[VPN] VPN over port 80
scottn at s2s.ltd.uk
Mon Nov 25 04:14:04 EST 2002
Some ppl seem to be highly suspicious - thus coming to suspect reasons
behind (what could be) fairly innocuous queries. Sorry to jump at this, but
I've had this requirement before and _not_ to circumnavigate a network
owner's policy. Some webfarm networks that I've worked on have had a strict
block all, allow 80|443 at the firewall - ONLY. They were never fussed about
what came in on those ports as the policy was designed for easy firewall
admin - not for content checking / blocking / service restriction. Obviously
once you were inside, stateful established sessions outbound were no problem
- so port 80 or 443 were used for precisely this purpose - secure tunnelling
of shell based traffic into the network(using ssh)!
Just my 2c worth - not evvverything that glitters is gold. :)
On 11/25/02 12:04 AM, "dgillett at deepforest.org" <dgillett at deepforest.org>
> Since the obvious purpose of running a VPN (or just about anything
> else besides HTTP, but especially encrypted traffic) over port 80 is
> to circumvent efforts to enforce a network owner's policies on
> acceptable use, your willingness to pay a premium for such a product
> *sounds* highly suspect.
> On 24 Nov 2002, at 0:25, Olav wrote:
>> I encountered your comprehensive site about VPN's. I'm currently looking
>> for tunnelmaster/tunnelbuilder, a vpn server/client that is able to route
>> the VPN traffic over port 80 in a TCP protocol.
>> However, this product is discontinued, and I'm not able to buy it anywhere.
>> Can you give me advice to purchase this software. I'm willing to pay a lot
>> for it.
>> If this is not possible, do you know whether there are other software
>> packages that route a VPN over port 80 in TCP, instead of the normal
>> 1723/1701 in GRE(protocol 47)?
> VPN mailing list
> VPN at lists.shmoo.com
More information about the VPN