![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ibneko...beautiful documentation pages like perl modules do - ie. http://search.cpan.org/dist/CGI.pm/CGI/Cookie.pm.
Yeah, I've gone back to perl for tonight - converting my bridge script to CGI for standalone use without the BML parsing that the LJ installation had provided.
BML is spiffy. I miss it.
Yeah, anyways, CGIProxy is ok, but it doesn't quite satisfy my wants... hell, it's probably better than mine, but there's a few things that filters may check for that it doesn't block... for example, your destination is still in the clear, as part of the URL you're accessing.
What I want to do is finish my bridge/proxy - there were still some bugs.
Then, once I have that down, I want to go back and write up a javascript app that would run in the user's browsers, so we could encrypt, or at least zip data that's being transfered between the user and my server. I'm thinking of a javascript that could sit in a frame, read off data from another frame, and decode it, dumping the decoded contents back into the frame. That's one option. Otherwise, I'd have to write it so that it actually makes the connections to my computer - which tends to be more of a hassle, I think.
Hm, the problem with my former idea (decoding javascript in a frame) is that it can't catch data that's being sent out... drat. Also, javascript apps might not always be allowed to run in high security areas (which is what we're trying to break out of, of course. ;D )
Actually, not kidding there - Gordon had called today, and asked if I had any ways to get around this - apparently, his workplace in some rockville governmental place blocks all email sites, etc. And since my code's still there, minus the BML layer, all I have to do is fix it so it's not BML dependent...
No, if I'm going to do a java app, I might as well write a standalone browser. One that encodes and decodes on the fly, routing all communications through my server. The only disadvantage of doing this is that you lose the power of plugins... meh. I could probably have it replace the plugins with a link to download the data to the desktop, then open it with a real browser... Unless it's a flash site - in which case, I might not be able to do anything... Hm. Firefox plugins, maybe?
Yeah, I've gone back to perl for tonight - converting my bridge script to CGI for standalone use without the BML parsing that the LJ installation had provided.
BML is spiffy. I miss it.
Yeah, anyways, CGIProxy is ok, but it doesn't quite satisfy my wants... hell, it's probably better than mine, but there's a few things that filters may check for that it doesn't block... for example, your destination is still in the clear, as part of the URL you're accessing.
What I want to do is finish my bridge/proxy - there were still some bugs.
Then, once I have that down, I want to go back and write up a javascript app that would run in the user's browsers, so we could encrypt, or at least zip data that's being transfered between the user and my server. I'm thinking of a javascript that could sit in a frame, read off data from another frame, and decode it, dumping the decoded contents back into the frame. That's one option. Otherwise, I'd have to write it so that it actually makes the connections to my computer - which tends to be more of a hassle, I think.
Hm, the problem with my former idea (decoding javascript in a frame) is that it can't catch data that's being sent out... drat. Also, javascript apps might not always be allowed to run in high security areas (which is what we're trying to break out of, of course. ;D )
Actually, not kidding there - Gordon had called today, and asked if I had any ways to get around this - apparently, his workplace in some rockville governmental place blocks all email sites, etc. And since my code's still there, minus the BML layer, all I have to do is fix it so it's not BML dependent...
No, if I'm going to do a java app, I might as well write a standalone browser. One that encodes and decodes on the fly, routing all communications through my server. The only disadvantage of doing this is that you lose the power of plugins... meh. I could probably have it replace the plugins with a link to download the data to the desktop, then open it with a real browser... Unless it's a flash site - in which case, I might not be able to do anything... Hm. Firefox plugins, maybe?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 12:18 am (UTC)no but seriously, are you rewriting your http proxy thingy ? :) lol look up Tor
what restrictions do you have?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 12:48 am (UTC)Not really rewriting, but converting it so that it uses CGI instead of depending on BML's provided variables, like %POST, %GET, and %COOKIE.
Hmm, Tor is interesting. It's just another project I had browsed across recently, called I2P.
Actually, I'm not too sure - my friend isn't techie enough to be able to probe the network and give me detailed information. So I'm just assuming that it's the normal filtering systems:
1) Various "bad" domains have been blocked. Possibly just the domains (so DNS queries will return an unknown), but in the worst case scenerio, chunks of IPs that correspond to those domains have been blocked.
2) HTTP requests are watched, and ones that contain certain keywords will be redirected to a "no, sorry, you can't go there" sort of page. Or just timed-out.
I don't think they've gone further and started checking what websites return, to censor pages that return "evil" keywords.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 12:53 am (UTC)if you have php try just fetching and returning a page corresponding to the hyperlink passed, I did... its rudimentary, and would need work to login or anything, but for raw html fetching...
the frame is just pita i don't think its impossible, gotta run eat
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 01:01 am (UTC)PHP... Maybe. I should take a look at the language anyhow. ::adds it to his todo list::
Just pita, huh.. Oh well, I don't mind that too much. So long as it's not impossible...
no subject
Date: 2005-06-11 01:52 am (UTC)