4 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoIndeed writing a _webserver_ to test connectivity sounds a bit non-simple.
- sofaofthedamned 9y agoGood 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 agoThe 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 agonc is the client, if you could host a webserver surely you could have run nc...
- kogepathic 9y agoActually 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/