Subject: Re: socks

From: dreamwvr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:55:19 -0700

[To be removed from this list send the message "unsubscribe fwtk-users" in the
BODY of a mail message to [email-masked].]

hi,
   There is also 'dante'  both work well..

---

From: Joseph S D Yao <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:40:31 -0500

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 10:33:01PM -0500, Ted Keller wrote:
> Go to www.socks.nec.com.  A socks server is there.  Note - these are not
> application proxies but circuit proxies.  No protocol checks are
> performed.

Is that actually a circuit "proxy"?

-- 
Joe Yao				[email-masked] - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.

---

From: Joseph S D Yao <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 09:38:33 -0500

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 05:30:25PM -0800, South, Harold wrote:
...
> I didn't see this in a FAQ so I'm asking here. Is there a socks "proxy" for
> FWTK 2.X ?
> 
> I'm assuming this would be the best way to let the napster traffic out.

SOCKS is not TCP, so there can be no proxy.  If there is no mention of
SOCKS in the FAQ or the other parts of the Web site, then you should
look in the archives, because it has been discussed.  Running SOCKS in
parallel with the FWTK [assuming that your application has been
"socksified", whatever that means] decreases security; but if you have
a server, presumably you're going to run it in a DMZ outside your
regular network, anyway.

---

From: Ted Keller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:23:04 -0500 (EST)

Well it sure doesn't do much protocol checking.  Just verifies that it is
proper tcp or udp.  You call it...

tek

---

From: Keith Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:44:39 -0500

Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> look in the archives, because it has been discussed. 

Hmmm... on the Patches page...

3.20 Proxy for SOCKS4/SOCKS5
http://www.fwtk.org/fwtk/patches/patches.html#3.20
   /\    /\    /\    /\   /\    /\ 
(this one is different than NEC's proxy)

and SOCKS is mentioned in 3.6:
http://www.fwtk.org/fwtk/patches/patches.html#3.6

-- 
--Keith Young
-Director of Customer Care/Support, V-ONE Corp.
[email-masked]

---

From: Joseph S D Yao <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:48:32 -0500

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 10:44:39AM -0500, Keith Young wrote:
...
> http://www.fwtk.org/fwtk/patches/patches.html#3.20

?????  Oh, this only does the TCP part.

> http://www.fwtk.org/fwtk/patches/patches.html#3.6

This apparently is not a "proxy" in the way the proxies that come with
FWTK are.

And I should have remembered these, because I had seen them.  Sorry to
speak first without putting brain in gear.

---

From: Rick Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 18:55:56 -0500

At 09:38 AM 3/1/01 -0500, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
>SOCKS is not TCP, so there can be no proxy.

Actually, it is TCP from the client to the SOCKS "server" (which is, as 
stated earlier, basically a circuit proxy.) Socks can also relay UDP for 
those sorts of applications.
         -Rick