Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a SOCKS5 proxy (as you said), however SSH can pass IP packets or Ethernet frames: https://rkeene.org/viewer/tmp/ssh-ip-tunnel.txt.htm
Doesn't this have all the usual TCP over TCP issues?
Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
61–70 of 106 posts
Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#62I've generally considered an SSH tunnel as a poor man's VPN. If you're going to the effort to spinup a machine, and use SSH anyway, i find it much easier to use `ssh user@server.com -D 4444` then I can set my browser's proxy settings to use localhost:4444 as a SOCKS5 proxy. For those apps that don't have native proxy support, I use proxychains to force them over a proxy connection. Ofcourse this is only useful for a…
Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#63Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#64> Motivation: Lately due to GDPR many websites are blocking access in the EU. For me, I cannot order medicines back home via netmeds.com Blaming GDPR for this is a bit like blaming a lead mine for getting shot. Yes, it's involved but it's not the reason. It only seems to be certain large US websites that carte-blanch refuse to serve EU visitors over GDPR, mostly those with large, tendril-filled advertising networks t…
And it’s not only the US websites, the website OP mentioned is one of the three largest medicine websites in India. There is no reason for them to comply. And EU laws are incredibly confusing. Follow GDPR and respect privacy, while saving customer IP address for years when EU needs VAT.
Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#65I've generally considered an SSH tunnel as a poor man's VPN. If you're going to the effort to spinup a machine, and use SSH anyway, i find it much easier to use `ssh user@server.com -D 4444` then I can set my browser's proxy settings to use localhost:4444 as a SOCKS5 proxy. For those apps that don't have native proxy support, I use proxychains to force them over a proxy connection. Ofcourse this is only useful for a…
Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#66How does this compare to Algo[1]? [1] https://github.com/trailofbits/algo
Love algo. hard to imagine another project comes close to the ease of setting up an algo server...
Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#67Nothing will ever beat Tailscale (it is by far my favorite piece of software in this space)
Tailscale is just great! It's so easy to use, I have it running on all my devices and servers, so I can connect to them from wherever I want, and with the "Exit Node" feature you can also select a system to route all traffic through (and switch easily between them, at least on mobile).
Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#68Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#69I recall using OpenVPN a few years ago for a similar use case in my university dorm, it was comparatively way worse - the configuration parameters were unclear, some of the documentation was out of date and even when using the faster (but less secure) methods of encryption, i found myself having a VPS that was overwhelmed and had almost 100% CPU usage (on its single core, since VPSes are generally expensive) whereas the client couldn't get much past 10 - 20 Mbps when the connection speed itself was closer to 100 Mbps.
Nowadays, for a VPN, i just use Time4VPS https://www.time4vps.com/virtual-private-network/?affid=5294 (affiliate link so i get discounts for signups, i also use them for most of my VPS hosting) because they're affordable and have more locations than i can get VPSes in those locations for comparable amounts of money. It seems like their offering is OpenVPN based which is surprising, since it works pretty well - makes me think that either i royally screwed up my own config back in the day (though default config should never hit 100% CPU usage like that, which happened to me), something was wrong with the system packages, or they just have beefier servers behind it, despite many users.
Re: Poor man's VPN (pay for only what you need)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why bother Last I checked, wireguard had much better performance than sshuttle. May or may not matter for your use case, but it's a reason.
Yes! Last time I used sshuttle (bypassing content blocks in India by tunneling to a server in the US), my bandwidth dropped from 10mbps to 1mbps. Back then wireguard didn’t exist, but IPSEC could easily saturate the 10mbps link. I suspect it’s a combination of TCP-over-TCP and a horrible default buffer size that makes sshuttle unusably slow.