Re: [fw-wiz] socks (was Re: FEP - Firewall enhancement protocol)
From: ArkanoiD (ark_at_eltex.net)
Date: 07/29/04
- Previous message: InHisGrip: "[fw-wiz] To spoof or not to spoof???? That is the question...."
- In reply to: Bennett Todd: "Re: [fw-wiz] socks (was Re: FEP - Firewall enhancement protocol)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Bennett Todd <bet@rahul.net> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:55:32 +0400
nuqneH,
I run spearate CONNECT-only proxy. That has pretty good side effect:
many programs that use CONNECT to reach their servers (like ICQ) then
try to use the same port/host to GET some banners and other unwanted stuff..
but.. wait.. you asked for SSL proxy, you get it. And nothing more ;-)
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 01:48:15AM +0000, Bennett Todd wrote:
> > Speaking of SSL, there is standard CONNECT method (which is no better,
> > just the proxy is more simple than socks)
>
> I can't agree with that, sock is extraordinarily simple, I've yet to
> see an HTTP proxy that was as simple. If nothing else HTTP is more
> complex to parse.
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: InHisGrip: "[fw-wiz] To spoof or not to spoof???? That is the question...."
- In reply to: Bennett Todd: "Re: [fw-wiz] socks (was Re: FEP - Firewall enhancement protocol)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
