Hubbry Logo
XML-RPCXML-RPCMain
Open search
XML-RPC
Community hub
XML-RPC
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
XML-RPC
XML-RPC
XML-RPC
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

XML-RPC is a remote procedure call (RPC) protocol which uses XML to encode its calls and HTTP as a transport mechanism.[1]

History

[edit]

The XML-RPC protocol was created in 1998 by Dave Winer of UserLand Software and Microsoft,[2] with Microsoft seeing the protocol as an essential part of scaling up its efforts in business-to-business e-commerce.[3] As new functionality was introduced, the standard evolved into what is now SOAP.[4]

UserLand supported XML-RPC from version 5.1 of its Frontier web content management system,[4] released in June 1998.[5]

XML-RPC's idea of a human-readable-and-writable, script-parsable standard for HTTP-based requests and responses has also been implemented in competing specifications such as Allaire's Web Distributed Data Exchange (WDDX) and webMethod's Web Interface Definition Language (WIDL).[6] Prior art wrapping COM, CORBA, and Java RMI objects in XML syntax and transporting them via HTTP also existed in DataChannel's WebBroker technology.[7][8]

The generic use of XML for remote procedure call (RPC) was patented by Phillip Merrick, Stewart Allen, and Joseph Lapp in April 2006, claiming benefit to a provisional application filed in March 1998. The patent was assigned to webMethods, located in Fairfax, Virginia. The patent expired on March 23, 2019.[9]

Usage

[edit]

In XML-RPC, a client performs an RPC by sending an HTTP request to a server that implements XML-RPC and receives the HTTP response. A call can have multiple parameters and one result. The protocol defines a few data types for the parameters and result. Some of these data types are complex, i.e. nested. For example, you can have a parameter that is an array of five integers.

The parameters/result structure and the set of data types are meant to mirror those used in common programming languages.

Identification of clients for authorization purposes can be achieved using popular HTTP security methods. Basic access authentication can be used for identification and authentication.

In comparison to RESTful protocols, where resource representations (documents) are transferred, XML-RPC is designed to call methods. The practical difference is just that XML-RPC is much more structured, which means common library code can be used to implement clients and servers and there is less design and documentation work for a specific application protocol. [citation needed] One salient technical difference between typical RESTful protocols and XML-RPC is that many RESTful protocols use the HTTP URI for parameter information, whereas with XML-RPC, the URI just identifies the server.

JSON-RPC is similar to XML-RPC.

Data types

[edit]

Common datatypes are converted into their XML equivalents with example values shown below:

Name Tag Example Description
array 
<array>
  <data>
    <value><i4>1404</i4></value>
    <value><string>Something here</string></value>
    <value><i4>1</i4></value>
  </data>
</array>
Array of values, storing no keys
base64 
<base64>eW91IGNhbid0IHJlYWQgdGhpcyE=</base64>
Base64-encoded binary data
boolean 
<boolean>1</boolean>
Boolean logical value (0 or 1)
date/time 
<dateTime.iso8601>19980717T14:08:55Z</dateTime.iso8601>
Date and time in ISO 8601 format
double 
<double>-12.53</double>
Double precision floating point number
integer 
<int>42</int>

or 

<i4>42</i4>
Signed integer coded on 4 bytes
string 
<string>Hello world!</string>

or 

Hello world!
String of characters. Must follow XML encoding.
struct 
<struct>
  <member>
    <name>foo</name>
    <value><i4>1</i4></value>
  </member>
  <member>
    <name>bar</name>
    <value><i4>2</i4></value>
  </member>
</struct>
Associative array
nil 
<nil/>
Discriminated null value; an XML-RPC extension
long 
<i8>1312</i8>
Signed integer coded on 8 bytes. This is not part of the specification, but it is supported by several XML-RPC implementations[10] · [11]

Examples

[edit]

An example of a typical XML-RPC request would be: 

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<methodCall>
  <methodName>examples.getStateName</methodName>
  <params>
    <param>
        <value><i4>40</i4></value>
    </param>
  </params>
</methodCall>

An example of a typical XML-RPC response would be: 

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<methodResponse>
  <params>
    <param>
        <value><string>South Dakota</string></value>
    </param>
  </params>
</methodResponse>

A typical XML-RPC fault would be: 

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<methodResponse>
  <fault>
    <value>
      <struct>
        <member>
          <name>faultCode</name>
          <value><int>4</int></value>
        </member>
        <member>
          <name>faultString</name>
          <value><string>Too many parameters.</string></value>
        </member>
      </struct>
    </value>
  </fault>
</methodResponse>

Criticism

[edit]

Recent critics (from 2010 and onwards) of XML-RPC argue that RPC calls can be made with plain XML, and that XML-RPC does not add any value over XML. Both XML-RPC and XML require an application-level data model, such as which field names are defined in the XML schema or the parameter names in XML-RPC. Furthermore, XML-RPC uses about 4 times the number of bytes compared to plain XML to encode the same objects, which is itself verbose compared to JSON.[12][13][14]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

