Page 1 of 1

AM vs. SOCKS5 proxy

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:35 pm
by horizon
Hi,
Occasionally I use Chrome to connect via SOCKS5 proxy. (Specifically TOR.)
Chrome is configured to connect to SOCKS5 proxy using PAC file.

It looks that in that case AM does not intercept the connection. (Compared to 'direct connection' or 'http proxy'.) However I might still be wrong. Is there a way, how I can easily verify, if the page was successfully intercepted? (I am not using TOR without a reason.)

Lukas

Re: AM vs. SOCKS5 proxy

PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:17 pm
by Jeff
CTRL + right click should activate the Ad Muncher toolbar.

Re: AM vs. SOCKS5 proxy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:45 am
by horizon
So confirmed:
If the traffic is routed via SOCKS5 proxy, it does not get intercepted.
Lukas

Re: AM vs. SOCKS5 proxy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:21 pm
by Jeff
Did you try filtering the TOR process directly via the filter targets tab in Ad Muncher?

Re: AM vs. SOCKS5 proxy

PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:48 pm
by horizon
Hi,
I didn't try that...
1. Tor.exe runs on another machine
2. Tor itself does not expose (and does really process http content). It looks "roughly" like this...

Chrome.exe ===(SOCKS5)===> TORclient:9050 ===("tor protocol" encapsulated in http via company proxy)===> TOR network/bridge:443 ===("tor protocol")===> TOR exit node ===(http/https)===> Internet

.... so the only Chrome.exe, TOR exit node and Internet knows the nature of the traffic.

TORclient could know it, should it be interested in it but since it's SOCKS, it does not care and will pass further whatever content is pumped there.

Re: AM vs. SOCKS5 proxy

PostPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:53 am
by Jeff
I'm afraid this will have to wait until 5.x is released.

Re: AM vs. SOCKS5 proxy

PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:32 am
by horizon
No problem. Just wanted to made you aware of of that.

AM 5.x reference sounds like mythological future creature ;)