starred/vaultwarden
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden.git synced 2026-02-05 00:29:40 +03:00
Code Issues 32 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

reverse proxy config with 1.9.1 #314

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-04 19:30:57 +03:00 by OVERLORD · 10 comments
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:30:57 +03:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @pew on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019).

Hi,

I just upgraded bitwarden from mprasil/bitwarden:1.9.0-alpine to bitwardenrs/server:1.9.1. Now my reverse proxy can't find the backend anymore. I'm using traefik, it reports backend not found in the log files (that's it).

According to the docker-compose logs from bitwarden it's starting just fine:

bitwarden_1_a04f97bb9ef5 | [2019-06-03 09:09:55][_][INFO] 1 response: Application Headers
bitwarden_1_a04f97bb9ef5 | [2019-06-03 09:09:55][launch][INFO] Rocket has launched from http://0.0.0.0:80
bitwarden_1_a04f97bb9ef5 | [2019-06-03 09:09:55][ws][INFO] Listening for new connections on 0.0.0.0:3012.

Any significant changes between the old and new docker build mechanism? I also tried bitwardenrs/server:1.9.0-alpine which didn't work either. Reverting back to mprasil/bitwarden:1.9.0-alpine worked just fine.

Originally created by @pew on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019). Hi, I just upgraded bitwarden from `mprasil/bitwarden:1.9.0-alpine` to `bitwardenrs/server:1.9.1`. Now my reverse proxy can't find the backend anymore. I'm using traefik, it reports `backend not found` in the log files (that's it). According to the docker-compose logs from bitwarden it's starting just fine: ``` bitwarden_1_a04f97bb9ef5 | [2019-06-03 09:09:55][_][INFO] 1 response: Application Headers bitwarden_1_a04f97bb9ef5 | [2019-06-03 09:09:55][launch][INFO] Rocket has launched from http://0.0.0.0:80 bitwarden_1_a04f97bb9ef5 | [2019-06-03 09:09:55][ws][INFO] Listening for new connections on 0.0.0.0:3012. ``` Any significant changes between the old and new docker build mechanism? I also tried `bitwardenrs/server:1.9.0-alpine` which **didn't** work either. Reverting back to `mprasil/bitwarden:1.9.0-alpine` worked just fine.
OVERLORD added the question label 2026-02-04 19:30:57 +03:00
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:31:18 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MarsWarrior commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019):

@ home I'm using bitwardenrs/server:1.9.0 (Version 1.9.0-08a445e2 according to the bitwarden log) behind an Apache reverse proxy. Before that I used mprasil/bitwarden:1.9.0.

Both just work.

Not sure if that is the -alpine version you have troubles with.

Did you restart Traefik? I know from our environment @ work, that sometimes Traefik gets confused and we have to restart Traefik in order to have it recognizing all backends.

@MarsWarrior commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019): @ home I'm using `bitwardenrs/server:1.9.0` (Version 1.9.0-08a445e2 according to the bitwarden log) behind an Apache reverse proxy. Before that I used `mprasil/bitwarden:1.9.0`. Both just work. Not sure if that is the `-alpine` version you have troubles with. Did you restart Traefik? I know from our environment @ work, that sometimes Traefik gets confused and we have to restart Traefik in order to have it recognizing all backends.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:31:30 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pew commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019):

Yes I restarted treafik and I did try both, alpine and non alpine.

@pew commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019): Yes I restarted treafik and I did try both, alpine and non alpine.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:31:35 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@mprasil commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019):

Not sure if that is the -alpine version you have troubles with.

The alpine version is just smaller version that has most stuff statically linked. Functionally there should be no difference.

Any significant changes between the old and new docker build mechanism?

None, they are using same Dockerfile and both are automatic builds.

I've just tried running all versions (bitwardenrs/server:1.9.0-alpine, bitwardenrs/server:1.9.1-alpine, bitwardenrs/server:1.9.1) and they all work just fine in my experience. Are you definitely using the same labels and everything else?