XML-RPC

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
XML-RPC is a (RPC) protocol that uses XML to encode its calls and HTTP as a transport mechanism, allowing software applications on different computers to communicate over the by executing procedures on remote servers and returning structured data. Introduced in 1998 by of UserLand Software, XML-RPC emerged from efforts to enable cross-platform scripting, initially as a simple RPC system using XML over HTTP to connect applications like on Macintosh and Windows systems. The protocol's development involved early collaboration with Microsoft engineers, including Bob Atkinson, Mohsen Al-Ghosein, and Don Box, during a 1998 brainstorming session in Redmond, where ideas for serialization and data encoding were refined; however, due to delays in Microsoft's broader SOAP initiative, Winer independently released XML-RPC as a lightweight alternative focused on immediate usability. First implemented in UserLand's Frontier 5.1 software, it quickly gained traction for its simplicity, with the initial specification documented in June 1999 and subsequent updates through 2003 to address interoperability and fault handling. Key features of XML-RPC include support for basic data types such as integers, strings, booleans, doubles, and dates, as well as complex structures like arrays and structs, all encoded in XML within HTTP-POST requests and responses. Requests follow a <methodCall> format specifying the method name and parameters, while responses use <methodResponse> to return values or faults with error codes and strings, ensuring firewall compatibility and ease of parsing without requiring specialized libraries. Though predating more comprehensive standards like , XML-RPC influenced web services by prioritizing developer accessibility and has been implemented in languages including Python, , , and , enabling applications like systems and remote tools.

Introduction

Definition and Purpose

XML-RPC is a (RPC) protocol that uses XML to encode its calls and HTTP as the transport mechanism. It enables software running on disparate systems to communicate by allowing a client to execute procedures on a remote server and receive responses, thereby promoting across different programming languages and platforms without requiring complex . The protocol was developed in the late 1990s as a straightforward method for web-based RPC to enable cross-platform scripting, allowing communication between applications on different systems such as Macintosh and Windows. In its basic workflow, a client initiates communication by sending an HTTP POST request containing an XML-formatted method call, which specifies the procedure name and parameters; the server then processes the call, executes the procedure, and returns an XML response with the result or an error fault. This design emphasizes simplicity, firewall traversal, and ease of implementation to facilitate over the web.

Key Characteristics

XML-RPC is renowned for its simplicity, defined by a minimal specification comprising just three essential components: a basic , a standardized request and response format, and HTTP as the . This streamlined approach eliminates the need for specialized software, relying solely on ubiquitous HTTP clients and servers for , which enables rapid adoption even by developers with limited resources. The protocol's design prioritizes ease of understanding and modification, drawing from XML's readability to allow straightforward integration without complex tooling. A core strength of XML-RPC lies in its language neutrality, as it employs a that directly corresponds to fundamental types prevalent across programming languages, including integers, strings, booleans, doubles, dates, and via encoding. This alignment simplifies the mapping of native language constructs to XML-RPC messages, obviating the requirement for bespoke or deserialization logic in client or server implementations. Consequently, developers in diverse environments—such as , , Python, C, C++, or —can interface with XML-RPC services portably, fostering interoperability without language-specific adaptations. XML-RPC enforces stateless operation, treating each as an independent transaction encapsulated in an HTTP POST request, which ensures that no server-side state persists across invocations. This inherent aligns with HTTP's foundational principles, promoting and reliability in distributed systems by avoiding dependencies on prior interactions. The protocol's extensibility is evident in its support for composite data structures like arrays and structs, alongside multiple parameters per method call, enabling the handling of intricate payloads while maintaining a lightweight footprint. Such flexibility allows for the evolution of applications without altering the core specification, as servers can interpret method names and parameters in domain-specific ways. Finally, XML-RPC excels in cross-platform compatibility, leveraging HTTP's universality to operate seamlessly across operating systems, networks, and hardware architectures over the public internet. This compatibility is bolstered by HTTP's standard port usage, which typically evades firewall restrictions, making XML-RPC suitable for wide-area deployments without additional configuration hurdles.

History and Development

Origins

XML-RPC was developed in early 1998 by , chief technology officer at UserLand Software, in collaboration with engineers including Bob Atkinson, Mohsen Al-Ghosein, and Don Box. The protocol emerged from UserLand's need for a simple communication mechanism to connect instances of its scripting environment across different platforms, particularly after porting the software from Macintosh to Windows. By leveraging established Internet standards—XML for data encoding and HTTP for transport—XML-RPC provided a lightweight alternative to proprietary (RPC) systems, enabling straightforward interoperability over the web without complex . This approach addressed the challenges of integrating distributed software components in a nascent web ecosystem, prioritizing simplicity and openness. The first working implementation of XML-RPC appeared in UserLand's 5.1 environment in June 1998, marking the protocol's practical debut. This integration allowed Frontier users to execute remote procedures seamlessly, demonstrating XML-RPC's viability for real-world applications from the outset. The specification was formalized shortly thereafter, with an initial essay by in February 1998 outlining the concept of "RPC over HTTP via XML," which spurred further collaboration with during a brainstorming session in Redmond. By mid-1998, examples in the protocol's referenced Frontier 5.1.2 servers, underscoring rapid prototyping and refinement. Early adoption of XML-RPC accelerated through UserLand's management tools, where it quickly became integral to features like pinging and content syndication. This traction in blogging workflows—predating widespread use—highlighted XML-RPC's role in pushing dynamic , as seen in mechanisms for pinging aggregators about new entries to promote discovery and sharing. By late 1998, these applications demonstrated the protocol's effectiveness in fostering interconnected web publishing ecosystems.

