4 ms·
This won't work with a variety of even quasi intelligent filters. In fact, it's shameful that this works anywhere near as much as it does. This is way overkill
by drivebyacct2 14y ago
This won't work with a variety of even quasi intelligent filters. In fact, it's shameful that this works anywhere near as much as it does.
This is way overkill anyway.
Change the SSHD port (since the filters are naive enough to just whitelist ports apparently), then run `ssh -D 8080 user@ec2-instance:80` and voila, you have a SOCKS proxy that will proxy any traffic, including DNS requests. (and good OSes will easily allow you to utilize that proxy system wide)
- ajross 14y agoExcept that port 80 is often intercepted by transparent proxies and the non-HTTP traffic will get dropped. Using port 443 is more reliable as except in the most restricted environment presumptive HTTPS is passed straight through.
- lloeki 14y agoIn that case use GNU httptunnel[0]. The tool needs an update or two regarding a few features (notably it only supports a single tunnel at once), but it pierces through literally any HTTP proxy, since it's really HTTP and not some CONNECT trick over SSL. Then you just use your favorite OpenVPN over that, and make all traffic (including DNS, and except your httptunnel endpoint) go over it. [0] http://www.nocrew.org/software/httptunnel.html http://www.nocrew.org/software/httptunnel.html
- ajross 14y agoNot "literally" any HTTP proxy, as IDS systems have very little trouble distinguishing tunneled traffic from real web sessions. If someone wants to block you, they will. My point was more: If you're going to pick a port other than 22 to avoid networks that block "ssh", 443 is probably the best choice.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]