@mprasil commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019): > Not sure if that is the -alpine version you have troubles with. The alpine version is just smaller version that has most stuff statically linked. Functionally there should be no difference. > Any significant changes between the old and new docker build mechanism? None, they are using same Dockerfile and both are automatic builds. I've just tried running all versions (`bitwardenrs/server:1.9.0-alpine`, `bitwardenrs/server:1.9.1-alpine`, `bitwardenrs/server:1.9.1`) and they all work just fine in my experience. Are you definitely using the same labels and everything else?
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:31:41 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pew commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019):

@mprasil Yes, I really just replaced the one line with image: , pulled it and restarted. I'll try it again later on if time permits or tomorrow.

@pew commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2019): @mprasil Yes, I really just replaced the one line with `image: `, pulled it and restarted. I'll try it again later on if time permits or tomorrow.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:31:46 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@patrick-othmer commented on GitHub (Jun 4, 2019):

I run bitwarden behind haproxy and replaced also the image. No problem on our side.

Did you define traefik labels such traefik.frontend.rule / traefik.port? Are both containers still in the same network?

@patrick-othmer commented on GitHub (Jun 4, 2019): I run bitwarden behind haproxy and replaced also the image. No problem on our side. Did you define traefik labels such traefik.frontend.rule / traefik.port? Are both containers still in the same network?
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:32:02 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pew commented on GitHub (Jun 4, 2019):

@patrick-othmer Yes, this is literally the diff of my docker-compose.yml:

3c3
<     image: mprasil/bitwarden:1.9.0-alpine
---
>     image: bitwardenrs/server:1.9.1-alpine

I'll change it today and report back. Hopefully I was just too impatient with traefik (but I waited a few minutes and even restarted, so I don't think so)

@pew commented on GitHub (Jun 4, 2019): @patrick-othmer Yes, this is literally the diff of my docker-compose.yml: ``` 3c3 < image: mprasil/bitwarden:1.9.0-alpine --- > image: bitwardenrs/server:1.9.1-alpine ``` I'll change it today and report back. Hopefully I was just too impatient with traefik (but I waited a few minutes and even restarted, so I don't think so)
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:32:14 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@pew commented on GitHub (Jun 4, 2019):

Well, works now:

docker-compose pull
Pulling bitwarden ... done
docker-compose up -d
Recreating bitwarden_bitwarden_1_c8f778e51638 ... done

Didn't even take a minute for traefik to recognize it. Just a bad day yesterday? Today is rather a bad day for me.. well, thank you! I'll go ahead and close this one right now since also no one else reports an issue. Thanks again.

@pew commented on GitHub (Jun 4, 2019): Well, works now: ``` docker-compose pull Pulling bitwarden ... done docker-compose up -d Recreating bitwarden_bitwarden_1_c8f778e51638 ... done ``` Didn't even take a minute for traefik to recognize it. Just a bad day yesterday? Today is rather a bad day for me.. well, thank you! I'll go ahead and close this one right now since also no one else reports an issue. Thanks again.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:32:20 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@gerroon commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2019):

Apache

Do you mind telling me your apache proxy setup? I cant get it to work. I can open the main page but I get "unexpected error" when I try to login.

@gerroon commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2019): > Apache Do you mind telling me your apache proxy setup? I cant get it to work. I can open the main page but I get "unexpected error" when I try to login.
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:32:26 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MarsWarrior commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2019):

You can check that here, https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/wiki/Proxy-examples.
The main part is:

    RewriteEngine On
    RewriteCond %{HTTP:Upgrade} =websocket [NC]
    RewriteRule /notifications/hub(.*) ws://<SERVER>:3012/$1 [P,L]
    ProxyPass / http://<SERVER>:80/

    ProxyPreserveHost On
    ProxyRequests Off
@MarsWarrior commented on GitHub (Jul 2, 2019): You can check that here, https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/wiki/Proxy-examples. The main part is: ``` RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP:Upgrade} =websocket [NC] RewriteRule /notifications/hub(.*) ws://<SERVER>:3012/$1 [P,L] ProxyPass / http://<SERVER>:80/ ProxyPreserveHost On ProxyRequests Off ```
OVERLORD commented 2026-02-04 19:32:38 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@gerroon commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2019):

@MarsWarrior thanks that looks good

@gerroon commented on GitHub (Jul 3, 2019): @MarsWarrior thanks that looks good
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
SSO
Third party
better for forum
bug
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
future Vault
future Vault
future Vault
good first issue
help wanted
low priority
notes
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
troubleshooting
wontfix
No Label question
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
OVERLORD
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/vaultwarden#314
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?