Evolution and Standardization

Following its initial release, XML-RPC quickly influenced the development of more advanced protocols, serving as the foundational model for (Simple Object Access Protocol). In 1998, developers at DevelopMentor and began work on what became 1.0, released in the fourth quarter of 1999, which extended XML-RPC's RPC-style messaging over HTTP with additional features like envelope structures for better extensibility and error handling. This collaboration aimed to address limitations in XML-RPC, such as limited support for complex operations, while retaining its simplicity and XML-based encoding. The core XML-RPC specification was first published in June 1999 by of UserLand Software, with key updates in January and October 1999 to refine scalar types (e.g., adding encoding) and clarify message formats, followed by a minor revision in June 2003 to adjust string definitions and update copyrights. Subsequent evolution focused on extensions rather than core changes, with implementations introducing support for additional data types like 64-bit long integers (often denoted as ) and nil values to handle nulls, which were not part of the original spec. These extensions emerged in the early ; for instance, Apache XML-RPC version 3 (released around 2005) formalized long and nil via a vendor , enabling broader in diverse programming environments. As of 2025, XML-RPC remains a stable protocol with no significant updates since the early , having been largely supplanted by lighter alternatives like and ful APIs that offer better performance and integration with modern web architectures. While it persists in legacy systems for its simplicity, adoption has declined due to concerns, such as vulnerability to brute-force attacks via exposed endpoints. In platforms like , XML-RPC support is retained for compatibility with older mobile apps and desktop clients; it is enabled by default in new installations but is recommended to be disabled in favor of the more secure API. A July 2025 proposal suggested placing XML-RPC in due to lack of development since 2017, but as of November 2025, this has not been implemented.

Protocol Mechanics

How It Works

XML-RPC operates as a stateless, request-response protocol where a client initiates a by constructing an XML-formatted method call and transmitting it to a server via an HTTP POST request, typically directed to the endpoint URI "/RPC2". The server receives this request, parses the XML to identify the method name and any parameters, executes the corresponding procedure on the server-side, and generates an XML response containing the result or an error indication, which is then returned to the client over the same HTTP connection. The procedure invocation begins with the client specifying a method as a simple string identifier, such as "examples.getStateName", within the XML structure; parameters are provided positionally in the order expected by the method, though complex parameters can be encapsulated in that include named fields for more descriptive passing. This design allows clients to invoke server-side functions as if they were local, abstracting the remote nature of the call while maintaining simplicity in the invocation mechanism. Each interaction is entirely self-contained, with no reliance on sessions or persistent state between calls, ensuring reliability through the underlying HTTP transport protocol, which supports versions 1.0 and 1.1 for message delivery. In the event of an during , such as parameters or an unrecognized method, the server responds with a structured fault element in the XML response, including a numeric fault code and a descriptive , rather than relying on HTTP error codes; this approach keeps all information within the XML for consistent handling across implementations. The entire flow emphasizes minimal overhead, with the client and server exchanging only the necessary XML wrapped in standard HTTP envelopes to facilitate cross-platform .

HTTP Integration

XML-RPC employs HTTP as its primary transport mechanism, encapsulating procedure calls and responses within standard HTTP messages to facilitate communication over the internet. This integration ensures compatibility with existing web infrastructure, allowing XML-RPC requests to traverse networks without requiring specialized protocols or ports. The protocol exclusively utilizes the HTTP POST method for all requests, as it supports the transmission of potentially large XML payloads in the request body, avoiding the URI length limitations inherent in GET requests. Servers typically expose XML-RPC endpoints at a fixed path, such as /RPC2 or /xmlrpc.php, without employing URI-based routing for specific methods; instead, method identification occurs within the XML payload. Key HTTP headers in XML-RPC requests include Content-Type: text/xml to indicate the XML-formatted body, along with the mandatory Host, User-Agent, and Content-Length headers to comply with HTTP standards and ensure proper parsing. The User-Agent header optionally provides client identification, while the XML content defaults to UTF-8 encoding as per XML specifications. Responses from successful XML-RPC calls return an HTTP status code of 200 OK, with the body containing the XML-formatted result or fault details. Transport-level errors, such as invalid requests or server unavailability, may result in standard HTTP 4xx or 5xx status codes, often accompanied by XML fault elements in the response body where applicable. This HTTP-centric design enhances proxy and firewall compatibility, as XML-RPC traffic operates over conventional ports 80 (HTTP) and 443 (), using standard requests that can be inspected or tunneled without additional configuration. Authentication, when required, is handled via HTTP mechanisms such as Basic Auth.

