4 ms·

SSF supports SOCKS v4, v4a and v5 (only main SOCKS features that were implemented in SSH). All these versions are necessary for supporting as many web browsers

SSF supports SOCKS v4, v4a and v5 (only main SOCKS features that were implemented in SSH). All these versions are necessary for supporting as many web browsers as possible. Old browsers using SOCKS v4 would need to use UDP forwarding for DNS resolving (to avoid leaking DNS request locally). As you mentioned, there is a "how to" section on the website: https://securesocketfunneling.github.io/ssf/#how-to-browse-privately https://securesocketfunneling.github.io/ssf/#how-to-browse-p... For a simple comparison between SSH and SSF performances, you can take a look at the website (https://securesocketfunneling.github.io/ssf/#performances https://securesocketfunneling.github.io/ssf/#performances) Thanks for digging into the code

e12e 11y ago
Which web browsers that aren't horribly outdated, doesn't support socks5?
- ssfdeveloper 11y ago
  Older versions of Internet Explorer did not support SOCKS5 and Chrome uses SOCKS4 by default (although you can manually specify --proxy-server="socks5://" to force SOCKS5)
  - e12e 11y ago
    Actually, after some google-ing, I'm not sure any version of IE support socks5?
e12e 11y ago
> For a simple comparison between SSH and SSF performances, you can take a look at the website (https://securesocketfunneling.github.io/ssf/#performances https://securesocketfunneling.github.io/ssf/#performances) I think the last time I tested scp (with a large media file) over gigabit ethernet, ssh managed to saturate the link. Odd if that only holds for scp. Almost sounds as if the version of openssh used didn't use hw acceleration?