Proxy Error Connection Not Allowed By Ruleset
Contents |
here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies socks connection not allowed by ruleset securecrt of this site About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company socket connection not allowed by ruleset Business Learn more about hiring developers or posting ads with us Stack Overflow Questions Jobs Documentation Tags Users Badges
"socketexception: Socks: Connection Not Allowed By Ruleset"
Ask Question x Dismiss Join the Stack Overflow Community Stack Overflow is a community of 6.2 million programmers, just like you, helping each other. Join them; it only takes a
Err_socks_connection_failed
minute: Sign up Why do I get “SOCKS connection failed. Connection not allowed by ruleset” for some .onion sites? up vote 3 down vote favorite 1 I'm experimenting with Node and socks5-https-client. For some reason, certain Tor hidden service (.onion) sites return with a connection error. For example, connecting to DuckDuckGo (3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion) works and returns HTML. However, connecting to The Pirate Bay (uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion) or TORCH (xmh57jrzrnw6insl.onion) returns... Error: SOCKS connection failed. Connection not allowed by ruleset. What does this error mean? How can I avoid it? Here's code to reproduce it: var shttps = require('socks5-https-client'); shttps.get({ hostname: '3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion', path: '', socksHost: '127.0.0.1', socksPort: 9150, rejectUnauthorized: false }, function(res) { res.setEncoding('utf8'); res.on('readable', function() { console.log(res.read()); // Log response to console. }); }); The error seems to be caused by a 0x02 value in field 2 of the server response. node.js tor socks share|improve this question edited Mar 22 '15 at 23:06 Anko 1,69221535 asked Mar 20 '15 at 20:59 Roecrew 1,09421029 "Ruleset" sounds like a firewall or other config file. Do you have anything resembling such going on? –Anko Mar 22 '15 at 22:12 Ports are open and no firewall. It's strange. I can access both tpb and TORCH with firefox. –Roecrew Mar 22 '15 at 22:14 add a comment| 1 Answer 1 active oldest votes up vote 5 down vote accepted +50 Investigated and figured it out. That code gets me the same results on 64-bit Linux with Tor 0.2.5.10, socks5-https-client 1
» Socks error: Connection not allowed by ruleset Thread Rating: 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average 1 2 3 4 5 Thread Modes Socks error: Connection not allowed by ruleset tranesblues Fresh Torrenter Posts: 1 Threads: 1 Joined: Feb 2015 Reputation: 0 #1 02-14-2015, 04:29 PM I have setup PIA and its proxy is in place. I have tested the proxy with utorrent and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29175734/why-do-i-get-socks-connection-failed-connection-not-allowed-by-ruleset-for-so it is definitely not down. Also binded to IP. I am using checkmytorrentip to test out the connections but instead of it showing an anonymous IP, I am getting the following: Error: Offline - SocketException: SOCKS: Connection not allowed by ruleset I have tried unchecking the box by "I have a http://forum.vuze.com/Thread-Socks-error-Connection-not-allowed-by-ruleset Socks Proxy" and when I do, checkmytorrentip reports an IP that matches PIA's reported IP. The routing and socks icons at the bottom of Vuze UI are both green. Not sure exactly what is going on. Any thoughts appreciated. System and ISP below. Cheers and thanks. ISP is exede Java 1.7.0_76 Oracle Corporation SWT v4508, cocoa Mac OS X v10.10.2, x86_64 V5.5.0.0/4 az3 Find Reply « Next Oldest | Next Newest » Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Remote connection...locally.... bac512 0 196 07-21-2016, 05:38 PM Last Post: bac512 Vuse not Downloading (Error: setLength fails...) Rasoral 1 389 04-04-2016, 08:39 PM Last Post: parg View a Printable Version Subscribe to this thread Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) Contact Us Vuze Return to Top Lite (Archive) Mode RSS Syndication Current time: 10-24-2016, 11:38 AM Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2016 MyBB Group. Linear ModeThreaded Mode