Data Model

Supported Data Types

XML-RPC supports a set of primitive and compound data types designed for interoperability across programming languages, with values encoded in XML for transmission over HTTP. The primitive types include integers represented as 32-bit signed values, denoted as <int> or its alias <i4>, which range from -2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647. Booleans are limited to 0 (false) or 1 (true). Strings consist of encoded text, allowing any characters except < and & (which are escaped), and serve as the default type for untagged values. Doubles are IEEE 754 double-precision floating-point numbers, expressed in decimal notation without support for infinity or NaN. DateTime values follow the ISO 8601 format (e.g., YYYYMMDDTHH:MM:SS without timezone), representing timestamps. Binary data is handled as base64-encoded octets. Compound types enable structured data: structs are unordered collections of key-value pairs, where keys are strings and values can be any supported type, allowing recursion. Arrays are ordered lists of values, supporting mixed types and recursion, without named elements. Although not part of the original specification, the 64-bit signed integer type (long), often represented as <i8>, is widely supported as an extension in implementations like Apache XML-RPC to accommodate larger numeric ranges. Similarly, the nil type, denoting a null or absent value, is a common extension (e.g., <nil/>), adopted in libraries such as Python's xmlrpc.client to represent None. These types are intentionally simple to map directly to native constructs in common languages: for example, the int type aligns with Java's int or Python's int (within 32-bit range), structs map to Python dictionaries or Java HashMaps, and arrays to Python lists or Java arrays. This design facilitates seamless parameter passing and return value handling in languages like C, Java, and Python.

XML Encoding

In XML-RPC, data values are serialized into XML elements to facilitate transmission over HTTP, ensuring that the structure remains human-readable and parsable by standard XML processors. Every value, regardless of type, must be enclosed within a <value> tag, with the specific indicated by a child element that wraps the actual content. For instance, an is represented using either <i4> or <int> tags, both denoting a 32-bit signed , as in <value><i4>42</i4></value>. This wrapping mechanism allows for flexible while maintaining strict XML compliance. Complex data structures like structs and arrays follow nested XML formats to represent collections. A struct, which models a key-value mapping with keys, uses a <struct> element containing one or more <member> subelements; each member includes a <name> child for the key and a <value> child for the associated data. An example struct encoding a range might appear as:

<value> <struct> <member> <name>lowerBound</name> <value><i4>18</i4></value> </member> <member> <name>upperBound</name> <value><i4>139</i4></value> </member> </struct> </value>

<value> <struct> <member> <name>lowerBound</name> <value><i4>18</i4></value> </member> <member> <name>upperBound</name> <value><i4>139</i4></value> </member> </struct> </value>

Arrays, supporting heterogeneous lists of values, are encoded within an <array> element that contains a single <data> child, which in turn holds multiple <value> elements. For example:

<value> <array> <data> <value><i4>12</i4></value> <value><string>[Egypt](/page/Egypt)</string></value> <value><boolean>0</boolean></value> <value><i4>-31</i4></value> </data> </array> </value>

<value> <array> <data> <value><i4>12</i4></value> <value><string>[Egypt](/page/Egypt)</string></value> <value><boolean>0</boolean></value> <value><i4>-31</i4></value> </data> </array> </value>

This design enables ordered sequences without predefined length limits. Special handling applies to strings and binary data to ensure XML validity. Strings, which can contain any characters, require escaping of XML-reserved characters such as < (as &lt;) and & (as &amp;), with whitespace preserved as-is within the <string> tags. Binary data, to circumvent XML parsing complexities with non-text content, is encoded in format inside a <base64> element, such as <value><base64>eW91IGNhbid0IHJlYWQgdGhpcyE=</base64></value>. For numeric types like integers and doubles, whitespace is not permitted and is collapsed during parsing—leading or trailing spaces are ignored, and leading zeros in integers are disallowed except for the value zero itself.

Messages

Request Structure

The XML-RPC request is an XML enclosed within a <methodCall> root element, which encapsulates the details of the procedure to be invoked on the remote server. This is transmitted as the body of an HTTP request, with the Content-Type header set to text/xml. The <methodCall> element must contain exactly one <methodName> child element and may optionally include a <params> element to specify arguments for the method. The <methodName> element holds a string value that identifies the procedure, formatted as a simple dot-separated identifier to denote namespaces or modules, such as examples.getStateName for retrieving a name by its numeric code or system.listMethods for purposes. Allowed characters in the method name include uppercase and lowercase letters (A-Z, a-z), digits (0-9), underscores (_), periods (.), colons (:), and forward slashes (/), ensuring compatibility with various naming conventions without spaces or special symbols. This naming approach facilitates organized procedure discovery in larger systems. If the method requires parameters, they are grouped within an optional <params> element, which contains one or more <param> sub-elements, each enclosing a single <value> that represents the argument. Parameters are positional and unordered, with support for scalar types (integers via <i4> or <int>, strings via <string>, booleans, doubles, dates, and base64-encoded binaries), as well as compound types like arrays (via <array><data>) and structs (via <struct><member>). The data within <value> is encoded using XML tags specific to each type, as detailed in the XML encoding guidelines. Multiple parameters are simply listed sequentially within <params>, allowing for flexible argument passing without named associations. A representative example of a request calling a method to fetch a state name by ID is shown below:

<?xml version="1.0"?> <methodCall> <methodName>examples.getStateName</methodName> <params> <param> <value><i4>40</i4></value> </param> </params> </methodCall>

<?xml version="1.0"?> <methodCall> <methodName>examples.getStateName</methodName> <params> <param> <value><i4>40</i4></value> </param> </params> </methodCall>

In this case, the single parameter 40 is passed to retrieve the corresponding state name. XML-RPC includes standard introspection methods prefixed with system., such as system.listMethods (which returns an array of all available method names on the server), system.methodSignature (which provides the parameter types for a given method), and system.methodHelp (which returns a textual description of the method). These methods enable clients to dynamically discover and understand the server's without prior knowledge, though their implementation is optional and server-specific. The XML-RPC specification imposes no explicit maximum limits on request size, parameter count, or message length, allowing flexibility for complex calls; however, practical constraints arise from HTTP protocol limits, such as server-configured POST body sizes (often 1-8 MB) and XML parsing overhead in implementations. Exceeding these can result in transport errors rather than protocol violations.

