Reverse TCP Socket

[benpturner]

Hi,

Could this be changed to support sending a local port using the proxy client to the webserver rather that the other way around. e.g. send my rdp 3389 to the webserver on 4444?

I presume the code is there just would need reversing slighly, it would still need to communicate over HTTP.

[nvssks]

Interesting idea,

I think there are two ways to approach this:

1. Reverse http tunnel (ie. rdp->TunnaClient)
2. Reverse http tunnel to the webserver, webserver holds the connection alive and then you connect to the webserver with a TunnaClient (essentially 2 http tunnels - rdp->webserver<-TunnaClient)

Which one are you thinking of?

On 12 Oct 2016 9:24 p.m., "Ben Turner" notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi,

Could this be changed to support sending a local port using the proxy client to the webserver rather that the other way around. e.g. send my rdp 3389 to the webserver on 4444?

I presume the code is there just would need reversing slighly, it would still need to communicate over HTTP.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SECFORCE/Tunna/issues/5, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJZ6bSIEkMPB5wc6_0cbSH8xza8LeeSTks5qzUHmgaJpZM4KVLkI .

[benpturner]

Yeah this would be a really good addition.  Would this take alot of time to implement?

  From: nvssks <notifications@github.com>

To: SECFORCE/Tunna Tunna@noreply.github.com Cc: Ben Turner benpturner@yahoo.com; Author author@noreply.github.com Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016, 23:49 Subject: Re: [SECFORCE/Tunna] Reverse TCP Socket (#5)

Interesting idea,

I think there are two ways to approach this:

1. Reverse http tunnel (ie. rdp->TunnaClient)
2. Reverse http tunnel to the webserver, webserver holds the connection alive and then you connect to the webserver with a TunnaClient (essentially 2 http tunnels - rdp->webserver<-TunnaClient)

Which one are you thinking of?

On 12 Oct 2016 9:24 p.m., "Ben Turner" notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi,

Could this be changed to support sending a local port using the proxy client to the webserver rather that the other way around. e.g. send my rdp 3389 to the webserver on 4444?

I presume the code is there just would need reversing slighly, it would still need to communicate over HTTP.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SECFORCE/Tunna/issues/5, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJZ6bSIEkMPB5wc6_0cbSH8xza8LeeSTks5qzUHmgaJpZM4KVLkI . — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[nvssks]

It's not as easy as it seems, it will need some refactoring of the code base :/

On 14 Oct 2016 17:31, "Ben Turner" notifications@github.com wrote:

Yeah this would be a really good addition. Would this take alot of time to implement?

From: nvssks notifications@github.com To: SECFORCE/Tunna Tunna@noreply.github.com Cc: Ben Turner benpturner@yahoo.com; Author author@noreply.github.com Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2016, 23:49 Subject: Re: [SECFORCE/Tunna] Reverse TCP Socket (#5)

Interesting idea,

I think there are two ways to approach this:

1. Reverse http tunnel (ie. rdp->TunnaClient)
2. Reverse http tunnel to the webserver, webserver holds the connection alive and then you connect to the webserver with a TunnaClient (essentially 2 http tunnels - rdp->webserver<-TunnaClient)

Which one are you thinking of?

On 12 Oct 2016 9:24 p.m., "Ben Turner" notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi,

Could this be changed to support sending a local port using the proxy client to the webserver rather that the other way around. e.g. send my rdp 3389 to the webserver on 4444?

I presume the code is there just would need reversing slighly, it would still need to communicate over HTTP.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SECFORCE/Tunna/issues/5, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJZ6bSIEkMPB5wc6_ 0cbSH8xza8LeeSTks5qzUHmgaJpZM4KVLkI . — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SECFORCE/Tunna/issues/5#issuecomment-253852266, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJZ6bWiUqFa93x1wyo1-bnDQxQgmREvoks5qz65XgaJpZM4KVLkI .

[s0rtega]

Hi there,

Any improvements in this way? I'm trying to connect to an internal system trought a proxy and I'm thinking that this would be the best approach but I can't find any implemented tool with a reverse http-rdp connection. Maybe I could give you some help at this point...

[nvssks]

Only minimum progress so far but I'm still working on it :)

On 15 Nov 2016 6:36 p.m., "Sergio Ortega" notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi there,

Any improvements in this way? I'm trying to connect to an internal system trought a proxy and I'm thinking that this would be the best approach but I can't find any implemented tool with a reverse http-rdp connection. Maybe I could give you some help at this point...

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SECFORCE/Tunna/issues/5#issuecomment-260726805, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJZ6bUUjFLgv6nakamSWv_3Ie6Nf700kks5q-fusgaJpZM4KVLkI .

[nvssks]

Hi there,

Although I'm close into releasing the code for this (still needs some serious night owling to be complete). I was pointed to a tool that might be good for your scenario. Have a look at: https://github.com/khuevu/http-tunnel