Re: Ping: stingray
- From: Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:58:50 -0700 (MST)
stingray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
well, you can try to setup for example ftp on some remote box, or ask a
friend, make it listen on port 80. Then you try to ftp from your own box
to that ftp on port 80. If it works then most likely the filtering is only
done on ports and not on the contents/protocols.
This would be a very poor test at best. FTP typically requires two ports
to function, and would very likely fail in this scenario, giving false
results if simple port filtering is being used. FTP is absolutely the
worst suggestion you could have made as far as protocols go.
A better test would be to have someone set up a telnet or other type of
daemon to listen on port 80, then using raw telnet to test it. Or even
using any of the various free HTTP proxies to do similar "tunneling"
tests. Or, have someone set up a lightweight web server like thttpd on a
port you believe is blocked, and try to browse to that (an even better
test in my opinion).
FWIW, situations where protocols themselves are filtered are very rare.
It's rather hard to do that sort of "content" filtering reliably. 99.99%
of the time it's nothing more than ports, or ranges of ports that are
blocked. And if you do happen to run into this sort of filtering the "HTTP
to odd ports" test will tell you that's what you're dealing with instantly.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ping: stingray
- From: Borked Pseudo Mailed
- Re: Ping: stingray
- From: Stephen K . Gielda
- Re: Ping: stingray
- From: stingray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Ping: stingray
- References:
- Ping: stingray
- From: need
- Ping: stingray
- Prev by Date: Re: Identity theft resources
- Next by Date: Free VPN Acount
- Previous by thread: Re: Ping: stingray
- Next by thread: Re: Ping: stingray
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|