Response and Fault Structure

In XML-RPC, the server responds to a method call with a <methodResponse> element that encapsulates either a successful result or a fault condition. For a successful response, this element contains a <params> structure with exactly one <param> child, which in turn holds a single <value> representing the return value of the invoked method. This design ensures that only a single result is returned per call, distinguishing XML-RPC from other RPC protocols that may support multiple return values. The <value> can encode any of the protocol's supported types, such as strings, integers, or arrays. A representative successful response might return a simple scalar value, as illustrated in the following XML example for a method that retrieves a state name:

xml

<?xml version="1.0"?> <methodResponse> <params> <param> <value><string>South Dakota</string></value> </param> </params> </methodResponse>

<?xml version="1.0"?> <methodResponse> <params> <param> <value><string>South Dakota</string></value> </param> </params> </methodResponse>

This structure adheres to the XML-RPC specification, where the response body is sent over HTTP with a 200 status and Content-Type of text/xml. Fault responses, which indicate an error during processing, use the same <methodResponse> root but include a <fault> element instead of <params>. The <fault> contains a <value> that must be a <struct> with two required members: <faultCode>, an specifying the error type, and <faultString>, a human-readable string describing the issue. Servers are responsible for generating appropriate faults for conditions like invalid input or method failures. Although the core XML-RPC specification does not define a comprehensive set of fault codes—leaving them largely implementation-specific—some implementations use specific codes for common errors. For instance, a fault for providing too many parameters might use code 4 in some implementations. An example fault response for too many parameters appears as follows:

xml

<?xml version="1.0"?> <methodResponse> <fault> <value> <struct> <member> <name>faultCode</name> <value><i4>4</i4></value> </member> <member> <name>faultString</name> <value><string>Too many parameters.</string></value> </member> </struct> </value> </fault> </methodResponse>

<?xml version="1.0"?> <methodResponse> <fault> <value> <struct> <member> <name>faultCode</name> <value><i4>4</i4></value> </member> <member> <name>faultString</name> <value><string>Too many parameters.</string></value> </member> </struct> </value> </fault> </methodResponse>

Clients typically parse these faults into exception objects, using the and for error handling, while the overall response maintains the single-value constraint even in error cases.

Implementations and Usage

Language Libraries

XML-RPC implementations are available across multiple programming languages through dedicated libraries and built-in modules, enabling developers to create clients and servers that adhere to the protocol's specifications. These tools handle the encoding of requests and decoding of responses, supporting core data types such as integers, , booleans, doubles, dates, base64-encoded binaries, arrays, and structs. In Python, the xmlrpc.client module, part of the since version 2.2, provides comprehensive support for XML-RPC clients, including all standard data types and extensions like datetime and binary objects. This module allows seamless integration for making remote calls over HTTP, with built-in handling for fault responses and secure connections via . As of 2025, it remains actively maintained within Python's core distribution. For , the Apache XML-RPC library offers a robust implementation for both clients and servers, mapping XML-RPC structs to Java's java.util.Map interface, which is commonly implemented using HashMap. It supports advanced features like streaming for large payloads and integration with JAXB for complex objects, ensuring compatibility with the full XML-RPC type set. Although the official Apache project has not seen major updates since , community forks provide security patches and ongoing compatibility as of 2025. The XML-RPC extension for provided native functions such as xmlrpc_encode_request and xmlrpc_decode from version 4.1, facilitating straightforward XML-RPC communication without external dependencies. These tools are notably used in for remote publishing and management APIs, where they encode method calls and parameters into XML for HTTP transmission, often via custom implementations or polyfills in modern PHP versions. The extension was deprecated in PHP 8.0 and removed from the core distribution, available only via PECL as of 2025, with alternatives recommended for new development; related XML features have also evolved. The xmlrpc-c library serves C and C++ environments, emphasizing low-level XML parsing and HTTP transport for building efficient XML-RPC clients and servers. It provides modular components for handling protocol details, including support for and custom extensions, making it suitable for embedded or performance-critical applications. As of 2025, the project remains mature with the latest release (1.60.05) from late 2024, and unofficial forks address builds and security concerns. In , the RPC::XML module delivers a complete XML-RPC toolkit, featuring dedicated classes like RPC::XML::Client for sending requests and RPC::XML::Server for hosting services, both leveraging LWP for HTTP interactions. It includes robust data serialization and fault handling, compatible with XML parsers such as XML::LibXML. The module continues to be actively maintained on as of 2025, with bug reporting channels available for ongoing improvements. Overall, as of , XML-RPC libraries have reached maturity across languages, with core implementations stable but many original projects unmaintained; active community forks ensure updates and compatibility with modern runtimes.

