ok hopefuly this one is cleaner for firefox, though I have to add that firefox keeps asking for my credentials and no matter how many times I enter them it just keeps returning asking for them again... then after a while I just get a turbulence detected...
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5FF_Ld8SzsNUDVlN0RyQjU2Vkk hegsie On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > In the chrome logs (original: #144, new: #344), in the firefox logs > #274 show a 407 response to the attempt to CONNECT to > wave.eezysys.co.uk:443. > > I would expect to possibly see a 407 once, at which stage the browser > should then re-attempt the connection with the proxy credentials (as > described here[1], but I see no attempts to authenticate. > > Does the actual page load in this situation? Do other secure sites load? > > Ali > > [1]: > http://tmgblog.richardhicks.com/2011/08/29/access-to-the-web-proxy-filter-on-forefront-tmg-2010-is-denied/ > > On 25 September 2012 09:05, Ben Hegarty <heg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > -- Mobile Phone: +447767-322-122 Work Phone: +4420 79485612
