|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > October 2004 > Question for fellow TOR users
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Question for fellow TOR users
|
|
| privacy.at Anonymous Remailer 2004-10-15, 8:46 pm |
|
Setting up TOR to run with Privoxy and Navigator is pretty easy,
just get the sock4a statement in correct form in Privoxy and you're
set.
But, moving on, attempting to send NNTP traffic through TOR is
proving a little more tricky.
As a first attempt, I sent my NNTP traffic to TOR via SocksCap.
This looked promising. SocksCap forwarded with no problem, TOR
received but sent warning messages with each connection attempt that
no server could forward to the news IP and that it was rejecting,
tried a different news server with same result.
BTW, heretofor I have been always sending my news traffic through
SecureCRT with port forwarding thruogh Anonymizer, so i know that the
problem is not on news server side or Agent software.
Next I tried Agent to SocksCap with SocksCap pointing to Privoxy
instead of TOR and with Privoxy pointing to TOR. That is, just
inserting SockCap between Agent and Privoxy as the way of getting
agent to talk to Privoxy. With this configuration, I do not get to
the internet and it appears that TOR is getting nothing, that is,
that Privoxy is not sending anything to TOR.
As a last resort, since I cannot change the port 119 in Agent, I
changed the listening port on Privoxy to 119 from 8118 so that it
would listen to agent, removed SockCap from the picture and tried to
connect using Agent to Privoxy, Privoxy listening on 119 now, then to
TOR; still nothing, no TOR activity or internet activity.
Anybody have any ideas?
| |
| Max Mustermann 2004-10-16, 2:45 am |
| On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, "privacy.at Anonymous Remailer"
<mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> Setting up TOR to run with Privoxy and Navigator is pretty easy,
>just get the sock4a statement in correct form in Privoxy and you're
>set.
It really is pretty much that simple. :-)
> But, moving on, attempting to send NNTP traffic through TOR is
>proving a little more tricky.
>
> As a first attempt, I sent my NNTP traffic to TOR via SocksCap.
>This looked promising. SocksCap forwarded with no problem, TOR
>received but sent warning messages with each connection attempt that
>no server could forward to the news IP and that it was rejecting,
>tried a different news server with same result.
I've seen this error from time to time also. Don't have a clue why. Try
shutting town Tor and restarting, allowing it to build another chain. Also
try both socks4 and socks5 settings in SocksCap. Tor will do either.
Also try using both the IP and news.domain.tld name in Agent's news host
settings. One may work while the other may not, and it may depend on
whether you use socks4 or socks5 settings in SocksCap.
> BTW, heretofor I have been always sending my news traffic through
>SecureCRT with port forwarding thruogh Anonymizer, so I know that the
>problem is not on news server side or Agent software.
The setups are very similar. SSH and SOCKS function almost identically from
the user's perspective. They both "tunnel" through a connection by running
one connection atop another. Socks and SSH are both designed to do this.
FWIW, as a bit of trivia, older FTP servers had this ability too. You could
connect to one FTP server and forward requests to another. You could also
"bounce" connections off an FTP server and "tunnel" requests from other
applications through them. Nmap still retains the ability to port scan
through an FTP server, but FTP servers that allow this sort of connection
are rare today.
> Next I tried Agent to SocksCap with SocksCap pointing to Privoxy
>instead of TOR and with Privoxy pointing to TOR. That is, just
>inserting SockCap between Agent and Privoxy as the way of getting
>agent to talk to Privoxy. With this configuration, I do not get to
>the internet and it appears that TOR is getting nothing, that is,
>that Privoxy is not sending anything to TOR.
Agent and Privoxy have absolutely noting to do with each other. Agent is a
news client (NNTP), and Privoxy is an HTTP proxy. They will never work
together at all, unless I suppose if you tunnel an NNTP connection through
HTTP with HTC/HTS. Even if you accomplish this, Privoxy would do nothing
because it's designed to filter HTTP traffic. It either wouldn't understand
what it's seeing, or there's an very remote chance it might filter out the
odd header or message content because of some string matching.