Common Applications

XML-RPC has found significant application in blogging platforms, particularly for enabling remote content management and inter-site notifications. In , the XML-RPC protocol facilitates remote posting, , and deletion of content, allowing users to interact with their sites from desktop clients or mobile apps without direct access to the admin dashboard. It also supports pingbacks, a mechanism for automatically notifying a site when another site links to its content, which was enabled by default in early versions but later made opt-in due to associated risks. In content management systems like 7, XML-RPC was a core module for external systems to communicate with the site, supporting tasks such as node creation, updates, and syndication across platforms; in later versions such as Drupal 10 (as of 2025), it is available as a contributed module. Similarly, utilizes XML-RPC through its mt-xmlrpc.cgi script to enable programmatic blog management, including integration with legacy client tools for posting and pinging services. Early and web publishing tools, such as UserLand's , incorporated XML-RPC for remote editing and syndication, allowing collaborative over HTTP in distributed environments. The protocol's capabilities, via methods like system.listMethods, are commonly employed in and development tools to dynamically discover available server methods without prior documentation. As of 2025, XML-RPC persists in legacy systems, including some (IoT) devices for remote procedure calls in embedded environments and older APIs like those in , though its adoption is declining in favor of lighter alternatives such as and due to verbosity and security concerns.

Security Considerations

Authentication Mechanisms

XML-RPC lacks built-in authentication mechanisms at the protocol or XML level, relying instead on the underlying HTTP for security features. is commonly achieved through HTTP-based schemes, including Basic and Digest, which utilize standard HTTP headers in the request. Basic authentication transmits a base64-encoded username and password combination in the Authorization header, while Digest authentication employs a nonce-based challenge-response to protect the password from direct transmission. These methods are supported across XML-RPC implementations, such as Python's xmlrpc.client module and Ruby's XMLRPC::Client, which handle the necessary header inclusion for Basic authentication. At the application level, XML-RPC servers can enforce by requiring credentials as explicit parameters in method calls, typically as the first arguments (e.g., username followed by ). The server then validates these parameters before processing the request, allowing custom logic for user verification. This parameter-passing approach is widely used in practical deployments, including WordPress XML-RPC endpoints, where login details are supplied directly in the XML payload. Encryption is not native to XML-RPC but is integrated via , which applies SSL/TLS to secure the HTTP connection and protect data in transit. Clients and servers must explicitly configure endpoints to enable this, as plain HTTP exposes credentials to interception. The protocol is inherently stateless, providing no built-in support for sessions or persistent tokens; thus, credentials or tokens must accompany each individual request. In 2025, established best practices emphasize mandating for all XML-RPC communications to safeguard against , preferring Digest over Basic authentication where feasible, and restricting endpoint access through firewalls or IP whitelisting to prevent unauthorized exposure. Application-level methods should incorporate secure credential storage and validation, while disabling unused XML-RPC features reduces the .

Known Vulnerabilities

Exposed XML-RPC endpoints, such as the /xmlrpc.php file in installations, are susceptible to brute-force attacks where attackers can attempt unlimited login credentials without built-in restrictions, often amplifying the threat through distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) vectors. For instance, the system.multicall method allows batching multiple authentication requests into a single HTTP call, enabling attackers to test thousands of username-password combinations efficiently and overwhelming servers with amplified traffic. XML parsing in XML-RPC implementations introduces risks like XML external (XXE) attacks when parsers are not securely configured, potentially allowing remote to read sensitive files or conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF). A notable example is the SSRF in the XML-RPC library version 3.1.3 (CVE-2016-5002), which allows remote to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks via a crafted DTD in XML requests. Additionally, mechanisms in XML-RPC can be exploited for amplification attacks, where falsified requests trigger outbound connections to attacker-controlled servers, facilitating DDoS by multiplying traffic volume. During the 2010s, numerous exploits targeted XML-RPC, including remote code execution (RCE) vulnerabilities like those in PHPXMLRPC prior to version 1.1 and campaigns that leveraged the endpoint for unauthorized site modifications without . These incidents prompted widespread recommendations to disable XML-RPC by default in plugins and hosting environments, yet ongoing automated scans by bots continue to probe for open endpoints across the . As of 2025, XML-RPC remains enabled by default in installations, resulting in ongoing automated scans and exploitation attempts by bots across the . As of 2025, effective mitigations include disabling unused XML-RPC methods or the entire endpoint via server configuration or plugins, implementing on requests to curb brute-force and amplification attempts, and deploying firewalls (WAFs) to filter malicious XML payloads. For enhanced security, organizations are advised to migrate to alternatives like , which offer similar functionality with reduced exposure to XML-specific risks.

Comparisons

With SOAP

XML-RPC and share foundational similarities as remote procedure call protocols that leverage XML for encoding calls and HTTP as the primary transport mechanism, enabling structured communication between distributed systems. XML-RPC, released in 1998, served as a direct precursor to , providing a lightweight model for invoking methods on remote servers that influenced 's initial . Key differences arise in their complexity and capabilities, with SOAP extending beyond XML-RPC's simplicity by incorporating (WSDL) for formal service contracts and for robust authentication and encryption, features absent in XML-RPC's schema-less structure. While XML-RPC is inherently procedure-oriented, focusing on direct method invocations without built-in support for advanced data types or intermediaries, SOAP supports both RPC-style calls and document-oriented messaging, allowing for more flexible, enterprise-grade interactions. The evolution from XML-RPC to is evident in SOAP 1.1 (2000), where XML-RPC's method-calling conventions were adapted into 's RPC representation within the XML envelope, promoting standardization through the W3C and resulting in more verbose but extensible specifications. This progression addressed XML-RPC's limitations in and , though it introduced greater overhead. In practice, XML-RPC suits quick scripting and lightweight integrations, such as remote in tools like , where it facilitates simple interactions despite growing security concerns leading to frequent disabling. , conversely, excels in large-scale web services demanding rigorous contracts and compliance, such as financial transactions or healthcare data exchange. As of 2025, dominates legacy enterprise systems in regulated industries, maintaining about 38% developer adoption for its security features, while XML-RPC lingers in niche, backward-compatible applications.

