#319 SOCKS5 proxy and user authentication

[Anonymous]

I am using the libcurl version 7.10.3 on solaris

When I tried to connect to a SOCKS5 proxy using libcurl, got an error saying 'User was rejected by
SOCKS5 Server(1,0)' . Then I went through the url.c file and found one bug in the 'handleSock5Proxy'
function, the bug is in checking the subnegotiation version of the server response, the version will be 1
and current code is checking for 5 and returning with the above error message.

I hope this error will be corrected in the next version

regards,
Jis

[Daniel Stenberg]

Logged In: YES
user_id=1110

So, is this patch fixing the problem for you? I don't have
access to any socks5 proxy so I can't try this out myself!

--- url.c 21 May 2003 08:08:50 -0000 1.276
+++ url.c 22 May 2003 21:21:27 -0000
@@ -1535,7 +1535,7 @@
return 1;
}

- if ((socksreq[0] != 5) || /* version */
+ if ((socksreq[0] != 1) || /* version */
(socksreq[1] != 0)) { /* status */
failf(conn->data, "User was rejected by the SOCKS5
server (%d %d).",
socksreq[0], socksreq[1]);

[Daniel Stenberg]

Logged In: YES
user_id=1110

ok, this is now in the cvs

[Jeff Lawson]

Logged In: YES
user_id=511066

According to the RFC, http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1928.html
that behavior is now incorrect. See "6. Replies" in that URL.

+----+-----+-------+------+----------+----------+
|VER | REP | RSV | ATYP | BND.ADDR | BND.PORT |
+----+-----+-------+------+----------+----------+
| 1 | 1 | X'00' | 1 | Variable | 2 |
+----+-----+-------+------+----------+----------+

Where:

o VER protocol version: X'05'
o REP Reply field:
o X'00' succeeded

If your SOCKS5 proxy is returning 1 in the VER field then it
is non-compliant.

[Daniel Stenberg]

Logged In: YES
user_id=1110

AFAICS, we are already checking for the 5 in the first byte,
url.c:1610 in CVS.

[Nobody/Anonymous]

Logged In: NO

In http://cvs.php.net/annotate.php/curl/lib/url.c?rev=1.336,
line 1611 is the procedure method response (RFC 1928
section 3), which is still correctly demanding 5. However line
1654 is the reply response (RFC 1928 section 6), which is now
incorrectly demanding 1.

[Nobody/Anonymous]

Logged In: NO

This was resolved by http://cvs.php.net/diff.php/curl/lib/url.c?
r1=1.336&r2=1.337&ty=h