I'm wondering actually about the difference between usage of stunnel and ssh port-forwarding (-L and -R flags functionality). I know that both things are difference solutions - SSH tolerates its own keys, stunnel relies on SSL and certificates as a wrapper around TCP/UDP traffic, and so on.
But in the end - let's say you want to connect to some internal service that is inside local (a private network) and still you can do it in two ways:
deploy hardened instance (exposed to public ) that will work for you as a jump host (use SSH port forwarding)
deploy hardened instance (exposed to public) that will host stunnel server and wait for a connection from any stunnel client
I will be grateful for your thoughts about that!
stunnel and ssh are for very different situations.
ssh is a standard tool to connect to a machine and you can use local/remote forwards on top of your tunnels.
stunnel is used in case of firewalls with deep packet inspection, blocking ssh traffic. It can also be used to hide the real used protocol, can be necessary in some countries.
If you are behind a strong firewall, you are simply not able to use ssh, but stunnel still works, because it looks like ordinary https traffic.
But on top of using stunnel, you are normally use other protocols, like ssh.
The stunnel is only used to tunnel the firewall and ssh is used for the real connections then.
I'm developing some webhook required direct access public domain to internal machine, thinking use SSH tunnel to forward data, or got alternative solution?
Hosting server & development machine are in same network
192.168.1.2/24 (Hosting server)
2nd machine is virtual mapping using forticlient firewall without static or dynamic IP in visible in hosting server, so is 1 way initial communication right now.
In this case possible to setup SSH tunnel forward all traffic from 192.168.1.2:80 to handle in development machine port 8080?
How to ssh syntax look like?
Thanks.
This could be done by setting up an SSH tunnel to the remote machine:
ssh -L localhost:80:localhost:8080 development-system
Every request to port 80 on the hosting-server is now forwarded to port 8080 on the development-system.
Please note, that the port 80 on the hosting-server could only be used, when you start the SSH command as root. Also note that the port 80 is only accessible from the hosting-server. To access the port 80 on the hosting-server from everywhere use the following:
ssh -L 80:localhost:8080 development-system
Be sure that you want that.
A good introduction to the topic could be found at
https://www.ssh.com/ssh/tunneling/example
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/115897/whats-ssh-port-forwarding-and-whats-the-difference-between-ssh-local-and-remot
When I am working at the University, the program I use for managing papers (Papers2, from mekentosj), connects to the EZproxy, so that it can download papers.
When I am at home, I can't do this. My question is can I somehow setup an SSH tunnel to the University so that the program Papers can log into the EZproxy from home?.
P.S. As a follow-up to comments, I have the right to set up an SSH tunnel at our University, on my Linux machine.
Since you stated that you have SSH access to your university, you can use Dynamic Port Forwarding:
ssh -D LOCAL_PORT USER#UNIVERSITY_MACHINE_IP allows you to forward each connection through the LOCAL_PORT you specified on your machine.
Go your OS's connection settings
Check Manual Proxy Settings
Enter 127.0.0.1 in the SOCKS field.
Enter LOCAL_PORT you choose to Port field.
Now, every connection protocol (HTTP, FTP, etc.) will be forwarded through the university machine you connected.
Note:
Be sure to select an unused port on your computer bigger than 1024 as LOCAL_PORT
You can only do this while your SSH connection is still alive.
You can also configure browser-only forwarding from the settings of your browser of choice.
Still not enough information to create a pre-fabricated solution for you. Anyway, a few resources:
How to set Papers library proxy: I do not know if you can create your own proxy, e.g. on localhost:2048, tunnelling through to the university.
How many (and which) proxy ports does EZproxy use? This should help you determine the SSH tunnel settings you need for your connection
Your university's EZproxy administrator: Ask her if she can tell you how to set up remote access. Maybe there is an official way to set this up, possibly an already existing, externally accessible proxy URL or SSH hopping station, maybe a VPN or whatever.
I am currently trying to work out how to SSH to servers behind firewalls that deny all incoming connections. The servers can SSH out, so I am wondering if there is a way to get the server behind the firewall to create an SSH tunnel to my workstation, then allow my workstation to send commands back to the server through it?