With JSON-RPC and REST

XML-RPC and are both (RPC) protocols designed for invoking methods on remote servers, sharing a similar structure of requests containing a method name, parameters, and an identifier, along with responses that return results or errors. However, employs for data , which produces significantly smaller payloads compared to XML-RPC's use of XML, enabling more efficient transmission and parsing—studies show JSON parsing times can be over 50 times faster for large datasets. version 2.0 extends this model with support for batch requests, allowing multiple method calls in a single transmission, and notifications, which are one-way requests that do not require a response—features not standardized in XML-RPC. In contrast to REST, which adopts a resource-oriented architecture leveraging full HTTP semantics, XML-RPC remains method-centric and restricts operations to HTTP POST requests exclusively, forgoing the use of verbs like GET, PUT, or DELETE for distinct actions such as retrieval, updates, or deletions. This approach lacks REST's emphasis on Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State (HATEOAS), where responses include links to related resources, and URI-based identification of resources, instead tunneling all procedures through a single endpoint. While XML-RPC provides a more structured, procedure-focused interface that maps directly to server-side operations, offering straightforward across languages and platforms, it is less flexible than for evolving APIs or handling diverse resource manipulations without custom method definitions. By , XML-RPC has largely been supplanted by in environments due to the latter's lighter footprint and alignment with modern JSON-native ecosystems, facilitating faster inter-service communication. Migration trends reflect this shift, with legacy XML-RPC services such as WordPress increasingly providing JSON-based alternatives like the REST API, which wraps similar functionalities in a more efficient, HTTP-native format to reduce overhead and enhance security.

Criticisms

Design Limitations

One notable limitation of XML-RPC is the absence of a formal contract mechanism, such as WSDL in SOAP, for defining and discovering service interfaces. While the core specification provides basic support for method invocation through string-based method names, it lacks standardized descriptions of method signatures, input/output types, or operations, necessitating out-of-band documentation or manual client configuration. An optional introspection extension, introduced around 2001, allows clients to query available methods via calls like system.listMethods and retrieve basic signatures with system.methodSignature, but this is not part of the core protocol and servers may provide incomplete or partial disclosures, limiting reliable automated discovery. XML-RPC's parameter handling relies on positional ordering within XML arrays or named key-value pairs via structs, without native support for explicitly named s in spec. This can introduce fragility, as mismatches in parameter order may result in errors or incorrect behavior, particularly in complex methods where developers must rely on rather than type hints or enforced schemas. Structs mitigate this somewhat by enabling associative mappings, but the lack of strong typing or validation in the protocol exacerbates potential issues during integration. The protocol funnels all method calls through a single HTTP POST endpoint URI, typically something like /RPC2, without provisions for resource-specific routing or multiple endpoints. In large-scale applications, this centralized approach can complicate internal dispatching, load balancing, and modularization, as servers must implement custom logic to route requests based solely on the method name string. XML-RPC's specification includes no built-in mechanisms for versioning, such as namespace prefixes or backward-compatible evolution paths, which often leads to breaking changes when APIs are updated. Implementers must handle versioning informally, typically through separate endpoints or method name conventions, increasing the risk of incompatibility between clients and servers over time. Extensibility in XML-RPC is constrained by its minimalist core, with informal extensions like system.multicall—which enables batching multiple calls in one request—not universally adopted or interoperable across implementations. For instance, variations in how servers process multicall faults or parameters can cause failures between different libraries, such as Apache XML-RPC and xmlrpc-c, hindering widespread use of such features.

and Issues

XML-RPC's use of XML encoding introduces significant verbosity compared to more compact formats like , leading to larger payloads that increase bandwidth consumption. For instance, a simple response in XML-RPC, such as returning the value 42, requires approximately 132 bytes for the XML alone, excluding HTTP headers. In contrast, an equivalent 2.0 response uses about 38 bytes. This results in XML-RPC payloads being roughly 3-4 times larger for basic data types, exacerbating inefficiencies in data transmission. The parsing overhead of XML further compounds these issues, as XML requires more computational resources for validation and tree-building compared to JSON's lightweight stream-based parsing. Benchmarks in Python environments show JSON-RPC round-trip times consistently 1.5-2 times faster than XML-RPC for simple procedure calls, with times around 0.3 ms for JSON-RPC versus 0.6 ms for XML-RPC using optimized interpreters like . This disparity becomes particularly pronounced in low-bandwidth or resource-constrained scenarios, such as mobile applications, where XML's structured can add measurable latency. Bandwidth inefficiency is amplified when handling , as XML-RPC mandates encoding, which inflates binary payloads by approximately 33% (a 4:3 ratio). The core XML-RPC specification does not include built-in compression mechanisms, relying instead on optional HTTP-level features like , which may not always be enabled or sufficient to offset the inherent bloat. In terms of , XML-RPC's stateless nature supports distributed systems, but its verbose payloads strain high-throughput environments. Comparative studies indicate that while XML-RPC and exhibit similar overall performance in some implementations, often achieves 2-5 times better efficiency in and network transfer for larger datasets due to reduced overhead. As of 2025, these limitations have contributed to XML-RPC's deprecation in major frameworks like 19, favoring lighter alternatives such as or for mobile and IoT applications where low latency and minimal resource use are critical.

