I want to know if any tool captures https traffic. I spend many hours searching on Google but did not find an answer. I need to analyze some packets from my application.
How can I capture this https traffic?
You didn´t specify the platform or the nature of your application. Just giving it a try, Fiddler is a HTTP Proxy capable of capturing HTTPS requests.
Capturing HTTPS traffic is one of Ettercap's claims to fame.
which operating system are you running? For Linux, Wireshark is a very famous packet sniffing tool.
Related
I have recently been sharing the connection of my mobile device to my laptop, when i'm out and about, through the use of an app called netshare. It provides a https proxy I believe through which it acts as a network repeater?(not sure about this part). I can access webpages and such quite easily. However, I have realised that I cannot connect to some apps. For example, I cannot use spotify. Installing some other apps like games etc also prove to fail. I have done a bit of research and found that apparently I could only surf the web with a https proxy. However, I found this to be unambiguous. Does this mean that I can only make https requests? Or is this because of https using TCP over UDP? What are the limitations and what can I do to possibly solve it?
Thanks
I am using a third party (OS X) tool to help me process OFX financial data. It works, but I am interested in knowing what exactly is going on behind the scenes to make it work (the structure of the HTTP requests).
I setup Charles as an SSL proxy for all traffic in hopes that I could observe the requests being made by this tool, but the program runs and Charles gets nothing. No requests show up whatsoever. How is that possible? Is there something I am not understanding about how Charles or other packet sniffing tools work? What are some ways that web requests could be made that wouldn't show up in a tool like Charles?
Charles is not a packet sniffer. It's a proxy. The app initiating the connection has to "voluntarily" use the proxy for the proxy to see anything. If an app uses a high-level networking API like NSURLConnection then it will, by virtue of the frameworks, automatically pick up the system-wide proxy settings and use the proxy. If, instead, the app wrote their networking using low-level socket API, then they will not end up going through the proxy unless they specifically re-implement that functionality.
If you want to see everything, you will need a real promiscuous-mode packet sniffer, which Charles is not. Unfortunately, using a "real" packet sniffer will just show you the gibberish going over the wire for SSL connections, so that's probably not what you want either. If an app has "in-housed" its SSL implementation and is not using a properly configured system-wide proxy, sniffing its traffic unencrypted will be considerably harder (you'll probably have to use a debugger or some other runtime hooking approach.)
I have a program that I'm trying to reverse engineer.
It gets a specific key by using HTTP GET on some URLs.
I need to figure out the details on how this works.
The good news is that there's the option to preform these requests over an HTTP proxy.
Would anybody know of a program to monitor a specific application's network traffic?
I've tried Wireshark, but its no giving me enough information (Headers, URL path).
After Wireshark, I tried FreeProxy. The problem with FreeProxy is that it only gives headers for around 1/3 of the requests and it doesn't give the full path either.
Could anyone suggest a better alternative for monitoring the internet activity of my application?
I thought Wireshark was able to capture the full packet with all its content? If so, how can it not give you enough information? Maybe you need to revise your traffic capture config?
It's been a while since I used Wireshark, but if you have trouble capturing full packets, what you can do is use tcpdump to capture and write to file, then view the capture file using Wireshark. tcpdump's -s option will allow you to set the packet size so as to capture full packets.
I use Fiddler for all my HTTP traffic monitoring. It is very powerful and displays data in the HTTP layer only. Wireshark will get all of your data, but it displays the details at a much lower layer. It even has capability to decrypt SSL traffic.
Fiddler installs itself as a proxy, and configures IE and FF automatically to use it when it is on. If you are having too much traffic mix in, then you can install Fiddler on a remote box, and point your proxy to that IP address.
I was recommemded another program called "mitmproxy" which worked perfectly for what I needed. Fiddler also worked, but SSL was giving me problems.
This might sound really naive but I would really find a descriptive answer helpful.
So, my question is this:
I can use Firebug to look at AJAX requests made from any website I visit. So, am I right in saying that I wouldn't be able to examine the same communication between the client and the server if the website choses to use Websockets? In other words, does this make it more secure?
