Comment on UK households could face VPN 'ban' after use skyrockets following Online Safety Bill
MehBlah@lemmy.world 1 day agoIt would have been my go to. But they can detect openvpn and other protocols. I would just use a ssh tunnel with squid proxy. The squid wont cache ssh traffic unless you run your own cert and set up the squid that way. It will however seamlessly allow you to connect through a ssh tunnel with one port forward.
tal@lemmy.today 1 day ago
I’ve certainly happily used SSH tunnels — on Linux it’s great in that it’s readily available wherever you already have OpenSSH installed — but one downside of OpenSSH as a general-purpose tool for tunneling is that it is intrinsically TCP and thus forces packet ordering across multiple tunneled connections, which may not be necessary for whatever you’re doing and can have performance impact. Part of the reason mosh exists is to deal with that (not for the SSH-as-a-tunneling-protocol case, but rather for the “SSH-as-a-remote-shell” case).
Wireguard is UDP, and OpenVPN can use either TCP or UDP, depending upon how it’s configured.
If we were going to move the world to a single “tunneling” protocol, SSH wouldn’t be my first choice, even though it’s awfully handy as a quick-and-dirty way to tunnel data.
MehBlah@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I used putty for tunnels on windows machines. As for mosh I forgot it exist. I use wireguard now. But if they ban VPN it will be harder for them to prove the SSH is being used for the purpose evading their stupid law. The high bandwidth usage could be a lot of things… right?
While in the hospital ten years ago I did get a visit from the IT dept. They didn’t have any qos on ssh and I was moving a lot of data through it. They just asked me to limit my high usage to late night.
tal@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Fair enough, and come to think of it, I think I have too. Just was pointing out that not all SSH implementations have tunnelling functionality.
Yeah, that’s true.