I have looked into tunneling / reverse tunneling, but these appear to be port forwarding solutions, which will not work as the firewall denies all connections on all ports.
Ideally, I would like to do this in Ruby (using the Net::SSH gem), such that instead of opening a new connection like:
Net::SSH.start('host', 'user', :password => "password")
I could somehow bind to an existing tunnel.
Thanks!
This is fairly simple if you have control over the server. I'll give the command-line version, and you can work that into any framework you like:
server$ ssh -R 9091:localhost:22 client.example.egg
client$ ssh -p 9091 localhost
The server establishes a connection to the client first which starts listening on the "R"emote end (i.e. the client) on port 9091 (something I just made up), and forwards those connections to localhost:22, i.e. to the ssh server on itself.
The client then just needs to connect to its own local port 9091, which is transparently forwarded to the server's ssh server.
This will usually wreak havoc to your public key checking (and adherent security!), because the client's ssh client doesn't know that localhost:9091 is the same as server:22. If your client is Putty, then you have an option to provide the "real" server name somewhere so that the credentials can be looked up properly.
Unless you can create (and maintain) a tunnel out from the host you're trying to connect to first (which would allow you then to connect through that tunnel), no you can't. That's the point of a firewall: prevent unauthorised access to a network.
However the firewall shouldn't block a tunnel, although it depends exactly how the tunnel's managed. A port-forwarding tunnel set up using ssh's tunneling features would subvert the firewall. However it may also get you in trouble with the administrator of the remote network.
So ultimately, you'd need to speak to the network administrator to get the firewall rules relaxed in order to do it without needing to tunnel, or at least get authorisation to have a tunnel.
At my workplace, the traffic blocker/firewall has been getting progressively worse. I can't connect to my home machine on port 22, and lack of ssh access makes me sad. I was previously able to use SSH by moving it to port 5050, but I think some recent filters now treat this traffic as IM and redirect it through another proxy, maybe. That's my best guess; in any case, my ssh connections now terminate before I get to log in.
These days I've been using Ajaxterm over HTTPS, as port 443 is still unmolested, but this is far from ideal. (Sucky terminal emulation, lack of port forwarding, my browser leaks memory at an amazing rate...) I tried setting up mod_proxy_connect on top of mod_ssl, with the idea that I could send a CONNECT localhost:22 HTTP/1.1 request through HTTPS, and then I'd be all set. Sadly, this seems to not work; the HTTPS connection works, up until I finish sending my request; then SSL craps out. It appears as though mod_proxy_connect takes over the whole connection instead of continuing to pipe through mod_ssl, confusing the heck out of the HTTPS client.
Is there a way to get this to work? I don't want to do this over plain HTTP, for several reasons:
Leaving a big fat open proxy like that just stinks
A big fat open proxy is not good over HTTPS either, but with authentication required it feels fine to me
HTTP goes through a proxy -- I'm not too concerned about my traffic being sniffed, as it's ssh that'll be going "plaintext" through the tunnel -- but it's a lot more likely to be mangled than HTTPS, which fundamentally cannot be proxied
Requirements:
Must work over port 443, without disturbing other HTTPS traffic (i.e. I can't just put the ssh server on port 443, because I would no longer be able to serve pages over HTTPS)
I have or can write a simple port forwarder client that runs under Windows (or Cygwin)
Edit
DAG: Tunnelling SSH over HTTP(S) has been pointed out to me, but it doesn't help: at the end of the article, they mention Bug 29744 - CONNECT does not work over existing SSL connection preventing tunnelling over HTTPS, exactly the problem I was running into. At this point, I am probably looking at some CGI script, but I don't want to list that as a requirement if there's better solutions available.
Find out why the company has such a restrictive policy. It might be for a good reason.
If you still find that you want to bypass the policy, you could write a small proxy that will listen on your server on port 443 and then, depending on the request, will forward the traffic either to your web server or to the SSH daemon. There are two catches though.
To determine whether it's an HTTPS request or an SSH request, you need to try to read some data with a (small) timeout, this is because TLS/SSL handshakes start with the client sending some data, whereas the SSH handshake starts with the server sending some data. The timeout has to be big enough to delays in delivering the initial data from the client in the TLS/SSL handshake, so it'll make establishing SSH connections slower.
