feature request ~ enable use from port restricted client networks
See original GitHub issueSome client networks are more locked down than others, limiting traffic to use of only a small number of specific ports. But, even on these limited networks, the usual web ports (“80”, “443”, …) are almost always functional. A VPN connection, in addition to encrypting content, can also liberalize these limited networks back to full operation.
Unfortunately, the current Outline VPN implementation is unusable on those networks, even though other, commercial / main stream, VPN services can be used (eg, Private Internet Access (PIA)).
By allowing use of specific ports, especially port “443” (which is expected to be encrypted) or even “8443” (less ideal), would allow stealth usage on those networks. The server wouldn’t have to be attached specifically to “443”; a server or host firewall could redirect traffic from “443” to another, less privileged port. But, the server would ultimately need to respond to traffic on a specific port or port range.
Not knowing shadowsocks
, I’m not sure whether this is already possible. If so, some instruction on a working configuration would be welcome.
I’m happy to assist with a Wiki page detailing the process, if helpful.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 5 years ago
- Reactions:20
- Comments:19 (7 by maintainers)
Top GitHub Comments
Temporary solution:
Using Shadowsocks on port 443 (or other well-known ports) is not recommended, as Shadowsocks protocol doesn’t look like TLS (that runs on port 443). It is easy to tell that your client connects to some 443 port, but transferring non-TLS data. This is a highly suspicious footprint, and may be easily blocked.
You may consider V2Ray which has an ability to transfer data over TLS+WebSocket. It can combine with web servers (such as Nginx) to create purely HTTPS traffic against censorship.
Here is some reference (mainly in Chinese, sorry):