@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

Post by l.. » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:09:03




of C.R. ... They didn't just block 80.  You can choose some random
arbitrary port like 7380; 1717; 8080... whatever.  Doesn't work.  So
it isn't just port-based filtering.  At first I thought they were
filtering all incoming syn packets--nope that can't be it--I ssh'd in.
 So I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet
and look for signs of the http protocol, e.g. "GET" or "POST"?  Anyone
know the truth of the situation?
 
 
 

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

Post by Chris Friese » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:23:52




> of C.R. ... They didn't just block 80.  You can choose some random
> arbitrary port like 7380; 1717; 8080... whatever.  Doesn't work.  So
> it isn't just port-based filtering.  At first I thought they were
> filtering all incoming syn packets--nope that can't be it--I ssh'd in.
>  So I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet
> and look for signs of the http protocol, e.g. "GET" or "POST"?  Anyone
> know the truth of the situation?

Call them up and ask them?

 
 
 

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

Post by Zachary Echli » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:59:18


You might want to try posting to athome.users-unix.  They seem to know
what's up with this sort of thing.

Zachary Echlin



> of C.R. ... They didn't just block 80.  You can choose some random
> arbitrary port like 7380; 1717; 8080... whatever.  Doesn't work.  So
> it isn't just port-based filtering.  At first I thought they were
> filtering all incoming syn packets--nope that can't be it--I ssh'd in.
>  So I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet
> and look for signs of the http protocol, e.g. "GET" or "POST"?  Anyone
> know the truth of the situation?

 
 
 

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

Post by Wayne Thro » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:32:34



:: I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet and
:: look for signs of the http protocol, e.g.  "GET" or "POST"?  Anyone
:: know the truth of the situation?


: You might want to try posting to athome.users-unix.
: They seem to know what's up with this sort of thing.

OK.  So I'll try it

    error: athome.users-unix:411 No such group

Oh well.  So it goes.


"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"

 
 
 

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

Post by Rod Smit » Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:20:03





> :: I'm guessing they have some filters that can peer into the packet
> and :: look for signs of the http protocol, e.g.  "GET" or "POST"?
> Anyone :: know the truth of the situation?


> to athome.users-unix. : They seem to know what's up with this sort of
> thing.

> OK.  So I'll try it

>     error: athome.users-unix:411 No such group

> Oh well.  So it goes.

Judging by your post's headers, you seem to be posting from a NewsGuy


--

http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux & multi-OS configuration

 
 
 

@home's advanced anti web server packet filtering

Post by l.. » Sat, 01 Sep 2001 09:41:50


Thanks for the lead on that athome news group--I'll ask there from now
on.  I figured there would be a good number of people in my situation
on a linux.networking group.

As for the filtering, I am mistaken.  I changed all but one thing when
I switched--the firewall rule.  Silly me.

As for "just calling them" uh-uh.  They don't technically allow
serving off residential lines.  That they allowed it this long likely
meant it was a silent perk to those in the know.  It just got to be
too much of a liability with CR.  The lawyers and accountants wouldn't
ever have allowed it.

 
 
 

1. Home made 'Web Server' questions

Hi there,

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but...

for fun, I decided to convert a program of mine that was cgi based, to
be its own litle Web Server.  I wanted people to use a Web Browser as
the interface to my program.

So, it all seems to be working fine, except...

When it was a CGI program, I sent across a 62 byte gif, and netscape
displayed it just fine.  Now that I'm doing the work myself, netscape
does not display my gif.  I couldn't figure out what was wrong.  So I
decided to run up Internet Explorer to see if it had a problem.  It doesn't.
It displays the gif perfectly.

Does anybody have an idea whats going on?

PS: The netscape problems exists in both Linux and WIndows version of
netscape.

Gerald

--
---

  2:28pm  up 9 days,  1:21,  4 users,  load average: 0.01, 0.03, 0.00
Linux summit.rubicon.net 2.0.35 #1 Thu Jul 23 14:01:04 EDT 1998 i586 unknown

2. 2.4.8pre5aa1

3. Advanced packet filtering in OpenBSD?

4. Convert csh to ksh?

5. Adjusting Ethereal's Capture-Filters for Web-Address filtering?

6. remapping ip addresses: how?

7. Microsoft Anti-Web Practices - Home Page (REPOST)

8. How to display long dosnames ?

9. ADVANCED SERVER: Common Lisp Web Server (58.3a)

10. Advance Server Web Servers

11. filtering proxy with anti-virus filter?

12. FTP server-to-server transfers through a packet filtering firewall

13. web server proxy (or advanced firewall)