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
