Comment on An actually functional webproxy to self-host

• wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Yeah what you want is a SOCKS5 proxy.

  source

  • myszka@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Thanks! SOCKS5 proxy is a good option, I don’t know why I didn’t think of it from the very beginning…

    My goal is to bypass local censorship on university computers that don’t allow running any executables except those provided by the administrator. And I’m trying to help professors who aren’t particularly tech-savvy, so a webproxy is actually still a better option.

    source

    • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      By the way: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_IT

      source
  • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    These kinds of setups are used to bypass agressive network filtering and content censhorship. All the traffic is http(s). And then the way only a browser is needed means it works on locked down devices like chromebooks.

    The browser in docker is something I have used, but it requires more resources to host and can only be used by one person at once if you are using something like linuxserver’s webtop.

    source

    • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Then EOCKS is what you want. It can be used on a Chromebook as well.

      These proxying websites are running full browser instances in the background. It’s the only way to guarantee all the traffic is routed through it.

      source

      • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        No, Socks5 does not work for this usecase. You don’t get permissions to run it locally via crostini and the settings are locked in the chromebook settings. In addition to this, it is too easy to fingerprint, and some of the more aggressive setups will catch it and block it. For example, my high school would autodetect wireguard and then kick you off of the network for 10 minutes if you attempted to connect.

        source