6 ms·

Had a similar thing a while ago. Very complicated IPSEC tunnels, routers switches firewalls and whatnot between us and our customer. Customers techs were - not

Had a similar thing a while ago. Very complicated IPSEC tunnels, routers switches firewalls and whatnot between us and our customer. Customers techs were - not great - so needed to make sure port 443 worked through the tunnel. Our side mainly Linux, theirs was mainly Windows 10. Asked a programmer our side (.net) who said it'd take a couple of hours to write a simple webserver, package it up into an .msi and give it us. I got annoyed, did it in Golang in about 10 lines of code. I then realised i'd compiled a Linux executable on Linux, remembered it did cross-compiling, 10 seconds later I had a Windows .exe. All for a simple webserver that printed "cock", not useful but it proved the tunnels worked. Sometimes we overcomplicate the simplest shit. EDIT: As it wasn't clear (my fault) - we were trying to get to port 443 at their end - they were on Windows, we mainly Linux but the guys I asked were .net programmers..

zeeveener 9y ago
It might also be possible that we don't know the simplest methods of doing something. I'm not sure if there is a simpler way to do it from the Windows side of things than what this person told you. I wouldn't know how to do it in Golang because I don't use it. I would default to my most comfortable language, which is almost guaranteed to not be the most efficient method to do anything.
kogepathic 9y ago
> Sometimes we overcomplicate the simplest shit. Indeed. Why not use nc and telnet on port 443 to test? Linux already has nc and Windows already has telnet.
- reddit_clone 9y ago
  Indeed writing a _webserver_ to test connectivity sounds a bit non-simple.
- sofaofthedamned 9y ago
  Good point, but the dudes at the other end had no idea. I had to give them an .exe, which was better than a .msi. Bear in mind the server was at the Windows end, so no good with telnet over that side...
- sofaofthedamned 9y ago
  The endpoint at their end was Windows. No nc. Apologies if that wasn't clear. I was testing our end reaching their endpoint at port 443.
  - catmanjan 9y ago
    nc is the client, if you could host a webserver surely you could have run nc...
    - kogepathic 9y ago
      Actually I misunderstood and thought the server was Linux. You could of course use nc as the client too, but it would be an additional install on Windows. [0] And nc wouldn't help if the firewall was stateful and actually expected to see HTTPS traffic on port 443, so I do see their logic of putting an actual webserver there. But without sufficient detail, it does seem at first glance to be overkill ;-) [0] https://joncraton.org/blog/46/netcat-for-windows/ https://joncraton.org/blog/46/netcat-for-windows/
Almaviva 9y ago
> All for a simple webserver that printed "cock", not useful but it proved the tunnels worked. That's what she said.
BoorishBears 9y ago
You could write a web server that echoes a word in around 10 lines of C# fwiw
acchow 9y ago
Sometimes, I take 10% of the time writing what is needed and 90% of the time getting it to be testable and then writing the actual unit tests.
- dasmoth 9y ago
  And people wonder why there's ever resistance to "everything has to have automated tests" style directives...
z3t4 9y ago
Whatever time it took you to write that program, it could have been saved by letting the other guy do it, even if it would take much more of his time.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Yeah but by doing it oneself, one knows that it will work, or at least that if it doesn't work one won't have to sit through interminable conference calls on the topic of Why the Fact that It Won't Work Isn't Actually that Other Dude's Fault.
  - sofaofthedamned 9y ago
    That was pretty much it. Guys at the end were evasive, lazy and not capable and the project was dragging on. Best to give them an .exe with no dependencies, get them to click on it and verify the tunnels that way.
reledi 9y ago
python -m SimpleHTTPServer 443
- sofaofthedamned 9y ago
  Quite. And you tell the Windows admin at the other end, who doesn't know Python from the hole in his arse, that it's an option. Remember - the server end is Windows, and the guys at that end didn't know what to do if it wasn't an .msi or .exe.
NobodyRalph 9y ago
The right solution would've been a powershell script.
retox 9y ago
You asked a .Net dev for a solution and he specced you one...

zeeveener 9y ago

It might also be possible that we don't know the simplest methods of doing something. I'm not sure if there is a simpler way to do it from the Windows side of things than what this person told you. I wouldn't know how to do it in Golang because I don't use it. I would default to my most comfortable language, which is almost guaranteed to not be the most efficient method to do anything.

kogepathic 9y ago

> Sometimes we overcomplicate the simplest shit. Indeed. Why not use nc and telnet on port 443 to test? Linux already has nc and Windows already has telnet.

reddit_clone 9y ago
Indeed writing a _webserver_ to test connectivity sounds a bit non-simple.
sofaofthedamned 9y ago
Good point, but the dudes at the other end had no idea. I had to give them an .exe, which was better than a .msi. Bear in mind the server was at the Windows end, so no good with telnet over that side...
sofaofthedamned 9y ago
The endpoint at their end was Windows. No nc. Apologies if that wasn't clear. I was testing our end reaching their endpoint at port 443.
- catmanjan 9y ago
  nc is the client, if you could host a webserver surely you could have run nc...
  - kogepathic 9y ago
    Actually I misunderstood and thought the server was Linux. You could of course use nc as the client too, but it would be an additional install on Windows. [0] And nc wouldn't help if the firewall was stateful and actually expected to see HTTPS traffic on port 443, so I do see their logic of putting an actual webserver there. But without sufficient detail, it does seem at first glance to be overkill ;-) [0] https://joncraton.org/blog/46/netcat-for-windows/ https://joncraton.org/blog/46/netcat-for-windows/

Almaviva 9y ago

> All for a simple webserver that printed "cock", not useful but it proved the tunnels worked. That's what she said.

BoorishBears 9y ago

You could write a web server that echoes a word in around 10 lines of C# fwiw

acchow 9y ago

Sometimes, I take 10% of the time writing what is needed and 90% of the time getting it to be testable and then writing the actual unit tests.

dasmoth 9y ago
And people wonder why there's ever resistance to "everything has to have automated tests" style directives...

z3t4 9y ago

Whatever time it took you to write that program, it could have been saved by letting the other guy do it, even if it would take much more of his time.

jessaustin 9y ago
Yeah but by doing it oneself, one knows that it will work, or at least that if it doesn't work one won't have to sit through interminable conference calls on the topic of Why the Fact that It Won't Work Isn't Actually that Other Dude's Fault.
- sofaofthedamned 9y ago
  That was pretty much it. Guys at the end were evasive, lazy and not capable and the project was dragging on. Best to give them an .exe with no dependencies, get them to click on it and verify the tunnels that way.

reledi 9y ago

python -m SimpleHTTPServer 443

sofaofthedamned 9y ago
Quite. And you tell the Windows admin at the other end, who doesn't know Python from the hole in his arse, that it's an option. Remember - the server end is Windows, and the guys at that end didn't know what to do if it wasn't an .msi or .exe.

NobodyRalph 9y ago

The right solution would've been a powershell script.

retox 9y ago

You asked a .Net dev for a solution and he specced you one...