Hey Ali, Was looking over the chrome capture and I'm not sure that the one below is very clean so I performed it again...
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5FF_Ld8SzsNWG5rd0d0UnZVQU0 Regards hegsie On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Ben Hegarty <heg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Ali, > I've tested this again with firefox to no avail... > > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5FF_Ld8SzsNaGFVV2NabEd0RFU > > and with chrome... > > https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5FF_Ld8SzsNdmw5aThEZXF1U0k > > Regards > hegsie > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Ben Hegarty <heg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Mobile Phone: +447767-322-122 > Work Phone: +4420 79485612 > > -- Mobile Phone: +447767-322-122 Work Phone: +4420 79485612