Ahd from that jumpbox we can connect to other devices. PC>>>>>Jumpbox(SSH RSA)>>>> Firewalls(Telnet) The only options I have left is either I connect to one SSH session with Jumpbox and then clone those session and https://forums.vandyke.com/archive/index.php/t-7259.html manually connect to all the devices. OR I add login scripts in SSH session and https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1250 that will automatically connect to related devices but I will have to add RSA credentials on each new session. So is there a way I can create "sessions" for each devices which will use RSA authentication from first SSH authentication established. Regards Puneet rtb03-23-2011, 06:25 AMHi Puneet, Thanks for the question. It seems like you may be able to use dynamic connection not port forwarding to accomplish your goal. You can find an extensive article about how to accomplish this at the following location: http://www.vandyke.com/support/tips/socksproxy.html Does this help to accomplish your goal? lifenluck03-23-2011, 11:56 PMThanks for all the help...I'm not that much familiar with SOCKS. And in our current setup Jumpbox is listening on Port 22 Only and from there we do telnet on other devices on Port 23. So if you kindly give some simple way to work connection not allowed under these circumstances that would be much helpful. Regards Puneet rtb03-24-2011, 08:55 AMHi Puneet, In the last two screenshots of the tip SSH2 is the protocol used, but this is just an example. If you want to use Telnet rather than SSH2, you would configure a session or the Quick Connect dialog in the same manner, but you would use Telnet for the protocol rather than SSH2. I have attached two screenshots that use Telnet rather than SSH2. Does this help to clarify the examples in the tip? lifenluck03-27-2011, 01:24 AMThanks...I was able to configure but seems but got an error "SOCKS connection not allowed by rule set" Is there any work around as I'm not the owner of Server. Regards Puneet rtb03-28-2011, 08:40 AMHi Puneet, Thanks for the update. I am glad to hear that you were able to successfully configure SecureCRT. Since the server does not appear to allow SOCKS connections, you may be able to accomplish your goal by establishing static connections rather than the dynamic/firewall method described in the tip. I have attached a graphic that illustrates how this can be done. The two sessions that are forwarded are using SSH2 for the protocol, but the sessions can easily use Telnet as well. Does this help you accomplish your goal? rtb03-28-2011, 08:52 AMHi Puneet, It was brought to my attention that the
strange SOCKS error code when connecting to a hidden service using the wrong port Reported by: ultramage Owned by: rransom Priority: Low Milestone: Tor: unspecified Component: Core Tor/Tor Version: 0.2.2.7-alpha Severity: Keywords: tor-hs Cc: ultramage, nickm, Sebastian Actual Points: Parent ID: Points: Reviewer: Sponsor: Description (last modified by nickm) I set up two distinct hidden services, HTTP(80) and SSH(22) on my machine (since I didn't know you could put multiple records under a single service). Today I made the mistake of connecting to the HTTP service using port 22 (took the HTTP service's url, stripped the http part, entered into PuTTY). The returned error code was 0x02 = connection not allowed by ruleset. This message made me very confused, since it somehow implies that my SOCKS settings were somehow blocking the connection. But that was not the case. What happened on the TOR back-end was, my request got received, the remote TOR server found that my port was not on the list of ports associated with that particular onion hostname, and rejected the connection attempt. Finally, my TOR client, trying to be as clever as informative as possible, returned that specific error code. While the error code does in some sense describe what happened internally, I do not think that 0x02 is appropriate for this scenario. I did not study the SOCKS specification, however I'm assuming that "ruleset" refers to the access control rules implemented on the daemon that's providing the tunnel, and not on the remote endpoint (the target machine is oblivious to SOCKS and just sees an incoming TCP connection, so it can't react in any way). My proposal is to change this error code to reduce confusion and help users identify the cause of the problem (between keyboard and chair in my case :). Which one to use? I suggest 0x05 = connection refused by destination host. "Connection refused" is what you normally get if the destination machine has nothing running on the requested port