http://www.baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/ Jason J. Thomas' Weblog: Now with more cowbell! Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:40:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 http://www.baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/comment-page-1/#comment-10360 NPR Junky Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:10:46 +0000 http://baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/#comment-10360 Boys, you all should just get married and start a commune somewhere together in Utah! Nerdy love is such a beautiful thing.... ;-) Boys, you all should just get married and start a commune somewhere together in Utah! Nerdy love is such a beautiful thing….

]]> http://www.baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/comment-page-1/#comment-10343 mokiejovis Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:38:51 +0000 http://baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/#comment-10343 SSH packets are functionally different and distinguishable from HTTPS packets. If you're behind a "facist firewall," (i.e. a firewall which only allows HTTP/HTTPS outbound) a la Websense or other proxifying firewalls, you might have a vested interest in being able to masquerade your SSH traffic as HTTPS traffic. SSH packets are functionally different and distinguishable from HTTPS packets. If you’re behind a “facist firewall,” (i.e. a firewall which only allows HTTP/HTTPS outbound) a la Websense or other proxifying firewalls, you might have a vested interest in being able to masquerade your SSH traffic as HTTPS traffic.

]]> http://www.baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/comment-page-1/#comment-10338 Paul Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:03:28 +0000 http://baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/#comment-10338 An idea if they shut down port 22 is try port 53. That's often open a lot too. An idea if they shut down port 22 is try port 53. That’s often open a lot too.

]]> http://www.baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/comment-page-1/#comment-10337 Jason J. Thomas Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:51:08 +0000 http://baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/#comment-10337 mokie: Why would I want to use stunnel when I have a perfectly good SSH tunnel working just fine? If it is to make the traffic look like regular HTTPS traffic, I can get around that by making my SSH server listen on 443. From what I can tell by reading the docs, stunnel effectively works in the same fashion. Unless, of course, I am dumb and smoking lots of crack. mokie: Why would I want to use stunnel when I have a perfectly good SSH tunnel working just fine? If it is to make the traffic look like regular HTTPS traffic, I can get around that by making my SSH server listen on 443. From what I can tell by reading the docs, stunnel effectively works in the same fashion. Unless, of course, I am dumb and smoking lots of crack.

]]> http://www.baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/comment-page-1/#comment-10218 mokiejovis Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:26:36 +0000 http://baltimoremick.com/blog/2007/02/23/working-the-bypass/#comment-10218 stunnel is your friend. You have to sacrifice port 443, but it's indistinguishable from HTTPS traffic and - with a properly configured squid server on the other end - will allow you to proxy to basically whatever service you need. stunnel is your friend. You have to sacrifice port 443, but it’s indistinguishable from HTTPS traffic and - with a properly configured squid server on the other end - will allow you to proxy to basically whatever service you need.

]]>