Bypassing a Firewall in Linux

Hi all,

I am working in a company where most of sites are blocked including
yahoo and msn.
And also most of the ports above 100 are blocked.
I have dual OS in my machine. One is Ubuntu 5.04 and Windows XP.
Is it possible to bypass the firewall so that I can visit all the
sites.
Any help in this regard is really appreciated.

Regards,
Sri...

Sri wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am working in a company where most of sites are blocked including
> yahoo and msn.
> And also most of the ports above 100 are blocked.
> I have dual OS in my machine. One is Ubuntu 5.04 and Windows XP.
> Is it possible to bypass the firewall so that I can visit all the
> sites.
> Any help in this regard is really appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Sri...
>
Your company has policies that say you can not frivously browse the
internet from our offices, on our computers, using our bandwidth, on our
time. They have put in some blocks to assure your compliance. The fact
that you know some of these sites are blocked indicates that you are not
following the policies.
You want help to break these rules because you do not think they should
apply to you.
Browse the internet on your own system on your own time.

These rules are put in place to control viruses and intrusions,
bypassing these policies in most companies is an offence that will
result in termination.

In comp.os.linux.networking Sri <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> Hi all,

> I am working in a company where most of sites are blocked including
> yahoo and msn.

You mean you can't use any messenger to chat like you want?
Perhaps they'd like you to work during your paid time?

> And also most of the ports above 100 are blocked.
> I have dual OS in my machine. One is Ubuntu 5.04 and Windows XP.
> Is it possible to bypass the firewall so that I can visit all the
> sites.
> Any help in this regard is really appreciated.

If you had permissions to do so, you wouldn't ask how to go about
it.

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo (E-Mail Removed) | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 454: Keyboard Actuator Failure. Order and Replace.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:07:01 -0800, Sri wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am working in a company where most of sites are blocked including yahoo
> and msn.
> And also most of the ports above 100 are blocked. I have dual OS in my
> machine. One is Ubuntu 5.04 and Windows XP. Is it possible to bypass the
> firewall so that I can visit all the sites.
> Any help in this regard is really appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Sri...

Take a look at proxytunnel:

http://proxytunnel.sourceforge.net/

But... as the other posters already pointed out, the corporate firewall is
put in place for a reason. Not only to protect the company network, but
also you may be violating the 'rules of conduct' the company has put in
place and to which you (knowingly) agreed.

--
gr,
maxx
:wq!

On 2006-03-23, Sri <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> I am working in a company where most of sites are blocked including
> yahoo and msn.
> And also most of the ports above 100 are blocked.
> I have dual OS in my machine. One is Ubuntu 5.04 and Windows XP.
> Is it possible to bypass the firewall so that I can visit all the
> sites.

Yeah, ask your admins to unblock needed ports for you. If you go behind
their backs, you risk losing your position. (And no, it doesn't matter
if their policies are stupid: it's still *their* policies, and since
they employ you, they have a right to expect you to abide by them, or at
least not knowingly bypass them.)

--keith

--
kkeller-(E-Mail Removed)
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

can't really beleive this. Are all you guys police or what? If Sri wants
to circumvent the firewall, he has his reasons. Warning him is fine, but
just posting in answer telling him what he should and should not do is
going a bit far isn't it?

is comp.os.linux.networking becoming comp.os.linux.wewatchyou? or
comp.os.linux.protectcorporateinsterests

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:07:01 -0800, Sri wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I am working in a company where most of sites are blocked including
> yahoo and msn.
> And also most of the ports above 100 are blocked.
> I have dual OS in my machine. One is Ubuntu 5.04 and Windows XP.
> Is it possible to bypass the firewall so that I can visit all the
> sites.
> Any help in this regard is really appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Sri...

airdog wrote:
> can't really beleive this. Are all you guys police or what? If Sri wants
> to circumvent the firewall, he has his reasons. Warning him is fine, but
> just posting in answer telling him what he should and should not do is
> going a bit far isn't it?

s/beleive/believe/ [spelling police ^_^]

Yes, most people have a conscience, even on Usenet. o_O

If an alcoholic is prevented from going to the shops and he gives you
money to buy him a bottle of spirits - do you accept the task?

We don't know that Sri has a problem, but warning bells are ringing.

