similar to: Patch for Socks5 support for dynamic portforwaring?

Hi, Currently, OpenSSH only accepts the SOCKS5 command "CONNECT": <https://anongit.mindrot.org/openssh.git/tree/channels.c#n1281> The RFC also specifies the commands "BIND" and "UDP ASSOCIATE": <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1928#section-4> As a consequence, in particular, a SOCKS5 server started with "ssh -D" cannot proxify UDP packets. Are

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2250 Bug ID: 2250 Summary: SOCKS5 should return "NO ACCEPTABLE METHODS" instead of nothing Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5

Le mardi 17 janvier 2017 ? 9:20 +1100, Darren Tucker a ?crit : > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Romain Vimont <rom at rom1v.com> wrote: > [...] > > As a consequence, in particular, a SOCKS5 server started with "ssh -D" > > cannot proxify UDP packets. > > > > Are there deep reasons why OpenSSH does not implement them (security, or > >

here's an up-to-date patch, should apply to both openbsd and non-openbsd versions of openssh. i did only test ipv4 addresses. Index: channels.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/ssh/channels.c,v retrieving revision 1.191 diff -u -r1.191 channels.c --- channels.c 24 Jun 2003 08:23:46 -0000 1.191 +++ channels.c 25 Jun 2003 12:14:19

> Winton-- > > Excellent! Absolutely wonderful. > > I'm wondering which apps/encapsulators support 4A? This gets me > around > the DNS leakage problem quite nicely. > > Incidentally, we do need SOCKS5 support -- if for no other > reason, the > fact that there's *operating system* level support in OSX for SOCKS5 > redirection. So

My desire is to form a connection from my laptop running ubuntu to a SOCKS5 server listed on the Internet. I have read the Ubuntu man page on OpenSSH client program. The description indicates that I have to connect to given host name (assumed to be an ip address?) with optional username. I want the server receive my Internet traffic in SOCKS5 protocol and respond to my computer the requested

I love SSH's ability to dynamically forward ports using SOCKS (either -D or DynamicForward) (ie "ssh -D 1081 private.mine.net"). But the thing that has caused me some pain, is that only SOCKS4 is supported. The SOCKS4 proxy specification does not permit hostnames, but only IP addresses. This isn't much of a problem if the target host is a public Internet host or otherwise DNS

What is the state of the art for socks5 server software? I need to replace a very old proxy system. 'Yum search' and google aren't turning up any clear winners unless '3proxy' is the thing you would run on CentOS7. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com

On Jan 17, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Darren Tucker <dtucker at zip.com.au> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:05 PM, Romain Vimont <rom at rom1v.com> wrote: > [..] >> So if I understand correctly, making "ssh -D" create a "full" SOCKS5 >> server, including UDP relay?, would require to add a new SSH request >> type (like "relay-udp")? >

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 04:26:57PM -0400, Ault, James R (CRD) wrote: > I was reading the changelog from version 2.9 that was recently released, and I coudln't help noticing > this item: > > from openssh changelog: > > - markus at cvs.openbsd.org 2001/04/17 12:55:04 > [channels.c ssh.c] > undo socks5 and https support since they are not really used and >

Le mercredi 18 janvier 2017 ? 8:55 +1100, Darren Tucker a ?crit : > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 07:42:50AM -0800, Ron Frederick wrote: Thank you for your answers. > [...] > > One thing that makes UDP over SOCKS more complicated for SSH is that > > SOCKS normally keeps the UDP packets it forwards as UDPl, just adding > > a small header to each packet. If you want to get the

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2417 Bug ID: 2417 Summary: SOCKS5 should respond with appropriate error reply in error situations Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 6.8p1 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component:

This provides SOCKS4A support, which allows a SOCKS4 client to provide a host name instead of an IP address. It indicates that it's doing so by using a known-invalid IP address 0.0.0.x (where x != 0), and then appending the NUL-terminated hostname to the connection request. Although we check for the terminating NUL manually and the 'fatal(len %d > have %d)' should never happen, the

I''ve been playing around with Vlad the deployer, and quite like it. However, has anyone used it to stop/start background rb processes via the ./script/backgroundrb script? Eric ----------------------------------------------------- Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | http://www.opensourceconnections.com

El 12/01/2015 a las 03:18 p.m., Les Mikesell escribi?: > What is the state of the art for socks5 server software? I need to > replace a very old proxy system. 'Yum search' and google aren't > turning up any clear winners unless '3proxy' is the thing you would > run on CentOS7. > > Have you look up to http://ss5.sourceforge.net/ ?

Hello list, I wonder why tinc tries to resolve host names before connection even with configured (socks5) proxy which fails behind restrictive firewalls. Is there any "workaround"? Thanks in advance! Regards Uwe -------------- n?chster Teil -------------- Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt... URL:

Hi all, This is a client side only implementation of reversed dynamic (SOCKS) TCP forwarding, which means it is compatible with any existing servers have 'remote forward' capability. To establish such forward, use "ssh -R [BIND_ADDRESS:]PORT ...". The server will listen on that port and address and accept SOCKS traffics. Hope this will be useful for you. There was an

if I: ssh -fND localhost:6000 somebody at 192.168.56.5 -p PORTNUMBER from computer "A" to computer "B" [B = 192.168.56.5] then I can set the SOCKS proxy for e.g.: Firefox to use "localhost:6000" on computer "A". Ok. I can surf the web through "B". But: - Can anyone sniff the traffic of "A"? [e.g.: computers on same subnet as

On 11/12/20 7:50 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:56:15PM +0000, Bernstein, Noam CIV USN NRL (6393) Washington DC (USA) via CentOS wrote: >> If the point is to access a specific web site only the remote >> machine can get to, you can also do it with port forwarding: >> ssh -L 8000:ip_of_web_site_to_access_from_remote:443 remote_machine >> and

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:08:36PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote: > > I wonder why tinc tries to resolve host names before connection even > > with configured (socks5) proxy which fails behind restrictive firewalls. > > [...] I'll try to change tinc so it will allow connections via SOCKS5 > even if it cannot resolve the hostname itself. I added the ability for tinc to