[stunnel-users] Problem using stunnel on Windows 7

• Previous message (by thread): [stunnel-users] Problem using stunnel on Windows 7
• Next message (by thread): [stunnel-users] Problem using stunnel on Windows 7
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Pierre,

Many, many thanks.

I was labouring under the misapprehension that stunnel did indeed to by what
you called 'transparent proxying' and that a sender did not need modifying.
In the end it was easy, but, as you said, I had to change my sender (and my
thinking) to send to the port that stunnel was expecting local input on.
That was all!

A piece of ultimately useful software like stunnel deserves a first class
'User Guide' :)

Glass of wine on me.

Regards, Hal

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre DELAAGE [mailto:delaage.pierre at free.fr] 
Sent: 17 November 2012 16:05
To: Hal Hovland
Cc: stunnel-users at stunnel.org
Subject: Re: [stunnel-users] Problem using stunnel on Windows 7

Hmm, my post about ip adresses was to mention that in YOUR CLIENT
APPLICATION (forget stunnel config, this was not my purpose), you have to
specify :  [SENDER STUNNEL] MACHINE ADDRESS as "remote address" (of course
it is a fake, because you need to put stunnel in the middle of your
traditional communication scheme).
INSTEAD of 192.168.1.9...
well...that does mean your sender apps TrIES to connect to LOCAL stunnel on
address 127.0.0.1

This is the app that you have to modify also ! not only stunnel.

Stunnel is not acting as transparent if you do not modify your apps !
and even though, "transparent" proxying is something else in stunnel that
does not fit your needs.

AND in your SERVER APPLICATION (on machine 192.168.1.9), you have to LISTEN
on calls coming from ....the local stunnel, on the server machine. (machine
127.0.0.1).

and check your firewall...

