Re: Passing firewalls and hiding freenet traffic

"panamerica334-hX/r/[email protected]" <panamerica334-hX/r/[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.network.freenet.general
Message-ID <[email protected]>
easy; "silent bob" would be transformed to "picky bob"

listen on port 80[http]/443[https]/8080[tomcat]/8443[ssl-tomcat]/3128[squid; not sure if the port number is correct]/whatever.
if authorization was okay, send freenet protocol data back
if auth failed, return http-500 with a short delay so retries are somewhat hindered :)

ssl is the best foundation for hiding traffic as there are many ssl-encrypted connections around and even if They find out how to break ssl, they would see the (with content-coding: gzip to preserve space and cleartext) http packets and have to demasquerade these. 
difficult to find if you have no suspicion a specific ssl-channel could be carrying freenet protocol data



>Masquerading as SSL has always had some appeal. However, there is the
>significant problem of _you have to receive INCOMING connections_. This
>is always going to make it hard to hide stuff...
>
>On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 06:26:27PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> Jonathan Doe ([email protected]) wrote:
>>=20
>> > Would it be possible to encapsulate the freenet packet traffic in HTTP =
> and=20
>> > route it through port 80 ?
>>=20
>> Someone would have to be listening on port 80.
>>=20
>> 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".
>>=20
>> (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.)
>>=20
>> (On Windows it's not an issue because, hey, you're *always* root.)
>>=20
>> > Perhaps to a thrid party observer two nodes exchaning data would look l=
>ike=20
>> > a web session ... if you used the secure http protocol there would be n=
>o=20
>> > easy way of checking what was going on.
>>=20
>> You could also run your node on port 443.
>>=20
>> --=20
>> 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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.