The Un-Official Proxomitron Forum

Full Version: Proxomitron and Network Commands
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Hi !

I was wondering whether we have to operate within the few Network Command like $CON etc. Or

We are allowed use commands like $SOCKET, $SERVER etc. as used in Pearl language?

I want to close connection on some specific Port numbers.

Is it possible using Proxo?

Thanks
Garcot
Hi "garcot",
I haven't tried this out on a network, but I believe that if You use this Proxo "Patch" that You can set the IP range that Proxo can be accessed from. Click here for info & D/L

But I don't think that You can use "Proxo" to close connections on certain ports. Proxo only deals with Port 80 & 443<---(if You have the ssl .dll files). I wish that Proxo could monitor different ports. Smile!

Please let Me know how it turns out, . . .
Best Wishes & Safe-Surfin',
"JaK" [smoke]
PS: You will find this feature after You have Patched Proxo @ Configure-->"Access" tab" ~"JaK~
garcot;
Quote:I was wondering whether we have to operate within the few Network Command like $CON etc. Or
Actually, when using the $xxx commands in Proxo, you are not using any kind of Network commands, you are using Proxo's own built-in language. Many of them are familiar to network users, so your question is understandable. Sadly, the answer is no, if the commmand is not listed in the Proxo reference file, then it's not available.

AFAIK, Scott did not leave any "hidden" commands in Proxo, nor any backdoors into it, either. (But I've been known to be wrong before. Big Teeth)

And Jak is correct, of course, much to his dismay. Proxo can only deal with Ports 80 and 443. If someone really wanted to make a name for themselves, they issue a Patch (ala the interface patcher linked above in Jak's message) that broadened the scope of monitored ports. That would make our day, wouldn't it though! [lol]


Oddysey
Quote:AFAIK, Scott did not leave any "hidden" commands in Proxo, nor any backdoors into it, either. (But I've been known to be wrong before. )

I've been pouring over the files in hex and trying everything I can think of (mostly via automated programs, because I'm lazy).

In four days, after running over 306 million strings and tests, nothing has been found as far as hidden commands yet. At least not by me. No obvious backdoors, either.
Dear Friends,

Thanks for your all the clarifications and share of experiences.

A command in the header filter with Close($SOCKET) seems to be picked up by the Proxo when see the Log.

Just let me know, what does it mean.

Regards
Garcot
garcot;

With all the experts we have around the 'Net, I'd be a bit worried if they all failed to pick up on any hidden or "undocumented" commands.

Hoewver, I can imagine that Proxo might indeed echo such commands to the log file, but is the desired action taking place as expected? In other words, is the connection actually being killed/closed due solely to that command?

And if Close($SOCKET) does indeed work as you say, then two more questions immediately arise:

1> Why did Scott write another command set into Proxo?

2> Why didn't he tell anyone about such capabilities?

Inquiring minds want to know!! Wink


Oddysey
Garcot,

Please give an example of one of the Header filters with the Close($SOCKET) command Smile!
Hi !

Here is the Header filter I have used which seems to get activated.


[HTTP headers]
In = TRUE
Out = TRUE
Key = "Remote Proxy-Connection: Close all connections (in+out) {Garcot}"
URL = "*|\q|\p"
Match = "[#0-*]"
Replace = "close($SOCKET)"

I see the in the log file:

Remote : Close($SOCKET)
followed by
Close "Connection numbers/sockets"


I don't know, what I should make out of this. Sorry, I am sounding very stupid.

Thanks
Garcot
Hmm... maybe i'm the killjoy now, but i don't see any difference when replacing $SOCKET with $FOO in that filter. Besides, every command as of now needs a pair of parens - empty or not.

All commands are listed in a section of the compiled source. There are two undocumented ones.
$TYPE(xml) doesn't seem to have any effect, probably an unfinished project.
$EXEC(something) is operational and controversial, as you can imagine. Use it wisely. Smile!

sidki
sidki;

I was unaware of the type(xml), but I do seem to remember that Scott mentioned one time that he was considering letting Proxo initiate an external command. It is interesting to note that he didn't feel that it was ready for prime time, so he did include it, but didn't document it.

Your guess is probably the best one - an unfinished project.

Thanks for the insight.


Oddysey
garcot;

So, what does netstat -an report for connections, both before and after Close($SOCKET) has been executed?


~~~~
sidki;

Right about here is one of those times that the exec command would come in handy, don't you think? Wink


Oddysey
Right - the thing is that $EXEC doesn't take any parameters besides the file or URL. You'd - luckily - need a helper app to make real use of it.
Oddysey Wrote:So, what does netstat -an report for connections, both before and after Close($SOCKET) has been executed?
Also, what happens if you just use "close"?
Hi !

I find using ActivePorts, that the ports close soon after the command Close($Socket) is executed after a Time_Wait of about 2 to 3 sec.

Regarding the question of using just Close, it seem to do almost the same though, it is taking slightly more time ( may around 10 sec ) to close the connections.

I am trying all these excercises to just check whether we can use more network commands which are not documented.

Thanks
Garcot
sidki3003 Wrote:All commands are listed in a section of the compiled source. There are two undocumented ones.
$TYPE(xml) doesn't seem to have any effect, probably an unfinished project.
$EXEC(something) is operational and controversial, as you can imagine. Use it wisely. Smile!
Hail When I heard this I was convinced Proxomitron's potential had increased ten fold! This was by far the most valuble "undocumented" feature I'd heard of for Prox! You really made my day!!

sidki3003 Wrote:Right - the thing is that $EXEC doesn't take any parameters besides the file or URL. You'd - luckily - need a helper app to make real use of it.
Then you had to go and say that, which nearly ruined my day, since I wanted to be able to pass parameters to the program called by $EXEC. <_<

But your comment about a "helper app" got me to thinking, and a that's when I realized that a combination of $EXEC & $ADDLST could get me what I wanted.

Basically my idea now is as follows:
  • Create a blocklist called something to the effect of: ProgParms.txt</li>
  • Use $ADDLST to place into ProgParms.txt any parameters I'd like to pass to my program.</li>
  • Have $EXEC call a batch file that parses the contents of ProgParms.txt & then launches my program, passing to it the contents of ProgParms.txt</li>
  • Finally, have the batch file clear the contents of ProgParms.txt so that it is ready for the next command!!</li>
While I've yet to try it, I can't think of any reason this wouldn't work. Does anyone have any experience doing something like this? Maybe there's an easier way? I'm curious exactly what you had in mind when you mentioned that helper app sidki...

Anyway, thanks for the info!!! IMO $EXEC really has the potential to expand Proxo's power. In the end you really did make my day! [wub] Big Teeth
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's