References

  1. https://xmlrpc.com/spec.md
  2. http://scripting.com/davenet/2001/05/17/forewordToOreillysXmlrpcBo.html
  3. https://xml.coverpages.org/xml-rpc.html
  4. http://scripting.com/davenet/2002/04/04/fourYearsOfXmlrpc.html
  5. https://xmlrpc.com/spec
  6. https://tldp.org/HOWTO/XML-RPC-HOWTO/xmlrpc-howto-intro.html
  7. https://www.winccoa.com/documentation/WinCCOA/latest/en_US/XmlRpc/XmlRpc-01.html
  8. https://xmlrpc.com/
  9. https://jodi-ojs-tdl.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/962/1744
  10. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2004/april/the-xml-files-all-about-blogs-and-rss
  11. https://www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2001/04/04/soap.html
  12. https://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/extensions.html
  13. https://make.wordpress.org/core/2025/07/02/proposal-introduce-maintenance-mode-for-components/
  14. https://elementor.com/blog/xmlrpc-php-in-wordpress/
  15. https://docs.wpvip.com/security-controls/wordpress/xml-rpc/
  16. https://docs.python.org/3/library/xmlrpc.client.html
  17. https://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/types.html
  18. https://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.io/introspection.html
  19. https://www.php.net/manual/en/book.xmlrpc.php
  20. https://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/
  21. https://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/xmlrpc2/types.html
  22. https://github.com/omegat-org/apache-xmlrpc
  23. https://www.php.net/manual/en/function.xmlrpc-encode-request.php
  24. https://www.hostinger.com/tutorials/xmlrpc-wordpress
  25. https://www.php.net/manual/en/migration80.incompatible.php
  26. https://blog.remirepo.net/pages/PECL-extensions-RPM-status
  27. https://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.io/
  28. https://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.io/change.html
  29. https://github.com/ifm/xmlrpc-c
  30. https://sourceforge.net/projects/xmlrpc-c/files/
  31. https://metacpan.org/pod/RPC::XML
  32. https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/dev-libs/xmlrpc-c
  33. https://developer.wordpress.org/apis/xml-rpc/
  34. https://kinsta.com/blog/xmlrpc-php/
  35. https://www.drupal.org/docs/8/modules/xmlrpc/overview
  36. https://www.drupal.org/project/xmlrpc
  37. https://movabletype.org/documentation/appendices/config-directives/xmlrpcscript.html
  38. https://xmlrpc.com/storyreader/story0699.opml
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4066969_Utilizing_XML-RPC_or_SOAP_on_an_embedded_system
  40. https://arsalanyasin.com.au/odoo-rest-api-vs-xmlrpc-integration-2025/
  41. https://blog.sucuri.net/2023/05/what-is-xml-rpc-security-risks-how-to-disable.html
  42. https://blog.cloudflare.com/a-look-at-the-new-wordpress-brute-force-amplification-attack/
  43. https://www.solidwp.com/blog/xmlrpc-php/
  44. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-5002
  45. https://www.indusface.com/blog/vulnerability-analysis-remote-code-execution-xml-rpc/
  46. https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/43829
  47. https://www.zscaler.com/blogs/security-research/malware-leveraging-xml-rpc-vulnerability-exploit-wordpress-sites
  48. https://wpscan.com/blog/is-wordpress-xmlrpc-a-security-problem/
  49. https://solidwp.com/blog/xmlrpc-php/
  50. https://www.wallarm.com/what/what-is-xml-rpc-and-why-do-you-need-to-secure-it
  51. https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/soap-vs-rest-vs-graphql-vs-rpc/
  52. https://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/
  53. https://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl/
  54. https://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/
  55. https://nordicapis.com/the-top-api-architectural-styles-of-2025/
  56. https://www.superblocks.com/blog/soap-vs-rest
  57. https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification
  58. https://www.cs.montana.edu/izurieta/pubs/caine2009.pdf
  59. https://aws.amazon.com/compare/the-difference-between-rpc-and-rest/
  60. https://nordicapis.com/whats-the-difference-between-rpc-and-rest/
  61. https://hoop.dev/blog/what-json-rpc-xml-rpc-actually-does-and-when-to-use-it/
  62. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLRPC-37
  63. https://pragmateek.com/json-vs-xml-some-hard-numbers-about-verbosity/
  64. https://scito.ch/content/remote-procedure-calls-python-using-xml-rpc-and-json-rpc-performance-comparision
  65. https://lemire.me/blog/2019/01/30/what-is-the-space-overhead-of-base64-encoding/
  66. https://www.odoo.com/event/odoo-experience-2025-6601/track/xmlrpc-is-dead-all-hail-json-2-8760
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.