No. Not at all. Just because the browser does not (yet) have a tool to show WebSocket traffic, doesn't make it any more secure. You can always run a packet sniffer to monitor the traffic, for example.
No, because there will be other ways beside the browser-build in tools to read your traffic.
Have a try: Install and run Wireshark and you will be able to see all packets you send and receive via Websockets.
Depends on the application. If you are fully Ajax without reloading the document for data then I would think websockets would provide a better authentication for data requests then a cookie session in regards to connection hijack. Given that you are using SSL of course.
Never rely on secrecy of algorithm cause it only gives you false sense of security. Wiki: Security by obscurity
Remember that browser is a program on my computer and I am the one who have a full control over what is send to you, not my browser.
I guess it's only matter of time (up to few months IMO) when developer tools such as Firebug will provide some fancy tool for browsing data send/received by WebSockets.
WebSockets has both an unencrypted (ws://) and encrypted mode (wss://). This is analogous to HTTP and HTTPS. WebSockets protocol payload is simply UTF-8 encoded. From a network sniffing perspective there is no advantage to using WebSockets (use wss and HTTPS for everything at all sensitive). From the browser perspective there is no benefit to using WebSockets for security. Anything running in the browser can be examined (and modified) by a sufficiently knowledgeable user. The tools for examining HTTP/AJAX requests just happen to be better right now.
How does Netnanny or k9 Web Protection setup web proxy without configuring the browsers?
How can it be done?
Using WinSock directly, or at the NDIS or hardware driver level, and
then filter at those levels, just like any firewalls soft does. NDIS being the easy way.
Download this ISO image: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/confirmation.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=36a2630f-5d56-43b5-b996-7633f2ec14ff
it has bunch of samples and tools to help you build what you want.
After you mount or burn it on CD and install it go to this folder:
c:\WinDDK\7600.16385.1\src\network\ndis\
I think what you need is a transparent proxy that support WCCP.
Take a look at squid-cache FAQ page
And the Wikipedia entry for WCCP
With that setup you just need to do some firewall configuration and all your web traffic will be handled by the transparent proxy. And no setup will be needed on your browser.
netnanny is not a proxy. It is tied to the host machine and browser (and possibly other applications as well. It then filters all incoming and outgoing "content" from the machine/application.
Essentially Netnanny is a content-control system as against destination-control system (proxy).
Easiest way to divert all traffic to a certain site to some other address is by changing hosts file on local host
You might want to have a look at the explanation here: http://www.fiddlertool.com/fiddler/help/hookup.asp
This is how Fiddler2 achieves inserting a proxy in between most apps and the internet without modifying the apps (although lots of explanation of how-to failing the default setup). This does not answer how NetNanny/K9 etc work though, as noted above they do a little more and may be a little more intrusive.
I believe you search for BrowserHelperObjects. These little gizmos capture ALL browser communication, and as such can either remote ads from the HTML (good gizmo), or redirect every second click to a spam site (bad gizmo), or just capture every URL you type and send it home like all the WebToolBars do.
What you want to do is route all outgoing http(s) requests from your lan through a reverse proxy (like squid). This is the setup for a transparent web proxy.
There are different ways to do this, although I've only ever set it up OpenBSD and Linux; and using Squid as the reverse proxy.
At a high level you have a firewall with rules to send all externally bound http traffic to a local squid server. The Squid server is configured to:
accept all http requests
forward the requests on to the real external hosts
cache the reply
forward the reply back to the requestor on the local lan
You can then add more granular rules in Squid to control access to websites, filter content, etc.
I pretty sure you can also get this functionality in different networking gear. I bet F5 has some products that do some or all of what I described, and probably Cisco as well. There is probably other proxies out there besides Squid that you can use too.
PS. I have no idea if this is how K9 Web Protection or NetNanny works.
Squid could provide an intercept proxy for HTTP and HTTPs ports, without configuring the browsers and it also supports WCCP.