If Sri wants to do things that are questionable
few are prepared to serve up a solution.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:53:24 +0000, airdog wrote:

> can't really beleive this. Are all you guys police or what? If Sri wants
> to circumvent the firewall, he has his reasons. Warning him is fine, but
> just posting in answer telling him what he should and should not do is
> going a bit far isn't it?
>
>
<snip>
>
This is usenet. You can do what you want (top post, for example).
Airdog, hmm, did your mommy give you that name?

I can do what I want, too. One thing I like to do is encourage people to
live up to agreements they have made. If they can't live up to them, then
they have other options. To quit working in any environment which they
find unteneble is always an option open to them.

How should I be expected to know the consequences of breaking office
rules? The consequences could be large depending on the partiticular
work environment. You have heard of Chernobyl, right? It seems like
people have enough to worry about _when_ everyone is supposedly
cooperating. A couple of traders at Enron put out the lights in
California. I don't want to give anyone else a backdoor into a system
which allows this type of remote control.

--
Douglas Mayne

in 447212 20060324 181556 Douglas Mayne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:53:24 +0000, airdog wrote:
>
>> can't really beleive this. Are all you guys police or what? If Sri wants
>> to circumvent the firewall, he has his reasons. Warning him is fine, but
>> just posting in answer telling him what he should and should not do is
>> going a bit far isn't it?
>>
>>
><snip>
>>
>This is usenet. You can do what you want (top post, for example).
>Airdog, hmm, did your mommy give you that name?
>
>I can do what I want, too. One thing I like to do is encourage people to
>live up to agreements they have made. If they can't live up to them, then
>they have other options. To quit working in any environment which they
>find unteneble is always an option open to them.
>
>How should I be expected to know the consequences of breaking office
>rules? The consequences could be large depending on the partiticular
>work environment. You have heard of Chernobyl, right? It seems like
>people have enough to worry about _when_ everyone is supposedly
>cooperating. A couple of traders at Enron put out the lights in
>California. I don't want to give anyone else a backdoor into a system
>which allows this type of remote control.
>
>--
>Douglas Mayne

I've heard of places that wouldn't allow programmers to access sites that
would enable them to do their job better. It's bureaucratic ignorance.
If I worked for one of them I'm sure I would try to circumvent such stupid "rules".

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <xu7Vf.28532$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bob Martin wrote:

>I've heard of places that wouldn't allow programmers to access sites that
>would enable them to do their job better. It's bureaucratic ignorance.
>If I worked for one of them I'm sure I would try to circumvent such stupid
> "rules".

Rather interesting comment, but somewhat contridictory.

If their blocking is preventing you from doing the job "better" (which
is ambiguous), you have a couple of choices.

1. Bail - let them ferment in their own pot and go out of business.

2. Explain to The Powers That Be(tm) why such access would be useful.

3. Carry on as is.

4. Circumvent the block and hope no-one notices.

If the bosses don't want to change things (choice 2), you still have the
other three options. If you take choice 4 - one has to ask why you want
to make such a company look good, while risking them coming down from on
high like a ton of bricks - you shouldn't expect friends to help you. You
are posting from the UK, but here in the US, there is an advertisement
campaign that says "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." (It might
also surprise you to know that the ad comes from an alcoholic beverage
producer.) Paraphrase that - "friends don't help friends get fired".

So you know where I'm coming from, I'm a net-admin at an R&D facility.
Yes, we have excellent network access. Yes, before you came to work here,
you were made _well_ aware of our network use policies. (You signed a
copy of the policy when you came in for the job interview, and signed
copies of all of the policies when you hired on. There are LARGE signs
at all building entrances reminding you of the policies and the fact
that network traffic is monitored for conformance to those policies. If
you think that's rough on the employees, you ought to see the hoops the
visiting sales-weasels have to jump through to gain access to our
facilities.) Those policies apply to everyone - from the corporate
president on down to the janitor, or the cook in the cafeteria (who
uses the net mainly to publish a web page with the weekly luncheon menu).
Part of this comes from government/contract requirements. Another part comes
from the concept that we don't want the competition knowing what existing
or future product are going to be like. Still another part comes from the
legal department that doesn't want to have to try to defend the company in
some lawsuit brought by an [ex-]employee, or the state (province or county)
or federal labo[u]r relations agencies.

Old guy