How UC Browser's cloud acceleration works? [closed] - caching

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am searching for documentation related to the cloud acceleration feature of UC Browser, but can't find any useful resource.
Chrome's data saver feature is documented well. Is there any similar document that explains the UC Browser's cloud acceleration feature in detail? I specifically need answers to the following questions, if anyone can help:
Does UC Browser proxy HTTPS requests too through their cloud servers? If so, how does it handle caching in this scenario?
How does the proxy server identify itself to the origin server, and how does it forward user's IP address to the origin?
Does the UC Browser's cloud server cache static resources?
The proxy servers are known to compress/minify/optimize resources. How does it work with Subresource Integrity?
Does proxy server support Brotli encoding both ways (origin to proxy and proxy to browser)?
Can anyone help me on this?

Features like cloud acceleration and other data saving technologies won't touch https resources. Proxy servers often add an extra header 'X-FORWARDED-FOR' containing user IP. Probably UC optimizes the images and caches a smaller images by scaling down its dimensions. The subresource integrity is a client side check and browser can decide how to implement it and UC Browser doesn't support it yet.

Related

Citadel Mail Server Rejecting SMTP clients [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I setup a Citadel Mail Server on a RPI 3B+. I have DNS setup, port forwarding, and port open on firewall. When I enter through the webmail portal, I can send and receive mail just fine. The issue that I am having is with mail clients.
I can use IMAP and POP just fine to receive mail with my credentials just fine also.
Whenever I try to send mail using a client (tried a couple different ones), it fails on sending. Right now, I am not using SSL until I get it working on the basic port. The devices I am trying are local devices that do not pass a firewall. With sender authentication turned on, it always says invalid login even though the same login works for IMAP and POP. Turned off it says it requires a login.
For some reason it rejects logins to send mail even if they are a valid user on the system. Works 100% though with the same user on the webmail portal.
Any ideas on how to get this working? Let me know if more info is required.
I originally asked this question on SuperUser(since when I was going to aks here it directed me there due to it being software instead of code), but never got a reply and found other questions concerning Citadel here.
Also, I will add a bit more info. The original admin account can login fine, but gets and error 530 because it will not let me add an internet email address to that user. I add it and hit save. It goes back to blank everytime. Rebooting does nothing. Adding more users gives original result of not being able to login for smtp.
All users have the checkbox selected to allow internet email and have a internet email address, besides the original admin who I cannot enter an internet email address.
Also, same result for ports 25 and 587 both.
Not fully an answer, but since nobody is responding to this I will add the conclusion I got to when doing more research. Uninstall Citadel and find a tutorial for Postfix and Dovecot for RPI. I have it mostly working, but have a bit of work to do with StartTLS.
A little late for this answer but...
It seems that Citadel will reject SMTP requests on any account that has a password greater than 19 characters. Both IMAP and POP still work for longer passwords.

Configure ShadowSocks client on OpenWrt [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
How do I connect from OpenWrt with ShadowSocks to my server and redirect all traffic through that connection?
I have a ShadowSocks server running on my server. Its working (as tested with my laptop).
Now I want to configure this on my GL-MT300A with OpenWrt. There is the ShadowSocks section in the OpenWrt config, but I don't know what to setup for Transparent Proxy, SOCKS5 Proxy and Port Forward.
I did add my ShadowSocks server under "Servers Manage", with the details I would otherwise have in my shadowconfig-client.json file.
All services (Transparent Proxy, SOCKS5 Proxy and Port Forward) are listed above as NOT RUNNING (see image). How do I start those or do I need those for my ShadowSocks client anyways?
I contacted support, and there seems to be an issue with MT300x models. You solve this by running the following from ssh on your router:
ln -s /usr/lib/libsodium.so.13.1.0 /usr/lib/libsodium.so.18

Is SockJS EventBus Bridge a right tool for building private chats? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I would like to build a app with private chat powered by SockJS using Vert.X. I quickly ran into limitation of SockJS because of it's simplistic API and multiplexing doesn't seem to be the answer (see: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sockjs/cO7lnH07RCE/discussion ).
Would EventBus Bridge be the right tool? Each client binds to a unique address, and VertX server can respond to them, or ignore them by default if not recognized?
Is that the intent of EventBus Bridge?
Can permit rules be changed once the SockJSBridge is started?
Randomized token (UUID?) can also be added to inbound rule "match" to simulate how session would work.
Is this reasonable? or has this been wildly used?
The EventBusBridge lets clients (browsers via SockJS) talk with other subscribers on the EventBus. That means you can send messages directly with Server-side Services or other clients.
You cannot change the permit/firewall rules for the bridge dynamically. But with regular expressions and using UUIDs, you should be able to implement a chat quite easily. Let me give you an example:
The server listens on address chat-server. The outbound setting in the bridge is set to { "address_re" : "chat-clients\..*" }. Every client registers a handler on chat-clients.<some_UUID_for_this_client> and tells the server to send messages addressed to the client to the registered address.
We have written a chat module in Scala, which you can use as a reference.

