Contents

Talk:Proxy server

Computer Security: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Answer question about Same-origin_policy Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Computing: Networking Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as High-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: edit history watch purge Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Answer question about Same-origin_policy Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Internet Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think proxy server is not needed for Windows LAN for sharing internet. I was able to enable sharing to dial up connections in Windows Networks even with out using proxy. I also tested Linux servers and they required proxy. Linux clients can be also connected to Windows servers even if the Windows server doesn't have proxy. But Linux server needs proxy even for sharing internet connection to Windows clients. Can any one enlighten more information about it?

Kumarsarma (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The term "transparent proxy" is most often used incorrectly to mean "intercepting proxy... " taken from the "Transparent and non-transparent proxy server". "An intercepting proxy (also known as a "transparent proxy") combines... " taken from "Intercepting proxy server". So what is right? could someone fix this or explain it better inside the article! - AssetBurned (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just for proxying web proxies. Proxies for other application protocols exist, and almost certainly predate the web (e.g. xforward, for forwarding X11 traffic). JimGettys (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the article:

In computer networks, a proxy server is a server (a computer system or an application program) which services the requests of its clients by making requests to other servers.

This definition seems like it can be improved. As noted in the subtopic on Web Proxies, a proxy does not need to make a request to another server to enforce a policy against a client URL request. The request can be cut off before it can reach a public network, such as the Internet. In other words, the request is cut off behind an intranet's firewall. Any default-deny ruleset will disallow URL requests that are not on the whitelist. The current definition corresponds closely to proxies that analyze data streams and filter based on the content of the stream as well as proxies that serve as edge server caches. In both of these proxy models, requests must be made to other servers in order for an action to take place. The current definition makes it seem like every request has an automatic fetch action. A better definition could also help make this page match more closely with the Proxy pattern article. Any ideas? JohnZabroski

How come when I use a proxy I am blocked? RealG187 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also blocks DYNAMIC IP address(es) used by german flat rates, (you get a random new (german) IP every day today its a blocked one so I would have to reconnect to get a new (unblocked) IP.) I had to find a proxy to edit wikipedia just because someone else used a spam bot on the same ip. Google for "free proxy list", they can not block em all by IP just because one IP has been used for bad. Ollj

The info added by on CountryCheck seems useful, but does it strike anyone else as a little bit too much like a spamvertisement? Will investigate further if I find the time... --Chinasaur 02:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is precisely wikispam. It is false (there are a number of ways to detect an open proxy access aside from the use of this product) and promotes a product using Wikipedia's good name. Reverted. --FOo 02:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Beyond reverting, I've also added a discussion and links on the subject of proxy testing. The spammers appears to be ripping off perfectly good open-source ideas and lying about them, claiming that his rip-off product is the only way to do what others have long been doing. --FOo 02:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

test

In the Open proxies, use, abuse, and detection section, the writing must be fixed to look more "encyclopedic". Cheesycow5 00:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the following bad advice from the article:

We can assume that the fact that the proxy owner has setup proxy server and made it technically possible for everybody without restricting access to that service, it indicates that that is what he wanted in the first place. The reasons behind it may be very different, and in many cases there are no long-term plans behind a public proxy.

The situation is very similar with any websites! You don't need to ask permission for yahoo to connect. If the proxy doesn't ask you for a password, it means it is public or open and can be used. When proxy servers start asking for passwords, stop using them because it is not public anymore. Using password protected proxies is against the law. ( Sources: http://www.proxyblind.org )

This is not only erroneous material, but very dangerous to our readers, since it falsely suggests that any open proxy they may find on the Internet represents an invitation from the legitimate owner of that computer to use it. The fact of the matter is that the majority of open proxies on the Internet today are installed by worms (network-borne viruses) for the purpose of enabling criminals to send spam e-mail. They are not installed with the owner's permission, and using them is no more legal that going into a house after a burglar has broken the door lock and picking up any valuables that burglar failed to loot.

Wikipedia is not here to give advice -- but it is especially not here to give wrong and dangerous advice that will lead our readers to believe that criminal acts are safe and legal. --FOo 23:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which advice is bad!?

