[lug] traceroute on forwarded ports plus socks vs port forward

[Will]

know=now

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Will <will.sterling at gmail.com> wrote:

> When you kick off SSH and setup the forwarding nothing is using it yet.
>  You know have to configure your browser or other proxy aware application to
> forward its traffic through the SSH tunnel.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:56 AM, karl horlen <horlenkarl at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> well i didn't configure a proxy yet but i tried this after kicking off two
>> ssh port forwards on 80 and 443 and using that is showing my ip address to
>> be my dsl router ip address.
>>
>> --- On *Wed, 7/6/11, Will <will.sterling at gmail.com>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Will <will.sterling at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [lug] traceroute on forwarded ports plus socks vs port
>> forward
>> To: "Boulder (Colorado) Linux Users Group -- General Mailing List" <
>> lug at lug.boulder.co.us>
>> Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 9:53 AM
>>
>>
>> Go to whatismyip.com with the proxy disabled and then enabled and watch
>> your source IP change.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:48 AM, karl horlen <horlenkarl at yahoo.com<http://mc/compose?to=horlenkarl@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> i'm trying to route local port 80 / 443 locally to an external server so i
>> can browse through it.
>>
>> is there a way to confirm that i am indeed using those ports?  when i run
>> a tracert (the client is windows and i'm running tracert from cmd aka dos
>> prompt), the hops still route through my dsl provider.  i presume that is
>> the correct behavior since traceroute probably works on a different port
>> other than 80 or 443.
>>
>> so other than using a packet sniffer, is there a command i can run to
>> prove when i load an url in a browser that i'm actually routing through my
>> remote server via ssh tunnel and not through the hops associated with my dsl
>> provider.
>>
>> finally, i'm forwarding two local ports, 80 and 443 and am assuming that
>> on a windows box the browser should just find and use these ports.  i've
>> seen recommendations for using a socks proxy to achieve the same result.
>> i'm trying to understand the difference.  from what i gather, a socks proxy
>> will do the same thing but you only have to set one forwarding which is the
>> socks ip address instead of two (80 and 443) in port forwarding method.  but
>> you also have to configure the app, in this case the browser to use the
>> proxy, an additional step.  then the browser / app simply forwards all
>> requests on any and all ports fed to it to the socks proxy port. is this
>> correct?
>>
>> i guess i'm not sure what the benefits are to using one method vs the
>> other.  since ssh (windows putty) allows you to configure multiple port
>> forwards in one definition, once you set it up, you just have to kick off
>> the connection so it saves you the hassle of enabling disabling socks proxy
>> in your browser config.
>>
>> so why would i want to use a socks proxy?  i can't think of any
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
>> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>> Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
>> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>> Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
>> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>> Join us on IRC: irc.hackingsociety.org port=6667 channel=#hackingsociety
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/pipermail/lug/attachments/20110706/e0b038c9/attachment.html>