Fiddler2 speeds up file copy (via HTTPS) between a Client and WebServer [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I was trying to install Fiddler2 to capture some HTTPS traffic in order to troubleshoot a slow file upload speed issue between client(windows 7) to a web server(Windows 2008 R2).
One strange thing I have noticed was the file uploading process became super fast after I have fiddler up and running. Could it because the fiddler started acting as a proxy server and using port 8888?
Why is it when I start using Fiddler2 the upload process speeds up?
Is this a WebDav request? Or a file upload through a traditional HTML form?
For WebDAV:
Most likely, this is due to a bug in the Microsoft WebDAV implementation, whereby they waste a bunch of time trying to "Automatically Detect" your proxy server over and over again via WPAD. This can be very slow in an environment without such a proxy server.
Fiddler caches the result of a proxy detection once at startup and sets itself as the system proxy, which prevents the WebDAV stack from incorrectly rerunning the WPAD algorithm over and over.
For a HTML Form:
Typically, this would mean that the client's buffer sizes were poorly chosen (IE6 had this problem) and thus the client isn't making good use of the network. Fiddler uses better buffer sizes (32k or 64k, IIRC) and hence makes better use of the network, reducing transfer times. Most modern browsers use buffer sizes chosen to optimize performance.

Wireshark vs Firebug vs Fiddler - pros and cons? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Recently, I came across an issue where a CGI application is not responding. Symptom is Firefox displaying:
Transferring data from localhost...
But the thing is I cannot see any traffic from Firebug's Net panel, and the browser just stays on the same stage forever.
I am thinking about the ways to debug this application but I cannot see the source code or any of its compiled Java/C++ components, therefore I reckon a HTTP network level of diagnostics is a good start.
I have little experience in Fiddler and Wireshark, just wondering will they get better feedback/statistics in the HTTP network level? I've heard Wireshark is advanced but could possibly introduce a large volume of traffic so system admins don't like it very much. At this time I think Firebug doesn't really show me enough information.
I need to collect information so that I can then forward to client as proof.
Wireshark, Firebug, Fiddler all do similar things - capture network traffic.
Wireshark captures any kind of network packet. It can capture packet details below TCP/IP (HTTP is at the top). It does have filters to reduce the noise it captures.
Firebug tracks each request the browser page makes and captures the associated headers and the time taken for each stage of the request (DNS, receiving, sending, ...).
Fiddler works as an HTTP/HTTPS proxy. It captures every HTTP request the computer makes and records everything associated with it. It does allow things like converting post variables to a table form and editing/replaying requests. It doesn't, by default, capture localhost traffic in IE, see the FAQ for the workaround.
The benefit of WireShark is that it could possibly show you errors in levels below the HTTP protocol. Fiddler will show you errors in the HTTP protocol.
If you think the problem is somewhere in the HTTP request issued by the browser, or you are just looking for more information in regards to what the server is responding with, or how long it is taking to respond, Fiddler should do.
If you suspect something may be wrong in the TCP/IP protocol used by your browser and the server (or in other layers below that), go with WireShark.
None of the above, if you are on a Mac. Use Charles Proxy. It's the best network/request information collecter that I have ever come across. You can view and edit all outgoing requests, and see the responses from those requests in several forms, depending on the type of the response. It costs 50 dollars for a license, but you can download the trial version and see what you think.
If your on Windows, then I would just stay with Fiddler.
Fiddler is the winner every time when comparing to Charles.
The "customize rules" feature of fiddler is unparalleled in any http debugger. The ability to write code to manipulate http requests and responses on-the-fly is invaluable to me and the work I do in web development.
There are so many features to fiddler that charles just does not have, and likely won't ever have. Fiddler is light-years ahead.
To complement the list, also be aware of http://mitmproxy.org/
I use both Charles Proxy and Fiddler for my HTTP/HTTPS level debugging.
Pros of Charles Proxy:
Handles HTTPS better (you get a Charles Certificate which you'd put in 'Trusted Authorities' list)
Has more features like Load/Save Session (esp. useful when debugging multiple pages), Mirror a website (useful in caching assets and hence faster debugging), etc.
As mentioned by jburgess, handles AMF.
Displays JSON, XML and other kind of responses in a tree structure, making it easier to read. Displays images in image responses instead of binary data.
Cons of Charles Proxy:
Cost :-)
If you're developing an application that transfers data using AMF (fairly common in a particular set of GIS web APIs I use regularly), Fiddler does not currently provide an AMF decoder that will allow you to easily view the binary data in an easily-readable format. Charles provides this functionality.

Resources