A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Socks Proxy?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 15th 03, 11:04 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Nick Dixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Socks Proxy?

Hi there.

My ISP does not allow connections to Peer to Peer networks but a few
of my PC friends have got round this by using programs called HTTP
Tunnel or Hopster... Apparently they use SOCKS Proxy or something?

Does anyone know of an equivalent program for MAC?

Nick
  #3  
Old August 16th 03, 12:06 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Bob Eager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,472
Default Socks Proxy?

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:55:51 UTC, "markp"
wrote:

Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP ripping
off the user not the other way around.


Why? Let's take an example (not this ISP, as it happens). PlusNet offer
a service without P2P for one price, and a service with P2P for another
price. They do that because it costs more to provide the extra
bandwidth. I don't call that a rip-off.

But, honest customers are paying for their bandwidth, whereas a user
using the non-P2P account and 'getting round' restrictions to use it, is
effectively stealing that bandwidth, putting up prices for others.

As for it being legitimate for people to do so if they can 'find a way
round' - it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden. Full stop. If I
find a way of entering your house because you forgot to lock a window,
does that make it OK to burgle? If you think it does, please send me
your address!

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70, PC/AT..

  #4  
Old August 16th 03, 12:11 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
[email protected] writeme.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default Socks Proxy?

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:55:51 +0100, "markp"
wrote:

Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP ripping
off the user not the other way around. If the OP can bypass this by using
other *legitimate* ways of doing it, i.e. ways that are allowed by the ISP,
then that's fine, he won't be using the blocked port will he?

That about sums up the screwed up attitude in society today, so long
as you can get away with something, its all fine.

Andrew.
  #5  
Old August 16th 03, 01:25 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
markp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Socks Proxy?


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:55:51 UTC, "markp"
wrote:

Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP

ripping
off the user not the other way around.


Why? Let's take an example (not this ISP, as it happens). PlusNet offer
a service without P2P for one price, and a service with P2P for another
price. They do that because it costs more to provide the extra
bandwidth. I don't call that a rip-off.


Are you not jumping to conclusions as to what this poster's T&Cs actually
say? If it just says 'we block port x' without specifically mentioning P2P
networks then going via another way is fully legitimate. The OP just said
the ISP does not allow P2P connections, this could have been inferred by the
fact they block specific ports. If the T&C's specifically mentions not
allowing P2P network connections via any means then of course you have a
point.

Now if the ISP originally advertised as not blocking ports or disallowing
P2P, a user signs up but then is then forced a terms and conditions change,
then that *IS* a rip-off. This happens with frightening regularity, first
ISPs advertise as 24/7, then impose acceptable usage policies on their users
when they've got their customer base up (which of course they do by
advertising as 24/7 during the period when they had enough bandwidth to
honour it), then they claim 24/7 never really meant access at any time. They
know that changing ISPs involves changing email addresses, web addresses and
the updating of all contact details and force these changes on their users
anyway. ISPs seem to be a law unto themselves.

it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden


Can you tell me exactly where this is in the T&C's for the OP? It seems the
OP is on ntlworld, but I can't find any mention of port blocking on their
website.

However, they do say things like this (on page
http://www.ntlworld.com/help/aup/vpnFAQ.html):
Q6. Under what circumstances would you ask me to stop using VPN?
A6. If your usage was affecting network performance then we may be in touch
to ask you to stop using VPN.

Mmmm. So if the ISP thinks you are vaguely using too much bandwidth, as
defined by them, they'll stop you from using it. You don't call that user
ripoff?

Mark.



  #6  
Old August 16th 03, 06:45 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Guy InŠognito Ž
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Socks Proxy?


"Nick Dixon" wrote in message
om...
Hi there.

My ISP does not allow connections to Peer to Peer networks but a few
of my PC friends have got round this by using programs called HTTP
Tunnel or Hopster... Apparently they use SOCKS Proxy or something?

Does anyone know of an equivalent program for MAC?

Nick


http://www.hopster.com/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. by AVG & Guy InŠognito Ž
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 12/08/2003


  #7  
Old August 16th 03, 03:43 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
markp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Socks Proxy?


snip

Which bit of 'let's take an example' is unclear?


The whole premise of your original post to the OP made assuptions about the
ISP's T&Cs not allowing P2P using any means, not just because ports have
been blocked:

Let's get this right...you're asking for help with ripping off your
ISP, and by proxy all their otehr users?


What you posted was somewhat sarcastic and doesn't make sense if the ISP did
not prevent other forms of accessing P2P networks other than by using the
blocked ports. As I have pointed out this depends on exactly what is in the
T&Cs.

Which bit of 'let's take an example' is unclear?


