It doesn’t seem very well documented, but “protocol version 301” here is actually referring to TLS v1.0, which is below Caddy’s default minimum supported protocol (as per the Caddy TLS docs).
You can get around this by upgrading whatever app is making requests to Caddy to a newer TLS protocol, or writing a TLS directive block that specifies a lower minimum protocol:
With all the above said, it doesn’t even look like Caddy should be listening on that port. My instinct would be to ignore these log entries as random chatter, and firewall off those ports unless you’re using them. Usually I firewall everything except 80, 443, and a few other ports (including a random port for SSH).
That’s not my IP address, the whois points to ovh.com.
What is that?? Is it sending a robot every 5 minutes? And why 4 entries??
I would prefer not to use tls1.0 but if this is not a sign of problems I can ignore it. It does litter up the logs, 4 entries like that every 5 minutes.
ovh.com is notably a popular provider of virtual private servers. It would not surprise me if one of their clients is utilising their service to scan locations on the internet for vulnerable targets, especially considering the connecting client’s insistence on an outdated, insecure protocol.
Again my advice is to firewall all incoming ports not explicitly in use. I would even consider configuring fail2ban to watch these logs and temp ban repeat offenders. This would have the added benefit of keeping your logs much clearer.
Those port numbers are client port numbers, in other words, ports that your client is using to make the connection, not the ports on your machine (I think).
I have a hunch this is an automated client using a too-low protocol checking my rss feeds… The start page service ustart.org is hosted on ovh.com
So I guess, this could always happen, someone trying to access stuff without being able to use tls1.1 or 1.2, so this must be par for the course. Happy it’s not something on my side.
I lowered the TLS minimum protocol on a very specific vhost because the Windows software ShareX only seems to support TLS1.0 when making PUT requests to my PHP upload handler. I’m not sure whether that’s a worse idea than simply downgrading to HTTP for these uploads, but I would like these uploads to be private, so…
Generally speaking I’d definitely have to echo @matt’s (lack of) recommendation.
Yes, although in that issue all request return that error, in essence deadlocking caddy (I’m still trying to debug that one).
Yes, what you see is the client port number so that is all normal. I would not be concerned about this errors, would be interesting to see what is actually doing this.