System Proxyfier for Windows: WideCap

[Kyle Williams]

When using WideCap, you have to specify each application.  It does not
protect the whole OS.History has shown that this is *not* the best way to
ensure that your activities are anonymous.
I suspect further investigation would reveal a security hole or two.

- Kyle


On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM, <gregoron at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> http://widecap.ru/en/
>
> I found this when looking at FreeCap.  WideCap is supposed to proxify
> the whole OS I think and it handles DNS too.  I havn't tried it as I
> wanted opinions first.  It is free trial for 30 days and then $20 Egold
> after that (too bad it's not freeware/opensource).
>
> From the website:
>
> Advantages of the WideCap:
> System integration - WideCap is fully functional Winsock Service and
> Namespace provider. That means simply integration into your network
> subsystem. Forget about this ugly FreeCap's injection, needle to run all
> programs throught FreeCap, possible errors and incompatible with some
> firewalls and anti-viruses. WideCap acts as virtual network driver
> covering all your TCP/IP activity. No launchers - just run your program
> as usual and work via proxy.
>
> New proxy engine - fully rewritten proxy engine taken from the FreeCap
> to handle reloading everything on-the-fly. No more program restarts
> after changing the proxy chain or Widecap configuration. Plus boosted
> perfomance with proxies handling.
>
>
>
> Here is some things from the FAQ I thought was interesting: (it does
> UDP)
>
> Q: What kind of traversing WideCap does?
> A: Using WideCap you can traverse only TCP or UDP connections. But UDP
> only via SOCKSv5, only via one proxy, and without NAT in the middle.
> Others protocols (such as icmp, igmp etc) unable to traversing by
> architecture and RFC restrictions.
>
> Q: What kind of traversing WideCap does?
> A: Using WideCap you can traverse only TCP or UDP connections. But UDP
> only via SOCKSv5, only via one proxy, and without NAT in the middle.
> Others protocols (such as icmp, igmp etc) unable to traversing by
> architecture and RFC restrictions.
>
> Q: After the proxy checking I've got that all proxies are broken. And
> the system event log reports about "EventID 4226: TCP/IP has reached the
> security limit imposed on the number of concurrent TCP connect
> attempts". What's wrong? I have Windows XP SP2.
> A: It's problem related to WinXP SP2 users (and possible Win2003). In
> this systems the TCP/IP driver has a limitation for concurrent
> connection attempts. Limited to 10 concurrent connection attempts.
> Unfortunately there's no registry key to fix this but patch exists. Read
> more about Event ID 4226 + patch
>
> -->That last question is the same issue I think of non-server Windows
> issues when acting as a Tor node.  In my next email to the list found a
> great little app that will change the connect limits in the tcpip.sys
> file to whatever you want.  I set mine to 100.
>
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> --
>
>  gregoron at fastmail.fm
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20081218/d66c3a98/attachment.htm>