Anyway, when you hit Tor, Tor sends your connection out into the ether of
the Tor network. In the setup you describe above Agent connects to Tor, Tor
to the Tor network, and at the end of the Tor network the last node is
trying to connect to 127.0.0.1:8118 (I think). Obviously unless there's an
HTTP proxy running on port 8118 of the machine that's the last Tor node in
your chain, this won't work. There's no way for the last node to know where
your copy of Privoxy is. If this weren't true, Tor wouldn't be anonymous.
;-)
Either that, or you configured SocksCap to use Privoxy as it's socks proxy.
You weren't explicit about how you set things up. If this is the case it
will never work. Privoxy is not a socks proxy. Socks and HTTP aren't the
same language, so Privoxy can't understand what SocksCap is asking t to do.
It would also remove the Tor network from the equation and kill your
anonymity, if you could get it to somehow work.
> As a last resort, since I cannot change the port 119 in Agent, I
>changed the listening port on Privoxy to 119 from 8118 so that it
Forget using Privoxy and Agent together. Two different things.
>would listen to agent, removed SockCap from the picture and tried to
>connect using Agent to Privoxy, Privoxy listening on 119 now, then to
>TOR; still nothing, no TOR activity or internet activity.
>
> Anybody have any ideas?
Yes. Try to understand the differences between protocols, how socks proxies
work, and how SocksCap functions. And use a pencil and paper to draw out
the connections your making. It may clarify things for you a bit. Many
people do this.
| |
| Dale Gribble 2004-10-16, 2:45 am |
| privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Setting up TOR to run with Privoxy and Navigator is pretty easy,
> just get the sock4a statement in correct form in Privoxy and you're
> set.
>
> But, moving on, attempting to send NNTP traffic through TOR is
> proving a little more tricky.
>
> As a first attempt, I sent my NNTP traffic to TOR via SocksCap.
> This looked promising. SocksCap forwarded with no problem, TOR
> received but sent warning messages with each connection attempt that
> no server could forward to the news IP and that it was rejecting,
> tried a different news server with same result.
>
> BTW, heretofor I have been always sending my news traffic through
> SecureCRT with port forwarding thruogh Anonymizer, so i know that the
> problem is not on news server side or Agent software.
>
> Next I tried Agent to SocksCap with SocksCap pointing to Privoxy
> instead of TOR and with Privoxy pointing to TOR. That is, just
> inserting SockCap between Agent and Privoxy as the way of getting
> agent to talk to Privoxy. With this configuration, I do not get to
> the internet and it appears that TOR is getting nothing, that is,
> that Privoxy is not sending anything to TOR.
>
> As a last resort, since I cannot change the port 119 in Agent, I
> changed the listening port on Privoxy to 119 from 8118 so that it
> would listen to agent, removed SockCap from the picture and tried to
> connect using Agent to Privoxy, Privoxy listening on 119 now, then to
> TOR; still nothing, no TOR activity or internet activity.
>
> Anybody have any ideas?
Rather than go through all that SOCKS-crap drawn out bullshit, you CAN
easily change the port in Agent, although the way's not immediately apparent.
First, locate the "Agent.ini" file. It's usually in the \Agent\Data
folder. Double-click on it and open it up like a text file.
Then, scroll down till you see "NNTPPort=119". All you have to do is
change the "119" to whatever outgoing port you want Agent to connect to
(apparently 8118 for Privoxy, or at least I guess that's the port since
I've never used Privoxy). Save the file, and fire it up.
You owe me a 6-pack.
| |
| Max Mustermann 2004-10-16, 2:45 am |
| On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, "Dale Gribble" <just.say.no.to@blackhelicoptors.un>
wrote:
>Rather than go through all that SOCKS-crap drawn out bullshit, you CAN
>easily change the port in Agent, although the way's not immediately apparent.
>
>First, locate the "Agent.ini" file. It's usually in the \Agent\Data
>folder. Double-click on it and open it up like a text file.
>
>Then, scroll down till you see "NNTPPort=119". All you have to do is
>change the "119" to whatever outgoing port you want Agent to connect to
>(apparently 8118 for Privoxy, or at least I guess that's the port since
>I've never used Privoxy). Save the file, and fire it up.