If the HTTP proxy in your company is smart, it'll actually eavesdrop on the expected TLS/SSL "handshake" when you CONNECT to port 443, and, when it detects that it's not an TLS/SSL handshake, it might terminate the SSH connection attempt. To address that, you could wrap the SSH daemon into an TLS/SSL tunnel (e.g., stunnel), but then you'll need to differentiate requests based on the TLS/SSL version in your client request to determine whether to route the TLS/SSL connection to the web server or to the TLS/SSL-tunneled SSH daemon.
You should be able to use iptables to forward ssh traffic from your work machines to ssh while all other machines attaching to your home server on port 443 get the Apache server.
Try a rule like this:
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -s 111.111.111.111 --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port 22
Where 111.111.111.111 is your office computer's ip address.
That all assumes you're running Linux >= 2.4, which you should be by now. It's been out for almost a decade.
Documentation for iptables is at http://www.netfilter.org.
Set up OpenVPN 2.1 server at home, use port 443 (if you set up your home any HTTPS service at port 443, trigger OpenVPN's port-share option to handle both OpenVPN and HTTPS transactions at port 443; this feature is only available to non-Windows OS)
Then, set up your OpenVPN client on your laptop in road-warrior mode to access the OpenVPN server at home. You will be able to call home or anywhere you like within a secure VPN network you've created with OpenVPN. It is no longer required to use SSH for this purpose.
I'm really sorry for being the Devil's advocate here, but if they are blocking ports at your work, its likely because they don't want people breaching security.
Now if you get permission to open a tunnel from your boss, that's fine, but IF something happens, ANYTHING, and they figure out you have a tunnel, I can almost assure you, you'll become the scapegoat. So if I were you I'd not be opening tunnels at work if they are setting up firewalls against it.
How about using 2 IP adresses on your machine?
Bind apache/https on one IP_1:443 and your sshd on the other IP_2:443?
Could you set up a middle man?
Run a small/free/cheap instance in the cloud listening on 443 for SSH, then though that cloud instance tunnel to your home box on your favorite port - 22 or whatever.
It'll add some latency I'm sure, but it solves the problem of leaving the original home setup intact.
I think you'll have to find a port that you're not using currently that you can get out on, and listen on that. 443 is the obvious candidate, but you say that's not possible. What about mail (25, 110, 143), telnet (23), ftp (21), DNS (53), or even whois (43)?
Proxy tunnel may be your answer
http://proxytunnel.sourceforge.net/
lets say my ssh server is host.domain.tld and my works proxy server is 10.2.4.37
I would add this to my local ssh config
Host host.domain.tld
ProxyCommand /usr/local/bin/proxytunnel -q -p 10.2.4.37:3128 -d %h:%p
ProtocolKeepAlives 30
See:
SSH Through or Over Proxy
http://daniel.haxx.se/docs/sshproxy.html
http://www.agroman.net/corkscrew/
Since apache has no problem whatsoever with CONNECT when no SSL is involved, I turn off SSL features and I use stunnel to serve an https version of my site. This does not require any recompilation, and allows your site to serve https normally. So far, the cleanest workaround I know.
See http://chm.duquesne.free.fr/blog/?p=281 for details.
Must work over port 443, without disturbing other HTTPS traffic (i.e. I can't just put the ssh server on port 443, because I would no longer be able to serve pages over HTTPS)
Is it possible to bind your HTTPS server to a different port? Depending on what it's used for, you may even be able to get around the problem of not being able to directly access it from work by just SSHing home and then using lynx from there.
So, then, give proxifier a try (- it supports HTTP Proxy Server)!
http://www.proxifier.com/documentation/intro.htm
I managed to bypass my company's firewall using the following design via AjaxTerm, it works for me.
PC on company network --> company's proxy via https --> INTERNET --> My home Apache reverse proxy server on SSL + .htpasswd protection --> AjaxTerm Server(From here on ward, I can SSH to any other servers ).
Still not the perfect world... would be good if I can can tunneling to my home network via HTTPS.