It is very dangerous and fallacious Your conclusion FOo that majority of open proxies are installed only for the purpose of enabling criminals to send spam e-mail. You try to say with other words that many legitimate sites and legitimate commercial proxy managing programs who give their users open proxy for free are in fact company who supported criminals (Your conclusion is that anything about proxy, especially sites or programs who give it open proxy for for free are in your eyes supporters of criminal because you conclude:

it is especially not here to give wrong and dangerous advice that will

lead our readers to believe that criminal acts are safe and legal

It is very dangerous and miserable your conclusion FOo and can lead any reader of this discussion that all proxy site and proxy programs are supporters of criminal. I hope that this is not official Wikipedia stand but only from one editor who obviously have lack of knowledge about proxy server.

When I checked on these sites, which appear to be the same site with two different URLs, it claimed to provide unblockable addresses, which is not possible. This is either a lie or it's evidence of incompetence. Either way, it means that the site is not worthy of being linked to. -- Jeronim 10:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But Thats the Point...The reason there are 2 different addresses is becasue certain countries...ie Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, China block these addresses. One address is blocked while the other isnt. Hence then use of the word unblockable. This page has been a great resource for people from these countries to be able to get access to cgi proxies as all the rest are blocked. -- Rayyad

So one isn't currently blocked, therefore it's not possible to block it and calling it "unblockable" is not a lie, right? I'll remove the links again until an adequate explanation is offered. -- Jeronim 17:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Unblocked in some countries" is neither the same as, nor similar to, "unblockable". (Thebigbradwolf (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC))e[reply]

Are these sites legit? If they are, can they circumvent sites with content blocked in some countries, such as mtv and vh1.com? Please let me know --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone say something about Forward Proxies, with some useful example? --Popski 21:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Schryver - expert! a bit more info required here I think. Who he??

is there any that do not require a download like Https://www.megaproxy.com?

Circumventor describes website-based proxy servers. Jobarts^-Talk 23:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just ran into the entry *because* I was looking for references on cicumventors. While, indeed, they are proxy-servers, they have a rather specific application and use. Conceptually you may be right, but the separate entry enhances useabilty, imho. If the entry is merged, I would suggest at least keeping the entry with a pointer to proxy server. billo

I'm opposed

I don't think they should be merged, it is a type but it has many differences. I think proxy should link to it not merge with it.

I think the merge for the circumventor is good. I found the information related and useful when trying to learn about proxy servers.Erik Stone 15:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Erik Stone[reply]

Merge and redirect. It's certainly a short article as-is, and it refers to a specific kind of proxy. authraw 20:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cwolfsheep 14:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be me, but 'families' are not organisations

I think that could really do with rewording!

Reedy Boy 08:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] It is almost exactly the same as this article. Either Wikipedia copied from them, or they copied form us.

It seems highly unlikely that most of the Wikipedia article would be plagiarism of text on an internet marketing company website. You can easily go back in time and watch how the Wikipedia article evolves. If Wikipedia copied the article, it would have to have be done in bits and pieces in a coordinated, distributed effort over several years. For example, the opening sentence changed to what it is today only in February. It looks awefully much like this marketing company uses the Wikipedia article without permission, since they don't state that the license is GFDL. Would anyone care to email them and get the situation fixed? --Haakon 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the picture at the top of the page is not really appropriate. It shows a client on the internet connecting back into a corporate network through a proxy server.

The picture really should be showing a client on a corporate or private network connecting out to the internet through a proxy server, as this is what proxies are mostly used for.

The claim 'A proxy server can also serve as a Firewall' is not correct. A firewall is a different kind of program with functions different from a proxy server. Though some proxies may have bundled firewall software, it is not correct to claim that as a general case.

"Ssh Secure Shell can be configured to proxify a connection, by setting up a SOCKS proxy on the client, and tunneling the traffic through the SSH connection."

Lmao at "proxify". 81.157.157.222 16:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about those so-called SSL proxies like [2], that claim to be able to snoop on SSL traffic? It seems that this kind of intercepting proxy needs to have its root certificate installed on all the clients' browsers. It then generates a spoofed certificate on the fly for every secure website visited, and basically performs a man-in-the-middle attack on the SSL session. The vendors claim that this improves security. I don't know what to think of this, but maybe it's a good idea to click on that little lock icon and take a look at that certificate's chain of trust.