And this would accomplish exactly what? Privoxy is an HTTP proxy. Agent is
an NNTP client. Agent would try to connect to Privoxy and get diddly quat
in return. And for that matter, how many news articles would Agent find at
'localhost' on most machines, even if you could get it to connect to
Privoxy.
>You owe me a 6-pack.
What the hell for? Calling doing it the right way "bullshit" and giving out
completely clueless advice?
I don't think so.
| |
| Dead Microprocessor 2004-10-16, 5:45 pm |
| > Attempting to send NNTP traffic through TOR is proving a little more tricky.
Just check the default TOR server configuration file.
It does not allow to connect to NNTP default port 119/tcp.
| |
| Dale Gribble 2004-10-16, 5:45 pm |
| Max Mustermann wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, "Dale Gribble" <just.say.no.to@blackhelicoptors.un>
> wrote:
>
apparent.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> What the hell for? Calling doing it the right way "bullshit" and giving out
> completely clueless advice?
>
> I don't think so.
He asked how to change the port in Agent from 119. I answered that.
Since I've never used Privoxy, I addressed a connection possibility, but
mentioned that I've never used it. I noticed that you didn't mention how
to change from 119 in Agent. At least you've been educated a bit.
You're welcome.
| |
| Max Mustermann 2004-10-16, 8:45 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, "Dale Gribble" <just.say.no.to@blackhelicoptors.un>
wrote:
>He asked how to change the port in Agent from 119. I answered that.
No, he asked how to get Agent and Privoxy working together so he could use
a SOCKS proxy with them. A bad question based on a false premise to begin
with. You called honest attempts so solve the root problem "drawn out
bullshit" and gave a useless answer that anyone who really understood
anything about NNTP or Agent should have suspected wouldn't work, even if
they didn't know what Privoxy was. An answer that had already been
explained as useless by other people in fact.
You should have avoided embarrassing yourself by keeping your mouth shut
when you already knew you were clue free, reading back through the thread a
bit, or even refraining from acting like an asshat when you did reply. But
you jumped up with your little chest puffed out and shouted an incorrect
answer in a room full of people who know better. With your zipper down. Now
you're suffering the consequences.
You could have learned two valuable lessons from the experience. One
technical, and one more social in nature. But here you are still puffing
your little chest out, making yourself look like an even bigger asshat. Of
course making oneself look like an asshat is everybody's right, so please
do feel free to continue down that road if it's what you truly desire.
| |
| Dale Gribble 2004-10-16, 8:45 pm |
| Max Mustermann wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, "Dale Gribble" <just.say.no.to@blackhelicoptors.un>
> wrote:
>
>
> No, he asked how to get Agent and Privoxy working together so he could
One of the questions he asked was about changing the port in Agent. I
answered that part only. If you can't see that, then you've gone blind
and need to shave your palms.
| |
| Max Mustermann 2004-10-16, 8:45 pm |
| On 16 Oct 2004, dead.microprocessor@gmail.com (Dead Microprocessor) wrote:
>Just check the default TOR server configuration file.
>It does not allow to connect to NNTP default port 119/tcp.
It worked fine for me a couple days ago, both through the Bananasplit SSL
news server on port 563, and Individual.Net on 119. I can't get it working
this afternoon though.
There may be some truth to the above statement. Here's a snippet from a
message posted to the OR-TALK mailing list just this morning...
"I've used SocksCap to pipe the requests of my news
reader thru Tor. That worked for some time, but in the
last few days I haven't been able to get a connection,
because "No Tor server exists that allows exit to
...:119"."
I've seen no reply posted yet. 
| |
| A satisfied user@disney.world 2004-10-16, 8:45 pm |
| On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:14:58 +0200, Max Mustermann <anonymous@remail.amessage.info> wrote:
>:On 16 Oct 2004, dead.microprocessor@gmail.com (Dead Microprocessor) wrote:
>:
>:>Just check the default TOR server configuration file.
>:>It does not allow to connect to NNTP default port 119/tcp.
