Ok, will do when I'm back behind the firewall tomorrow, I'll let you know how it goes. Cheers
On Monday, September 24, 2012, Ali Lown wrote: > If you would like to test it again now/tomorrow? > > It took a few hours longer than I expected because I had to stop and > write a patch for Wave (and have dinner, and everything else) to make > it work. > > This should have all traffic going over port 443, so if you check in > Wireshark all you should see is some TLS traffic to 71.19.144.245. > > Ali > > On 24 September 2012 17:18, Ben Hegarty <heg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Whenever you get a chance to do that I'll be happy to retest :) > > Thanks again > > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> Yes, packet #46 because I try to make you connect over 9898. > >> (This is because I have the configuration mis-setup, but didn't want > >> to reboot the wave server to fix it). > >> > >> I can move it so that websockets goes over 443, then I will let you > >> try again. (At which time it should work fine). > >> > >> On 24 September 2012 17:09, Ben Hegarty <heg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5FF_Ld8SzsNMnlmZkZWZWtEQ28 > >> > > >> > Looks like you're right there Ali I'm seeing port not allowed in the > http > >> > packets > >> > Cheers > >> > > >> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Yes. > >> >> > >> >> On 24 September 2012 17:01, Ben Hegarty <heg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Sure I can try there too, is it still set with the same dets? > >> >> > Regards > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Extracting the data as raw bytes from the first Websocket response > >> >> >> packet (#95) gives us the following HTML page (attached). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> So, it is _definitely_ an issue with your proxy server not > >> >> >> understanding the Websockets. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> For more information on exactly how they work, a good article > would > >> >> >> be: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2012/9/24/websockets-101/ > >> >> >> "The protocol went through many iterations and basically had to be > >> >> >> changed multiple times because of unforeseen security problems > that > >> >> >> came up with misbehaving proxies." seems to sum-up the problem. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Ali > >> >> >> > >> >> >> NB: When you tried on my server (https://wave.eezysys.co.uk), I > am > >> >> >> less certain as to why it failed there given all the traffic is > >> >> >> encrypted. (Unless your company proxy is terminating my SSL > >> >> >> connection, performing DPI on the now-decrypted data, and then > >> >> >> re-encrypting it before presenting it to you) > >> >> >> Could you do a wireshark capture for that server as well? > >> >> >> Actually, it might be because my server still tries to use a > >> >> >> non-standard port for the websockets, and it is quite likely you > have > >> >> >> most outgoing ports blocked. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On 24 September 2012 16:42, Ben Hegarty <heg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > Hey Ali, > >> >> >> > Basically I get 'A turbulance' after logging in and never go > online > >> >> and > >> >> >> no > >> >> >> > wave data is saved down, you just see 'Unsaved all the time'.. > >> >> >> > I've uploaded the wireshark trace to the following location :) > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5FF_Ld8SzsNMm5oOGJXajlOV00 > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > HTH > >> >> >> > > -- Mobile Phone: +447767-322-122 Work Phone: +4420 79485612
