1506) (because the stat send every 10 second, it I don't read all the time, ok would behind of many stat) :
>>> cli.send(b'add: {"server_port":8003, "password":"123123"}')
46
>>> print(cli.recv(1506))
stat: {"8002":164}
>>> print(cli.recv(1506))
stat: {"8002":336}
>>> print(cli.recv(1506))
ok
>>> print(cli.recv(1506))
stat: {"8002":31}
>>> print(cli.recv(1506))
# hang here wait for next result
So if I send many command, I can't recognise the which result map which command.
The solution I came up with is:
# client main code
while True:
# need open another sock port to recieve command
c = self.on_new_command()
if c:
self.cli.send(c)
# does python socket server ensure response is FIFO when `setblocking(False)`
self.queue.append(c)
ret = self.cli.recv(1524)
if 'stat' in ret:
self.record(ret)
else :
self.log(self.queue.pop(), ret)
I need open another sock port to receive command in this client, and have to write another client which sends commands to this... I just don't feel it is good.
Because it is my first time to play with socket programming, is my solution the best for this situation? Is there any better way to achieve my goal?
I've been experiencing a problem with a socketserver I wrote where the socketserver will seem to stop sending and receiving data on one of the ports it uses (while the other port continues to handle data just fine). Interestingly, after waiting a minute (or up to an hour or so), the socketserver will start sending and receiving messages again without any observable intervention.
I am using the Eventlet socketing framework, python 2.7, everything running on an ubuntu aws instance with external apps opening persistent connections to the socketserver.
From some reading I've been doing, it looks like I may not be implementing my socket server correctly.
According to http://docs.python.org/howto/sockets.html:
fundamental truth of sockets: messages must either be fixed length (yuck), or be delimited > > (shrug), or indicate how long they are (much better), or end by shutting down the connection.
I am not entirely sure that I am using a fix length message here (or am I?)
This is how I am receiving my data:
def socket_handler(sock, socket_type):
logg(1,"socket_handler:initializing")
while True:
recv = sock.recv(1024)
if not recv:
logg(1,"didn't recieve anything")
break
if len(recv) > 5:
logg(1,"socket handler: %s" % recv )
plug_id, phone_sid, recv_json = parse_json(recv)
send = 1
if "success" in recv_json and recv_json["success"] == "true" and socket_type == "plug":
send = 0
if send == 1:
send_wrapper(sock, message_relayer(recv, socket_type))
else:
logg(2, 'socket_handler:Ignoring received input: ' + str(recv) )
logg(1, 'Closing socket handle: [%s]' % str(sock))
sock.shutdown(socket.SHUT_RDWR)
sock.close()
"sock" is a socket object returned by the listener.accept() function.
The socket_handler function is called like so:
new_connection, address = listener.accept()
...<code omitted>...
pool.spawn_n(socket_handler, new_connection, socket_type)
Does my implementation look incorrect to anyone? Am I basically implementing a fixed length conversation protocol? What can I do to help investigate the issue or make my code more robust?
Thanks in advance,
T
You might be having buffering related problems if you're requesting to receive more bytes at the server (1024) than you're actually sending from the client.
To fix the problem, what's is usually done is encode the length of the message first and then the message itself. This way, the receiver can get the length field (which is of known size) and then read the rest of the message based on the decoded length.
Note: The length field is usually as many bytes long as you need in your protocol. Some protocols are 4-byte aligned and use a 32 bit field for this, but if you find that you've got enough with 1 or 2 bytes, then you can use that. The point here is that both client and server know the size of this field.