>:
>:It worked fine for me a couple days ago, both through the Bananasplit SSL
>:news server on port 563, and Individual.Net on 119. I can't get it working
>:this afternoon though.
>:
>:There may be some truth to the above statement. Here's a snippet from a
>:message posted to the OR-TALK mailing list just this morning...
>:
>:"I've used SocksCap to pipe the requests of my news
>:reader thru Tor. That worked for some time, but in the
>:last few days I haven't been able to get a connection,
>:because "No Tor server exists that allows exit to
>:..:119"."
>:
>:I've seen no reply posted yet.
So this might be the root of the problems I have been experiencing. Repeatedly trying to
socksify connections through Tor without success. I had that similar error messages that Tor
could not find a suitable exit server to connect to Easynews:563. When I dropped sockscap and
configured Putty pipe through 127.0.0.1:9050, straight into Tor all works well. Actually, it
works, but not too well. It slows up throughput to a woeful trickle. No good for binaries.
I tested it on a 2 megs file and it took forever. I have tried several different connections,
but all seem to work at the same slow pace. Is this normal?
Dooctor Who
| |
| George Orwell 2004-10-17, 2:45 am |
| On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, "Dale Gribble" <just.say.no.to@blackhelicoptors.un>
wrote:
>Max Mustermann wrote:
>
>
>One of the questions he asked was about changing the port in Agent. I
>answered that part only. If you can't see that, then you've gone blind
>and need to shave your palms.
He asked how to get two pieces of software to work together and they never
can.
You coughed up a hairball answer and told him he didn't need Sockscap
because you don't have an acquaintance with anything resembling a clue.
If you can't just admit that you're an adolescent twit with an over
inflated ego. Get over yourself.
| |
|
| On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 01:32:06 GMT
A satisfied user@disney.world wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:14:58 +0200, Max Mustermann
> <anonymous@remail.amessage.info> wrote:
>
>
> So this might be the root of the problems I have been experiencing.
> Repeatedly trying to socksify connections through Tor without success.
> I had that similar error messages that Tor
> could not find a suitable exit server to connect to Easynews:563.
> When I dropped sockscap and configured Putty pipe through
> 127.0.0.1:9050, straight into Tor all works well. Actually, it
> works, but not too well. It slows up throughput to a woeful trickle.
> No good for binaries.
> I tested it on a 2 megs file and it took forever. I have tried
> several different connections, but all seem to work at the same slow
> pace. Is this normal?
I would expect it to be normal, I have only got http access through
privoxy and tor working at this time but yes there is a definite
slowdown, remember there is a lot of encryption decryption going on
and your route to the net is longer.
>
> Dooctor Who
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2004-10-17, 7:45 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Max Mustermann wrote:
| On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, "Dale Gribble" <just.say.no.to@blackhelicoptors.un>
| wrote:
|
|
|>He asked how to change the port in Agent from 119. I answered that.
|
|
| No, he asked how to get Agent and Privoxy working together so he could use
| a SOCKS proxy with them. A bad question based on a false premise to begin
| with. You called honest attempts so solve the root problem "drawn out
| bullshit" and gave a useless answer that anyone who really understood
| anything about NNTP or Agent should have suspected wouldn't work, even if
| they didn't know what Privoxy was. An answer that had already been
| explained as useless by other people in fact.
|
| You should have avoided embarrassing yourself by keeping your mouth shut
| when you already knew you were clue free, reading back through the
thread a
| bit, or even refraining from acting like an asshat when you did reply. But
| you jumped up with your little chest puffed out and shouted an incorrect
| answer in a room full of people who know better. With your zipper
down. Now
| you're suffering the consequences.
|
| You could have learned two valuable lessons from the experience. One
| technical, and one more social in nature. But here you are still puffing
| your little chest out, making yourself look like an even bigger asshat. Of
| course making oneself look like an asshat is everybody's right, so please
| do feel free to continue down that road if it's what you truly desire.
I see some posters in APA-S still can't stand people that don't use
remailers. Bad for them! Good answer Gribble. It wasn't the solution to
the problem and didn't help, but it was a good answer..