Pierre


Le 17/11/2012 13:28, Hal Hovland a écrit :
> Pierre, thanks for response. I did try 127.0.0.1 with all the local 
> ports during my testing. I will, though, re-examine my logic as per your
comments.
> Its more than possible too, that I've mixed up the definition of 'accept'
> and 'connect' as used with a server and client - I'm assuming that on 
> the client, the 'accept' defines the port used by the underlying 
> program (here, the Sender), and on the server, the 'connect' defines 
> the port used by the underlying program (here, the Listener)
>
> Drawing a little picture - before the use of stunnel
>
> 192.168.1.9|                       |192.168.1.158
>             |                       |
> Listener   |        Network        |   Sender
>         Port|8000               7999|Port
>
>
> After the introduction of stunnel on both machines
>
> Listener   |        Network        |   Sender
>      ^      |                       |     V
> Port 8000  |                       |  Port 7999 (accept=)
>     stunnel |                       | stunnel
>         Port|8001  <         <  8001|Port
>             |accept=        connect=|
>
> [Listener]                          client=yes
>                                      [sender]
> connect=8000                        accept  = 7999
> accept=8001                         connect = 192.168.1.9:8001
>
> My biggest worry was that no matter what, hovering over either stunnel 
> icon both shows '0 session(s) active'. Do they only show as active 
> when encrypted communication occurs or when a program is started that 
> uses the relevant port?
>
> Regards, Hal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre DELAAGE [mailto:delaage.pierre at free.fr]
> Sent: 17 November 2012 11:31
> To: stunnel-users at stunnel.org; hhovland at btconnect.com
> Subject: Re: [stunnel-users] Problem using stunnel on Windows 7
>
> Hmm, are you sure you are respecting the simple following scheme where 
> the encrypted STUNNEL is acting between TWO UNECRYPTED channels ?
>
>
> unencrypted client application ---- unencrypted channel ----> client 
> stunnel accepting on PORT-1, connnecting to REMOTE STUNNEL on PORT-2,
>
> ---ENCRYPTED CHANNEL -------> REMOTE STUNNEL listening on PORT-2, 
> connecting to a local UNENCRYPTED server on PORT-3 ---> unencrypted 
> LOCAL application listening on port 3...
>
> according to your conf files :
> port-1 seems to be 7999,
> port-2 ..8001,
> port-3 : 8000
>
> To my mind the problem may come from the IP ADDRESSES you are using :
>
> your client unencrypted application should connect to CLIENT STUNNEL 
> IP (if on the same machine : 127.0.0.1).
> AND NOT ANY MORE to the IP of your original unencrypted server.
>
> On the server side : connect to the IP of the NEW unencrypted 
> application location, should be...I think...127.0.0.1.
>
> Failing to adapt IP in APPLICATIONS it is NORMAL that the traffic does 
> not pass through stunnel.
>
>
> Something else: check firewall on both sides...but I really think you 
> just have bad ip configured in your client/server original UNencrypted 
> applications...
>
> Regards
> Pierre
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 17/11/2012 12:01, Uffe Vedenbrant a écrit :
>> A small tip..
>>
>> Use netstat to see if stunnel actually listens to the port that you 
>> have set up. You can also see if you have a working TCP connection 
>> between the machines.. I.e. established a stunnel session..
>> You will then both see line with LISTEN flag as well as a line with a 
>> ESTABLISHED flag.
>>
>> On windows you also can use the flag "-B" to see which process ( in 
>> most cases ) that is using a port.. This requires admin rights..
>> ( right click CMD and select run ad admin )
>>
>> Example
>>
>> CMD> netstat -B -an
>>
>> You will see a list of UDP/TCP listening port as well as established 
>> sessions etc.. Look for the ports here..
>>
>> C:\>netstat -B -an
>>
>> Active Connections
>>
>>     Proto  Local Address          Foreign Address        State
>>     TCP    0.0.0.0:135            0.0.0.0:0              LISTENING
>>     RpcSs
>>    [svchost.exe]
>>     TCP    0.0.0.0:445            0.0.0.0:0              LISTENING
>>    Can not obtain ownership information
>>     TCP    0.0.0.0:5357           0.0.0.0:0              LISTENING
>>    Can not obtain ownership information
>>     TCP    0.0.0.0:8080           0.0.0.0:0              LISTENING
>>    Can not obtain ownership information
>>     TCP    0.0.0.0:8800           0.0.0.0:0              LISTENING
>>    Can not obtain ownership information
>>     TCP    0.0.0.0:17500          0.0.0.0:0              LISTENING
>>    [Dropbox.exe]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2012-11-17 11:13, Hal Hovland wrote:
>>> Hi Brian, thanks for taking a look. The client .conf uses 7999 and 8001.
> On
>>> the accept side I've tried 7999 and 192.168.1.158:7999 and 0.0.0.0:7999.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> I should also say I tried all this with Ncat (same result) and that 
>>> the machines have the latest .NET Framework installed, viz., 4.5 - 
>>> could that
> be
>>> the problem?
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> Regards, Hal
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> From: Brian Wilkins [mailto:bwilkins at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 16 November 2012 23:25
>>> To: Hal Hovland
>>> Cc: stunnel-users at stunnel.org
>>> Subject: Re: [stunnel-users] Problem using stunnel on Windows 7
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> I didn't see a port setting in the clients stunnel.conf
>>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2012 6:18 PM, "Hal Hovland" <hhovland at btconnect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've spent days googling this and read everything relevant in the
> archives.
>>>    
>>>
>>> I'm developing a Windows 7 program that connects to a financial 
>>> trading exchange that expects all communication to be SSL'd. 
>>> Everything I read
> said
>>> that stunnel is the answer because of ease of installation and use. 
>>> After
> a
>>> day of abortive attempts to link to the exchange, I decided to 
>>> create a
> much
>>> simpler test environment involving two Windows 7 computers next to 
>>> each other here.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> One, let's call it Riven-II (192.168.1.9), is set up with a simple
> Listener
>>> program that listens on port 8000. From stunnel's viewpoint this 
>>> will be
> a
>>> server. The second machine, Lightning (192.168.1.158), has a simple
> Sender
>>> program that sends a text message via port 7999 to Riven-II
>>> (192.168.1.9:8000) - this will be the Client. In the absence of 
>>> stunnel,
> all
>>> messages sent from Lightning/Sender appears on the window of 
>>> Listener. So far so good.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> I've downloaded and installed the very latest version (4.54) of 
>>> stunnel
> on
>>> both machines. On installation I entered the same responses to the 
>>> certificate generating process.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> On the Server machine, hard wired to a Broadband Router, I 
>>> configured stunnel.conf as (removing comments for simplicity)
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> debug = 7
>>>
>>> output = stunnel.log
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> socket = l:TCP_NODELAY=1
>>>
>>> socket = r:TCP_NODELAY=1
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> cert = stunnel.pem
>>>
>>> key = stunnel.pem
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> options = NO_SSLv2
