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

[John Hernandez]

I second the SSH dynamic tunnel recommendation.  I use 'ssh -D 1080' then
configure my SOCKS-aware applications (Firefox, etc) to proxy through
localhost:1080.  You can even get fancy using plugins like FoxyProxy,
allowing Firefox to access only selected URLs through the tunnel based on
pattern matching.

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:49 PM, karl horlen <horlenkarl at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> unfortunately the VPN server we use uses a global config for all clients
> and they don't want internet traffic being routed through it
>
> --- On *Wed, 7/6/11, Dan Ferris <dan at usrsbin.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Dan Ferris <dan at usrsbin.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, 12:42 PM
>
>
> OpenVPN is your friend in these types of situations.  You can use an
> OpenVPN server to push routes for things around.  It's also a lot more
> reliable that using things like SSH tunnels.
>
> Dan
>
> On 7/6/2011 10:48 AM, karl horlen 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/cddb3798/attachment.html>