Your last paragraph, which is separate to the example paragraph, says:

"it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden. Full stop"

Again the whole premise of your original post was that the ISP was
forbidding P2P by any means, and given the above paragraph was separate from
your example paragraph it is reasonable to conclude you were talking about
the actual case of the OP, using the paragraph above it as an example. I
then asked you for the OP's specific T&Cs and you were unable to answer.
That's what was unclear!

Now I have to confess I also made an assumption, that is that the ISP has
introduced this port blocking at some stage but it was not there originally.
This is what prompted my 'ISPs ripping off users' comment, as backed up by
my subsequent comments on that subject. This assumption may not be correct
and I apologise for it.

Mark.




  #8  
Old August 16th 03, 03:56 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
markp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Socks Proxy?


[email protected] writeme.com wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:55:51 +0100, "markp"
wrote:

Well I have to say if the ISP is blocking ports it's really the ISP

ripping
off the user not the other way around. If the OP can bypass this by using
other *legitimate* ways of doing it, i.e. ways that are allowed by the

ISP,
then that's fine, he won't be using the blocked port will he?

That about sums up the screwed up attitude in society today, so long
as you can get away with something, its all fine.


Yes, but ISPs do it all the time. I had a 24/7 connection and it was
intially advertised as 'unmetered access 24/7'. When the ISP got it's
customer base up it found that it couldn't allow users to have this
unmetered aspect any longer so they introduced a AUP, disconnecting them if
they use more than a certain number of hours both daily and accumulative in
a month. ISPs are notorious for changing T&Cs even though the original
customer base was entised without those restrictions and with no regard for
the hassle a user would need to go through to change ISPs. All's fair in
love and internet browsing IMO, if they block ports when they feel like it
their users are going to 'legitimately' get around those blockages (without
breaking the new T&Cs of course). I'll say it again, any ISP who entises
customers by using ambiguous or downright misleading advertising and then
change their T&Cs to restrict their users are the ones ripping people off,
not the other way around.

Mark.


  #9  
Old August 16th 03, 04:12 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
markp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Socks Proxy?


"chris" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:25:21 +0100 and in article [email protected]
100912.news.uni-berlin.de, markp said...
: it's in the T&Cs that use of P2P is forbidden
:
: Can you tell me exactly where this is in the T&C's for the OP? It seems

the
: OP is on ntlworld, but I can't find any mention of port blocking on

their
: website.

Erm?

The OP's IP resolves to 'cache.aramiska.net'. Where are you getting NTL
from??

re NTLworld + Port blocking. NTL dont block any ports bar Netbios
afaik.
--


Got confused with the email address, my apologies.

Mark.


  #10  
Old August 16th 03, 06:52 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Anthony Edwards
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Socks Proxy?

On 15 Aug 2003 15:04:50 -0700, Nick Dixon wrote:

My ISP does not allow connections to Peer to Peer networks but a few
of my PC friends have got round this by using programs called HTTP
Tunnel or Hopster... Apparently they use SOCKS Proxy or something?


Be very careful with SOCKS proxies. SOCKS is an Intranet protocol
and as such has little or no inbuilt security, and for this reason
SOCKS proxies should never be accessible from the external Internet
as a matter of good security policy.

Unfortunately, a good number of SOCKS proxies are insecure by default
(and those that aren't are often easy to misconfigure accidentally),
with the result that as soon as the user installs such a proxy a
serious security hole is present. Unscrupulous bulk emailers love
to hijack such connections, using specialist SOCKSified bulk email
software ("spamware") expressly for this purpose.

The abuse of such SOCKS proxies fools the recipient mail server
into believing that the proxy's IP address is the apparent point of
origination (rather than the true point of origination, the sender's
workstation). It is this ability to send Unsolicited Bulk Email whilst
remaining effectively hidden (and hence immune from abuse complaints)
that makes SOCKS (and other) proxies so attractive to unscrupulous
bulk emailers.

It is important to note, of course, that this method (connecting a
sockifier to an insecure SOCKS proxy) can be used for any purpose;
mounting attacks against remote networks, even attacks against the
SOCKS proxy owner's own Local Area Network. The latter would be
highly likely to succeed, since a machine able to use socksified
network penetration tools to connect to a SOCKS proxy would then
appear to the rest of that network to be a machine on the local LAN.
For this reason (in addition to the abuse issue), users should regard
such insecure SOCKS proxies as a critical security issue and take
extreme care not to install such an insecure proxy accordingly.

The following ZDNet UK article explains the issue rather well:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2122679,00.html

Another useful URL:

http://www.fr2.cyberabuse.org/?page=abuse-proxy

--
Anthony Edwards
easynet Ltd - Manchester
http://www.uk.easynet.net

 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright Š2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.