"Habermann, David (DA)" wrote:
>
> You might want to consider that almost all firewalls support CONNECT type
> requests on port 443 (HTTPS).
>
> Dave
The current HTTP/VNC applet I have already uses HTTP CONNECT (see link
below).
The problem with that is Java applet security.
--
Harmen
Firewa
You might want to consider that almost all firewalls support CONNECT type
requests on port 443 (HTTPS).
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Harmen van der Wal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 December, 2000 8:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VNC on port 80
Harmen van der Wal
Harmen van der Wal wrote:
<...>
> That would be "Full-duplex Firewall Tunneling with Low Overhead". What
> worries me about that, is that "simulative multiplexed communication" by
> using HTTP/1.0's GET or POST operator, seems to be the only way for
> applets to go. If I read http://www.mokabyte.i
"Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
>
> Harmen van der Wal wrote:
> >
<...>
> > Well, I'm no expert on this, but I've been planning to look into this
> > for a while now, and maybe build the ideal firewall Java viewer;-) I
> > guess the techiniques are pretty standard.
> >
> > This discusses them in some d
Harmen van der Wal wrote:
>
> "Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
> >
> > Harmen van der Wal wrote:
> <...>
> > I understand now. Is there any standard for tunnelling other
> > protocols over HTTP, or do all of those services use their
> > own ad-hoc methods?
>
> Well, I'm no expert on this, but I've been
"Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
>
> Harmen van der Wal wrote:
<...>
> I understand now. Is there any standard for tunnelling other
> protocols over HTTP, or do all of those services use their
> own ad-hoc methods?
Well, I'm no expert on this, but I've been planning to look into this
for a while now, a
Harmen van der Wal wrote:
>
> "Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
> >
> > Harmen van der Wal wrote:
> > >
> > > For those who must go through their LAN's HTTP proxy there's a bunch of
> > > http-tunnel-tools out there, but it would be ideal in my mind to have a
> > > Java applet do it, becuase you can use
>I had not thought about that. This seems to make my patch useless,
>since the only situation in which it would really be necessary
>is the one where there is an HTTP proxy involved. Oh well.
Actually, it makes sense when trying to convince an network admin to open
ports for VNC use - it saves th
"Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
>
> Harmen van der Wal wrote:
> >
<...>
> > > The Java applet -- aah. Probably doesn't know it has to go through port
> > > 80 to get to the VNC server. It is probably trying to use 5900 or
> > > similar.
> > >
> > > I will investigate this. It will probably mean adding
Harmen van der Wal wrote:
>
> "Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
> >
> > Jon Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > I downloaded your patch for win VNC so that i would be able to use VNC at school
> > > (which has a proxy only allowing some ports like port 80) I changed the port
> > > setting in the registry to port 8
"Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
>
> Jon Smith wrote:
> >
> > I downloaded your patch for win VNC so that i would be able to use VNC at school
> > (which has a proxy only allowing some ports like port 80) I changed the port
> > setting in the registry to port 80 and i have just tried to access my home
"Joseph A. Knapka" schrieb:
> The Java applet -- aah. Probably doesn't know it has to go through port
> 80 to get to the VNC server. It is probably trying to use 5900 or
> similar.
>
> I will investigate this. It will probably mean adding an option to the
> Java viewer to select which port to con
Jon Smith wrote:
>
> I downloaded your patch for win VNC so that i would be able to use VNC at school
> (which has a proxy only allowing some ports like port 80) I changed the port
> setting in the registry to port 80 and i have just tried to access my home computer
> from school using the java
Thanks Joseph.
That's cool! Now if someone would incorporate openssl we'd have it all (I'm
lying--I'd want more trust me).
Doug.
- Original Message -
From: Joseph A. Knapka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here's a patch for WinVNC. I've also made a WinVNC 3.3.3r7 executab
"Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
>
> > > > > It would be nice if the server could serve the Java applet via
> > > > > HTTP on the RFB port, but unfortunately the RFB handshake
Here's a patch for WinVNC. I've also made a WinVNC 3.3.3r7 executable
containing this patch available at
http://home.earthlink
"Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
> > > > It would be nice if the server could serve the Java applet via
> > > > HTTP on the RFB port, but unfortunately the RFB handshake
One more fix (last one, I promise): in the unlikely event that
the fdopen() call fails, we should not then attempt to use the
closed
>06/12/00 08:02:36 Got connection from client 127.0.0.1
>06/12/00 08:02:36 httpd: get '' for 127.0.0.1
>06/12/00 08:02:36 httpd: defaulting to 'index.vnc'
>06/12/00 08:02:36 Woo hoo! Served Java applet via RFB!
Interesting idea. I'll see if I can build something similar into the Mac
server, this
Is there anyway of forcing win vnc to make the http connection on a different port?
Jon
-- Original Message --
From: "Joseph A. Knapka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 18:08:47 -0700
>Jon Smith wrote:
>>
>> First o
"Joseph A. Knapka" schrieb:
> ...
> The attached small patch seems to work fine for Xvnc. It works
> exactly as Jens suggests. Of course HTTP connections to 58xx
> work as usual. I've tested with Netscape 4.76 and IE4. I'll
> tackle the WinVNC server in a day or two unless someone
> beats me to i
Oops. Better make sure that FP only gets allocated
if we really need it... Here's a corrected patch.
Sorry...
-- Joe
"Joseph A. Knapka" wrote:
>
> Jens Wagner wrote:
> >
> > "Joseph A. Knapka" schrieb:
> >
> > > ...
> > > It would be nice if the server could serve the Java applet via
> > > HTTP
Jens Wagner wrote:
>
> "Joseph A. Knapka" schrieb:
>
> > ...
> > It would be nice if the server could serve the Java applet via
> > HTTP on the RFB port, but unfortunately the RFB handshake
> > begins with the server writing the RFB protocol version,
> > whereas the HTTP handshake begins with th
Jens Wagner wrote:
>
> "Joseph A. Knapka" schrieb:
>
> > ...
> > It would be nice if the server could serve the Java applet via
> > HTTP on the RFB port, but unfortunately the RFB handshake
> > begins with the server writing the RFB protocol version,
> > whereas the HTTP handshake begins with th
"Joseph A. Knapka" schrieb:
> ...
> It would be nice if the server could serve the Java applet via
> HTTP on the RFB port, but unfortunately the RFB handshake
> begins with the server writing the RFB protocol version,
> whereas the HTTP handshake begins with the client sending an
> HTTP request -
Jon Smith wrote:
>
> First of all thank you to everyone that helped me solve the problem of getting vnc
>to work with windows ME ICS.
>
> I now have another problem. I want to be able to access VNC running on my home
>computer from school. They have a proxy running and probably only on port
First of all thank you to everyone that helped me solve the problem of getting vnc to
work with windows ME ICS.
I now have another problem. I want to be able to access VNC running on my home
computer from school. They have a proxy running and probably only on port 80 and port
21. I have tri
25 matches
Mail list logo
