[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: HTTP shimmed to HTTPS; was Re: stunnel as transparent proxy.



peter@easthope.ca wrote on 7/17/19 3:32 PM:
> Jul 16 11:25:16 joule stunnel: LOG5[4]: Service [https] accepted connection from 127.0.0.1:36140
> 
> *	From: Reco  recoverym4n@enotuniq.net 
> *	Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 11:01:32 +0300
>> No, you're incorrect. A client application has connected to
>> localhost:443 using source IP 127.0.0.1 and a destination port 36140.
> 

That doesn't seem to be correct. The original e-mail said:

> An attempt to open a page via HTTPS gives this report in the log.
> Jul 16 11:25:16 joule stunnel: LOG5[4]: Service [https] accepted connection from 127.0.0.1:36140

So 36140 is the source port.

It's typical behaviour of IP-based clients to choose a "random" [usually
uniformly distributed within some range] unused high port number for sending,
and they'll (for most protocols) listen for replies on that same number. In
general, one can't attach any meaning to the number: it was simply free for
the client to use.

  Doc

-- 
Web:  http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: