[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Peter Allgeyer <allgeyer at web dot de>
 To:  Mas Libman <mas at masandwendy dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch, 'Xavier Beaudouin' <kiwi at oav dot net>
 Subject:  SOCKS proxy [WAS: RE: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option?]
 Date:  Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:07:04 +0100
Am Donnerstag, den 01.12.2005, 01:27 -0800 schrieb Mas Libman:
> Is anyone aware of an incarnation of M0n0wall with a SOCKS proxy
> perhaps? (if not perhaps I'll give it a go myself, but it'd be nice not to
> duplicate efforts.)
I'm not aware of a socks proxy for m0n0wall. It might be a much more
better idea to support socks than any other http/ftp/what the hell

> P.S. the ironic part here is that, for the most part, I agree with everyone
> that UPnP is a scary technology and that you most certainly don't want any
> signs of it in the corpnet scenario. I am, however, willing to live with
> this risk in my home due to the high level of protection and control I have
> over all of my client machines.
Well, not the answer you any many others will expect: It's open source,
you are still free to add support for UPnP (multicast helper + Internet
Gateway Device (IGD)) to m0n0wall by yourself. What's the next thing?
SIP proxy? Squid? There are a bunch of broken protocols out there. I,
for myself, don't want to support them all.


 copyleft(c) by |   _-_     It's the Magic that counts.  -- Larry Wall
 Peter Allgeyer | 0(o_o)0   on Perl's apparent ugliness