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> taskbar=yes
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> [Listener]
>>>
>>> connect=8000
>>>
>>> accept=8001
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> On the Client machine, connected to the router via wi-fi, we have in 
>>> stunnel.conf
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> debug = 7
>>>
>>> output = stunnel.log
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> cert = stunnel.pem
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> socket = l:TCP_NODELAY=1
>>>
>>> socket = r:TCP_NODELAY=1
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> fips=no
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> options = NO_SSLv2
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> delay=yes
>>>
>>> taskbar=yes
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> client=yes
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> [sender]
>>>
>>> accept  = 0.0.0.0:7999       (I've tried just 7999 and
> 192.168.1.158:7999,
>>> here. Makes no difference)
>>>
>>> connect = 192.168.1.9:8001
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> I've tried many variations with the same result, but the above is 
>>> where
> they
>>> have ended up.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> My understanding of this is that stunnel both ends will be 
>>> intercepting
> port
>>> 8000 on the Server and port 7999 on the Client and 
>>> presenting/receiving
> SSL
>>> encoded messages across the wire on port 8001.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> Starting stunnel in the Server  (not as a Windows service, although 
>>> I did try that as well) the following log appears:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: No limit 
>>> detected for the number of clients
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG5[3484:6184]: stunnel 
>>> 4.54
> on
>>> x86-pc-msvc-1500 platform
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG5[3484:6184]:
> Compiled/running
>>> with OpenSSL 1.0.1c-fips 10 May 2012
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG5[3484:6184]:
> Threading:WIN32
>>> SSL:+ENGINE+OCSP+FIPS Auth:none Sockets:SELECT+IPv6
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG5[3484:6184]: Reading 
>>> configuration from file stunnel.conf
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG5[3484:6184]: FIPS 
>>> mode is enabled
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: 
>>> Compression
> not
>>> enabled
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Snagged 
>>> 64 random bytes from C:/.rnd
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Wrote 
>>> 1024
> new
>>> random bytes to C:/.rnd
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: PRNG 
>>> seeded successfully
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22 <tel:2012.11.16%2022> :34:08 LOG6[3484:6184]: 
>>> Initializing service [Listener]
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Certificate: stunnel.pem
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Certificate loaded
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Key file: stunnel.pem
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Private key loaded
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Could not load DH parameters 
>>> from stunnel.pem
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Using hardcoded DH parameters
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: DH initialized with 2048-bit 
>>> key
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: ECDH initialized with curve
> prime256v1
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: SSL options set: 0x01000004
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG5[3484:6184]: Configuration successful
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:34:08 LOG7[3484:6184]: Service [Listener] (FD=272) 
>>> bound to
>>> 0.0.0.0:8001
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> On the Client, the log shows:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: No limit detected for the 
>>> number of clients
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG5[4184:4948]: stunnel 4.54 on 
>>> x86-pc-msvc-1500 platform
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG5[4184:4948]: Compiled/running with OpenSSL 
>>> 1.0.1c-fips 10 May 2012
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG5[4184:4948]: Threading:WIN32
> SSL:+ENGINE+OCSP+FIPS
>>> Auth:none Sockets:SELECT+IPv6
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG5[4184:4948]: Reading configuration from file 
>>> stunnel.conf
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG5[4184:4948]: FIPS mode is disabled
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: Compression not enabled
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: Snagged 64 random bytes from 
>>> C:/.rnd
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: Wrote 1024 new random bytes to
> C:/.rnd
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: PRNG seeded successfully
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG6[4184:4948]: Initializing service [sender]
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: Certificate: stunnel.pem
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: Certificate loaded
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: Key file: stunnel.pem
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: Private key loaded
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: SSL options set: 0x01000004
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG5[4184:4948]: Configuration successful
>>>
>>> 2012.11.16 22:25:53 LOG7[4184:4948]: Service [sender] (FD=224) bound 
>>> to
>>> 0.0.0.0:7999
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> Running the Listener on the Server and Sender on the Client adds 
>>> nothing
> to
>>> the log, and port sniffers on both machines show traffic between 
>>> 7999 and
>>> 8000 (exactly the same as when stunnel is not running). No sign of 
>>> the
> use
>>> of port 8001.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate any input on this. I'm sure I must be doing something
> stupid,
>>> but I've watched hours of YouTube videos, read many hundreds of web
> pages,
>>> and been through the documentation quite a few times, to no avail.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> I have a Java based version, running in a JVM in the same Windows
> machines,
>>> that talks perfectly to the exchange using some inbuilt SSL 
>>> capabilities
> of
>>> an included library, so that should probably eliminate any
> hardware/router
>>> issues?
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>> Regards, Hal
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> stunnel-users mailing list
>>> stunnel-users at stunnel.org
>>> https://www.stunnel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
>>>
>>>     _____
>>>
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2629/5400 - Release Date: 
>>> 11/16/12
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> stunnel-users mailing list
>>> stunnel-users at stunnel.org
>>> https://www.stunnel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> stunnel-users mailing list
>> stunnel-users at stunnel.org
>> https://www.stunnel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2629/5400 - Release Date: 
> 11/16/12
>
>


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2629/5400 - Release Date: 11/16/12

• Previous message (by thread): [stunnel-users] Problem using stunnel on Windows 7
• Next message (by thread): [stunnel-users] Problem using stunnel on Windows 7
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]