Re: Passing firewalls and hiding freenet traffic

Jonathan Doe ([email protected]) wrote:

> Would it be possible to encapsulate the freenet packet traffic in HTTP  and 
> route it through port 80 ?

Someone would have to be listening on port 80.

Nothing's stopping you from running your own Freenet node on port 80
right now, today.  Of course, the traffic in and out of your node would
not resemble HTTP at all, so it wouldn't fool layer-7 filtering proxies,
but it might just get through on the grounds of "if we can't tell what it
is, it's best to let it go".

(Of course, if you run it on port 80 under a Unix-like OS, it means
you either have to have root privileges at some point -- a bad idea --
or you have to have a kernel that's modified to permit non-root users
to bind to ports under 1024.  I have no experience with that myself.)

(On Windows it's not an issue because, hey, you're *always* root.)

> Perhaps to a thrid party observer two nodes exchaning data would look like 
> a web session ... if you used the secure http protocol there would be no 
> easy way of checking what was going on.

You could also run your node on port 443.

-- 
Greg Wooledge                  |   "Truth belongs to everybody."
[email protected]              |    - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/     |

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCaCiTDx4RMkhr5kwRAo36AJ0fZWHcCVUQ+pCGD9mb4k2SlnNynACglkWJ
VxJvSveaZzhV1Ydv5BuTxrs=
=7/0y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----