Cloudfront 403 error binance

28 Jun 2022 8:53 AM +00:00 UTC

How To Fix Binance 403 Error

A quick fix to the Binance 403 error.

While Binance is one of the top cryptocurrency exchanges of 2022, it isn’t without its errors, with error code 403 impacting some users trying to use the platform. Similar to Coinbase connection issues, Binance too is vulnerable to occassional server meltdowns

Binance is a leading crypto exchange that recentlu launched its Binance NFT marketplace. Being one of the prominent crypto exchanges, it allows users and investors to trade 500+ cryptocurrencies across all domains.

However, there might be times when Binance is susceptible to occasional downtime, just like the Coinbase server issues. In this case, Binance may show users the error code 403 to prevent them from accessing the website. Let’s take a look at how Binance’s error 403 can be resolved in a few quick steps.

How To Fix Binance 403 Error?

A 403 error usually occurs when a server doesn’t allow a user to access a given webpage. To fix this error, you may need to follow these simple tricks.

• Try refreshing the page. A random 403 error may pop up due to a temporary server glitch. Refreshing the page may help sort it.

• Clear the cache memory of your phone/desktop’s browser may also help eliminate the 403 error.
• According to a Reddit user, Binance 403 error may also pop up due to depositing too much money without verifying the ID. Verify your credentials with Binance before proceeding ahead to avoid the 403 error.
• Check with Binance’s official website and see if their server is experiencing its periodic maintenance or downtime. This may also be the reason why you are getting a 403 error.
• Using a different browser or waiting 30 minutes after refreshing the page may also help eliminate the 403 error.

What Is Binance 403 Error?

A Binance 403 error is a temporary error that may pop up when a server is unable to process the request initiated by the user.

It might happen due to several reasons, such as when an exchange is undergoing a specified downtime orits periodic server maintenance.

It is always better to check the status page of the particular crypto exchange to stay on top of all details and notices.

Источник

Binance 403 error cloudfront

Frequently Asked Questions

Posted request, but faced 403 ERROR.#

Solution: Please carefully check your request path is following document, for example:

Posted request, but faced error with code «100001001».#

• Please check if you used GET, POST method should be used.
• Please check if you didn’t put content-type: application/json in request header
• Please check if you didn’t post body in request

Posted request, but faced error with code «400002»#

Solution A#

Please check if your sign logic is incorrect. You can test with below parameters:

The generated payload must be (there MUST be one new line at the end):

Signature Should be:

Solution B#

Please check if your json request body used ‘, should use «

Solution C#

Please check if your code changed the request json body after signing. Some may reformat the json.

Solution D#

Please check if you made the signature to upper case

Posted request, but faced error with code «400003»#

• Please check the request header field ‘BinancePay-Timestamp’, it should be UnixTimestamp in milliseconds, not in seconds.
• Please check if the request timestamp was within 1s to Binance Server.

Failed to verify the signature in webhook notification#

Solution A#

Please check if your sign logic is incorrect. Test your code logic with these parameters, if it’s not successful, then you need double check your code logic.

Источник

How do I resolve «403 Error — The request could not be satisfied. Request Blocked» in CloudFront?

Last updated: 2022-06-13

Amazon CloudFront is returning the error message «403 Error — The request could not be satisfied. Request Blocked.» How can I resolve this error?

Short description

The error message «403 Error — The request could not be satisfied. Request Blocked.» is an error from the client. This error can occur due to the default actions of AWS WAF rules associated with the CloudFront distribution. The following settings may cause a Request Blocked error:

• When the default action is set to Allow, the request matches a rule that has Action set to Block.
• When the default action is set to Block, the request matches the conditions of a rule that has Action set to Block.
  -or-
• When the default action is set to Block, the request doesn’t match the conditions of any rule that has Action set to Allow.

Resolution

To resolve the Request Blocked error:

1. Open the CloudFront console.
2. Choose the ID for the distribution you want to update.
3. Choose the General tab.
4. Under Settings, in the AWS WAF web ACL list, choose the web access control list (web ACL) associated with your distribution.
5. In the AWS WAF & Shield console, choose Web ACLs.
6. On the Web ACLs page, for AWS Region, choose Global (CloudFront).
7. Choose the web ACLs that require review. Check that the AWS WAF default action is set on the web ACL.
8. To resolve the Request Blocked error when the default action is Allow, review the requests to be sure that they don’t match the conditions for any AWS WAF rules with Action set to Block.
   If valid requests match the conditions for a rule that blocks requests, then update the rule to allow the requests.
9. To resolve the Request Blocked error when the default action is Block, review the requests to be sure that they match the conditions for any AWS WAF rules with Action set to Allow.
   If valid requests don’t match any existing rules that allow requests, then create a rule that allows the requests.