Thomas
- --
The Thraddash: "So, what's this? SNORT! An unknown alien species?"
"How wonderful! Someone new to fight!"
Full Game Win/Mac/Linux: <http://sc2.sourceforge.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQXI+ewEP2l8iXKAJAQGKWAMgsvWuo/TSiNeSIrS0+gkhJDZNZCb7aRd/
n0pOovND9F9QTo+kBJOo58dCHqQW2AfeyMctilY/S0bFJmR8KsxWz/9CLDd9/I9m
6Kh+5eiTVENjkrBRdN+E4kXnSt6qknb5saELhQ==
=FRM8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2004-10-17, 7:45 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Max Mustermann wrote:
| On 16 Oct 2004, dead.microprocessor@gmail.com (Dead Microprocessor) wrote:
|
|
|>Just check the default TOR server configuration file.
|>It does not allow to connect to NNTP default port 119/tcp.
|
|
| It worked fine for me a couple days ago, both through the Bananasplit SSL
| news server on port 563, and Individual.Net on 119. I can't get it working
| this afternoon though.
|
| There may be some truth to the above statement. Here's a snippet from a
| message posted to the OR-TALK mailing list just this morning...
|
| "I've used SocksCap to pipe the requests of my news
| reader thru Tor. That worked for some time, but in the
| last few days I haven't been able to get a connection,
| because "No Tor server exists that allows exit to
| ...:119"."
|
| I've seen no reply posted yet.
Just like Remailers, TOR Nodes have 'Exit-Policies'. It just means port
119 got abused on all TOR nodes and all TOR nodes blocked access through
their node to that port. There used to be nodes that allowed *all*
traffic, but I guess TOR has become popular enough for that to seize..
Thomas
- --
The Thraddash: "So, what's this? SNORT! An unknown alien species?"
"How wonderful! Someone new to fight!"
Full Game Win/Mac/Linux: <http://sc2.sourceforge.net>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQXI/ TAEP2l8iXKAJAQErJwMdFZUd1ve46+EOTCiLiCjn
UMnnWsJ3Agfv
j+1FZPbJnyonIYEvYs+RPvpuUcISi2cZyc+lHkuM
dfQN8Dv7ar6oLW2PQIriIERQ
ij+WVuz8lwZWnvXsD7+aOq7ictiZJ6z3AhZtpg==
=iXu9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| skipjack 2004-10-22, 8:45 pm |
| George Orwell wrote:
> He asked how to get two pieces of software to work together and they never
> can.
Tsk. Tsk. You know, posting through a different remailer claiming to be
a third person doesn't fool anyone into believing that you're anything
other than the same person using a sock puppet to back up your previous
posts through the "Max Musterman" remailer. "Yes! here comes a
'different person' to the rescue in the thread!" Get real.
And by the way, the solution to get Agent to use a different port works.
| |
| Pilobilus 2004-10-23, 8:45 pm |
| >And by the way, the solution to get Agent to use a different port works.
>
Same here. I was able to get Agent to access on another port so that I could
use it with stunnel. Thanks Dale.
| |
| Thor Hammerman 2004-10-25, 5:45 pm |
| Pilobilus wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Same here. I was able to get Agent to access on another port so that I could
> use it with stunnel. Thanks Dale.
Why did you need to make Agent use another port for stunnel? Stunnel
should be able to accept the connection on port 119 just fine.
What ports did you use?
--
( .. ) Thor Hammerman http://thor.jungleman.info
-ooO-()-Ooo- thor@ifyoucantfigureitoutidontwantyourem
ailanyway.duh
| |
| Tarapia Tapioco 2004-10-25, 5:45 pm |
| On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Thor Hammerman <thor@jungleman.info.invalid> wrote:
>Pilobilus wrote:
>
>
>Why did you need to make Agent use another port for stunnel? Stunnel
>should be able to accept the connection on port 119 just fine.
It does. Nobody had to change anything. Some idiot with a protruding
forehead suggested that if you changed Agent's port number it could use
Privoxy. That'll never happen of course, but the idiot seems to think
running around like he's 3 or 4 different people might make others start to
think he's not such an idiot.