Anyways, I feel something about SSL intercepting proxies should go in the article, but I might not be the best one to do it. 130.94.162.61 07:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, maybe I will add this information to the article, when I get around to collecting the appropriate sources to cite. Like anything else, this needs to have appropriate sources cited if it is to go in the article. 130.94.162.61 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies that attempt to block offensive web content are implemented as web proxies. Other web proxies reformat web pages for a specific purpose or audience

The paragraph under the "Web" heading starts with these two sentences. It's completely devoid of the "regular" web proxy, ie one that does *not* affect the content, but usually only caches it. You know, the optional kind that many ISPs provide. IMO, the heading could be renamed "Filtering proxies."

Some other stuff:

• The second paragraph under the same heading about CGI proxies could be moved down under the "Circumventor" header.

• "Popular proxy software" should be split into meaningful categories. Some of them seem like advertisements.

• The article lacks a link to the relevant RFC for HTTP proxies

-- 88.115.168.136 21:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ℳ== Open Proxies == Listing open proxies under 'types' seem wrong, as any type of proxy (almost) can be open, and you wouldn't decide 'Oh, I need an open proxy' in the same way as 'Oh, I need a caching web proxy'. I'd suggest moving it to a separate 'security implications' section, or the like.

Putting a link to 'web cache' in the 'web proxy' section also seems sensible, as would emphasising this more common use of web proxies as per previous comment.

Pjc51 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be either rewritten or just removed entirely. The tone isn't remotely encylopaedic. Thoughts? WombatDeath 12:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed entirely. Seemed unnecessary, given that the introductory paragraph summarizes the topic much more accurately and succinctly than this "layman's explanation" did. In particular, this section assumed that all proxies were filtering proxies. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But let's give the wikipedian credit for making a good effort. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The description should be: WP:COI. StayMay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started PrivacyView, even on that advertorial it doesn't claim to be a proxy server that masks your IP address while surfing on the Internet. As an attempt for an excuse: I use to preview my changes, the English wikepedia whines that I didn't give a description (even when most of the times I did give it) after reviewing, but it seems happy to accept my changes if I do not preview them. Erik Warmelink 07:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference to anonymizer as a generic term, but it links to a page on a particular company/service. --210.86.223.193 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came on the wiki looking for the origin of "Proxy". Only technical info is described here.

Does anybody know more on the 'Historical' of proxy? Who came up with that, why is it named proxy...

--Slamcool 14:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, proxy originally meant an authorization for someone to act on behalf of the proxy giver. If I must, I would guess the word is related to Latin proximus (closest, nearest-by).

[somewhat later] See also proxy marriage and other meanings on proxy. Erik Warmelink 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this site while reading about proxy sites, etc, may be a good addition to the page.

The site is http://ihateblockers.com

Hope this helps others.

--Yowhatsuphomie (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site's dead...

68.82.59.198 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article to help others understand the various anonymizing technologies available on the market today -- it is not an advertisement. It does not recommend or point to any product. It was linked to this page until someone deleted it as spam but it clearly does not violate Wikipedia's policy regarding this matter. If you have a problem with the article please let me know, but don't dismiss it as advertising as it is clearly not.

http://www.veralinx.com/understanding-anonymizing-technologies.php

Entropy71 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

under hostile servers, shouldn't there be a link to TLS? Is there even a page for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.32.71.162 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Content-filtering web proxy" and "Content filter" sections should probably be merged. I don't have time at present. Nurg (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the bottom of the page, do we really need that gigantic list of "popular proxies"? Prottos007 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that it's possible to for a proxy server to intercept data, but over HTTPS? "It has been demonstrated"... has it? Theoretically with a week to do it, or actually? I'm not convinced, and there's no source given for that claim.

I'm removing it for now. Put it back when the reliable source is found.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you use a transparent proxy server?

For example, if you look at this page:

http://www.ddday.com/proxy/free-proxy-server/transparent-proxy/

or pick a recent date (say, this one):

http://www.ddday.com/free-proxy-server/transparent-proxy/transparent-proxy-server-updated-2009-02-07/

You'll see a list of IP addresses and port numbers and the country they're located in.

How exactly would you use one of those entries?

Say, this entry:

64.66.192.62:32080

???