Note: To troubleshoot further, you can use the AWS WAF console to review a sample of requests that match the rule that might be causing the Request Blocked error. For more information, see Viewing a sample of web requests .

Источник

How do I resolve «403 ERROR — The request could not be satisfied. Bad Request» in Amazon CloudFront?

Last updated: 2022-05-31

Amazon CloudFront is returning the error message «403 ERROR — The request could not be satisfied. Bad Request.» How can I resolve this error?

Short description

The error message «403 ERROR — The request could not be satisfied. Bad Request.» is from the client. This error can occur due to one of the following reasons:

• The request is initiated over HTTP, but the CloudFront distribution is configured to allow only HTTPS requests. To resolve this, follow the steps in the Allow HTTP requests Resolution section.
• The requested alternate domain name (CNAME) isn’t associated with the CloudFront distribution. To resolve this, follow the steps in the Associate a CNAME with a distribution Resolution section.

Note: This resolution is for troubleshooting the error when you own the application or website that uses CloudFront to serve content to end users. If you receive this error while trying to view an application or access a website, contact the provider or website owner for assistance.

Resolution

Allow HTTP requests

Follow these steps:

1. Open the Amazon CloudFront console.
2. Choose the distribution that’s returning the Bad Request error.
3. Choose the Behaviors tab.
4. Choose the behavior that matches the request. Then, choose Edit.
5. For Viewer Protocol Policy, choose either HTTP and HTTPS or Redirect HTTP to HTTPS.
   Note:HTTP and HTTPS allow connections on both HTTP and HTTPS. Redirect HTTP to HTTPS automatically redirects HTTP requests to HTTPS.
6. Choose Save Changes.

Associate a CNAME with a distribution

Follow these steps:

1. Open the Amazon CloudFront console.
2. Choose the distribution that’s returning the Bad Request error.
3. Choose the General tab.
4. Under Settings, choose Edit.
5. For Alternate Domain Names (CNAMEs), select Add Item.
6. Enter the CNAME that you want to associate with the CloudFront distribution.
7. Under Custom SSL certificate, choose the certificate that covers the domain. For more information, see How do I configure my CloudFront distribution to use an SSL/TLS certificate?
   Note: An SSL certificate is required to associate a CNAME with a distribution. For more information see, Requirements for using alternate domain names.
8. Choose Save changes.

Источник

403 Forbidden error from cloudfront #2438

Comments

gabrielgrant commented Oct 20, 2017

@homme has a long-running job that, after a couple hours, starts showing 403 Forbidden error from cloudfront:

it seems the expires timesamp is in the past (that’s 11:17:04 PM GMT/4:17:04 PM Pacific), so my guess is that is the source of the problem — we probably do the auth at the beginning of the job (or maybe a run?), but don’t properly handle the expiry

i’m not sure whether we ever refresh that signature — we may do it at some point once a datum is rescheduled, in which case the job would complete eventually and only datums in-flight when the expiry happens would have to be retried, but it’s also possible that we don’t ever refresh, in which case these datums would never complete and the job would fail

If the latter is true, it seems this may be the source of the long-running job failures @homme has been struggling with lately

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

gabrielgrant commented Oct 20, 2017 •

@sean: Looking at the amazon client code . looks like the default expiry is set to an hour in the future. We should up that.

@homme: Is the expiry something that can be updated as a job progresses in order to make sure it never gets triggered no matter how long a job runs for?

@gabrielgrant: yea, seems we should handle refresh, rather than just relying on a longer fixed time window (esp in light of #2436)

@homme: If I update a job using update-pipeline should that refresh the expiry? Just trying to think of a practical workaround in the short term.

gabrielgrant commented Oct 20, 2017

@homme i’m not 100% sure, but i’d be very surprised if the token were tied to a pipeline rather than a job, so that should work

sjezewski commented Oct 20, 2017

Right now it’s tied to the obj client, which gets initialized when the worker starts up. So cycling the pod may help (killing the pod and waiting for a restart).

sjezewski commented Oct 20, 2017

That’s not quite right.

It looks like a new amazon Reader is created every time we get an underlying object from the obj store. (This could happen 1 to many times per file).

So it’s weird that you’re getting an expired URL . unless perhaps this is a rather large file that takes longer than 1 hour to download? What is the size of that file?

gabrielgrant commented Oct 20, 2017 •

I’d be surprised if this error occurred due to a single request that took a long time to download — my understanding is that generally expiry is checked at the beginning of a request, and the request is allowed to complete regardless of how long it takes.

In fact, in this case, this almost certainly has to be a request that is initially made (or at least received) after the expiry time: the HTTP error code is returned at the very beginning of the response, so if the token was valid when the request began, but expired while the data was in flight, there’s no way to change to 403 response, because the 200 would have already been sent. The only option would be to just abruptly stop the data stream (and even that assumes amazon is actually checking for this in-flight expiry case, which, as i said above, i seriously doubt they are)

gabrielgrant commented Oct 20, 2017

Looking at the log timestamp, we can see that this is just barely timed out — the log line was recorded

766ms after the signature expires. So what is possible is that the request was sent just before the expiry time (22:17:03.99, say). If the client did a simple check at that point, the signature would still appear to be valid. But in that case it likely wouldn’t be received by amazon until a moment after it expired, due to network latency (say 20ms later, at 22:17:04.019)

If this signature is getting generated immediately before sending, with a 1 hour window, though, it’s not clear to my why/how this could be occuring

homme commented Oct 20, 2017

@gabrielgrant @sjezewski just to let you know the Pachyderm team is always welcome to have access to our cluster to help in the debugging.

gabrielgrant commented Oct 20, 2017

@homme great, thanks — I’ll talk to @sjezewski tomorrow and see if it needs more debugging, or if we can easily identify the fix by just looking at the code

homme commented Oct 20, 2017

Thanks @gabrielgrant that’s appreciated. In the meantime I’m going to investigate options for setting up a workaround for that step by hooking up our pipeline docker images to a job queue for the I/O.

sjezewski commented Oct 20, 2017

I don’t think that’s quite right.

The worker master client makes the GRPC Process() call to an individual worker. That worker then downloads the input data, which in turn calles GetFile which calls GetObject() . For each call of GetObject() a new amazon client reader is created, and at that time a new signature and new expiry is generated.

So. The fact that the log line’s timestamp is just after the expiry makes sense. If you make a call w an expired url, of course the error will bubble up just a bit afterwards.

What is unclear is still exactly why/how the URL could’ve expired. We generate the signed URL right before we attempt to get that URL. I do think a rather large download could do it. (I would still like to know what the max file size is for all the inputs to this pipeline)

But I have a new hypothesis. @homme — this workload involves

1M files, correct?

It’s possible that we’ve hit a rate limit w cloudfront. That seems like it shouldn’t happen . cloudfront is a CDN and should be designed for this. However, this is a large workload, and it could be that they measure the workload differently per key rather than across keys and degrade differently.

This would also account for the small end to end time we see in the log message (

400ms). There’s no way it could hang for an hour on a large file if thats the total run time of that call. And this also supports the idea that we’ve hit a limit, and this just happens to be a symptom of what happens after we hit that limit. We saw similar things once we hit the original S3 rate limiting.

I would like to confirm that this is a large # of files @homme . It would be great if we could get a file count for an individual datum. But barring that, your total file count and glob patterns will suffice.

Then this becomes a matter of confirming this theory and engineering the workaround.

I believe we already have a semaphore for rate limiting our downloads from an obj store. I can try lowering that bandwidth and seeing if that helps. It will make it so that downloads take a bit longer . but they will eventually succeed if we’re right.

@homme — I’d also like to get access to the cluster (you can ping me the kubeconfig file on slack) so that I can poke around a bit. In particular I’m interested in seeing the logs / existing download timing for other datums.

We’ll go from there.

Ideally, I don’t like solutions that slow us down. One thing I’ll be thinking on is if we can configure cloudfront differently to get past this rate limiting. 1M files per datum is a use case we want to support. And we’ll get it working. But I’d also like it to be as fast as possible.

Источник

26

ответов