It's not working. Agent doesn't speak HTTP, and anyone who says they got it
to work is just an idiot with a different name but the same stupid
expression on their face.
| |
| futureworlds 2004-10-25, 5:45 pm |
| On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, "skipjack" <skipjack-no-spam@cotse.net.invalid> wrote:
>George Orwell wrote:
>
>
>
>Tsk. Tsk. You know, posting through a different remailer claiming to be
You obviously know squat about remailer usage and random remailer
selection. Exactly as much as you know about Agent.
>And by the way, the solution to get Agent to use a different port works.
Bullshit ya' subtard. Agent will NEVER use Privoxy no matter HOW many times
you scream like a spanked baby that changing ports will make it so. Your
subtarded solution was, well, subtarded through and through. A complete
waste of time and bandwidth. Pure ASCCI slobber no matter how many socks
you pull out of the drawer while you're pissing yourself and moaning about
everyone else doing it.
Get a life, grow a personality, and quit pretending there's more than one
subtard in this group who could be subtarded enough to defend such a
subtarded idea.
| |
| Anonymous 2004-10-25, 8:45 pm |
| >>Tsk. Tsk. You know, posting through a different remailer claiming to be
>
>You obviously know squat about remailer usage and random remailer
>selection.
If you need help in how to designate an exit remailer, just ask. That's
what we're here for.
| |
| Dale Gribble 2004-10-26, 7:45 am |
| futureworlds wrote:
>
> Bullshit ya' subtard. Agent will NEVER use Privoxy no matter HOW many times
> you scream like a spanked baby that changing ports will make it so. Your
One of the questions he asked was about changing the port in Agent. I
answered that part only. If you can't see that, then you've gone blind
and need to shave your palms.
| |
| Pilobilus 2004-10-31, 5:45 pm |
| >It's not working. Agent doesn't speak HTTP, and anyone who says they got it
>to work is just an idiot with a different name but the same stupid
>expression on their face.
>
Huh? It works fine. I've been using Agent connecting to stunnel on port 1119.
Have you even tried it?
| |
| Pilobilus 2004-10-31, 5:45 pm |
| >Why did you need to make Agent use another port for stunnel? Stunnel
>should be able to accept the connection on port 119 just fine.
>
>What ports did you use?
I'm using two news clients each going through a proxy to different remote news
servers. One I use for downloading/binaries/reading, but I don't have uploading
priviledges. The other I use for uploading/posting, but my download limits
are very small. I'm using Agent and 40tude as clients for these. 40tude allows
you to change the port, but Agent doesn't (that I was aware of). I was able
to run them both plus connect to my ISP's news server for regular viewing.
I could not use them all at the same time, and still use stunnel. I have
now changed the port in Agent to 1119, although it could be anything. I had
looked for a configuration in Agent to change the port but couldn't find one.
I had tried other news clients, but didn't care for them as much as Agent.
This way has been working for me for a few days now. The method that Dale
described for chaning the port in Agent seems unconventional but it works fine.
You would think that a client as popular as Agent would have this ability.
| |
| Terry Gramchunsudffg 2004-10-31, 5:45 pm |
|
Pilobilus wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Huh? It works fine. I've been using Agent connecting to stunnel on port 1119.
> Have you even tried it?
I even got it working with the NG functionality of ole' [but /fast/
Netscape Communicator!
Might try it with Agent later. What's stunnel BTW?
| |
| Pilobilus 2004-10-31, 5:45 pm |
| >I even got it working with the NG functionality of ole' [but /fast/
>Netscape Communicator!
>
>Might try it with Agent later. What's stunnel BTW?
>
http://www.stunnel.org/
"Stunnel is a program that allows you to encrypt arbitrary TCP connections
inside SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) available on both Unix and Windows. Stunnel
can allow you to secure non-SSL aware daemons and protocols (like POP, IMAP,
LDAP, etc) by having Stunnel provide the encryption, requiring no changes to
the daemon's code."
|
|
|
|
|