Talk:SOCKS

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

acronym

Could you explain the acronym? --Error 00:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quote from http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/386/18/4.html: SOCKS: Wannabe Acronym SOCKS is not actually an acronym, despite the fact that the word has no obvious meaning and is spelled using all capital letters. You will see other terms based on the name SOCKS, such as “SOCKified,” which is used to identify an application written to use the SOCKS protocol.

I would let you in on the secret, but I don’t know what SOCKS means myself. I suppose it’s related to the term “Winsock.”Hrvoje p 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it is a play on the TCP stack that almost every operating system implements called Berkley Sockets. According to the RFC, the first version of this protocol was developed in the field and not in academia so I imagine the original author borrowed the name to associate it with the TCP socket stack.

lets do a little less imagination and a few more facts here. SOCKS is indeed a word play on the Berkeley Sockets API. This is the API most commonly used to interact with TCP/IP networks, not only in the Berkeley Stack (where it was first introduced) but also in virtually every other TCP/IP stack in active use. The only other major API known is the System V Streams API, and that never managed to catch up to the Berkeley Sockets, due to their unrivaled simplicity and elegance.

The Winsock specification is an adaption of the Berkeley Sockets API designed for Windows (DLL) use. The SOCKS name comes because the SOCKS implementation is based on the idea to replace the Berkeley Sockets library calls with identical calls to the socks library, which does its proxy magic and then in tirn invokes the real sockets, if necessary. Originally this was intended to happen at a source code level (hence the necessity for application to be "socksified) but later techniques were implemented to do this based on dynamically linked shared library objects (e.g by the "socksify" command in Unix implementations or modified DLLs Wn windows systems) 145.253.3.223 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does using SOCKS require modification of the client or the server? --Error 00:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If a network app supports SOCKS, you can give it a socks server address much like you would give a web browser a http proxy address.

If it doesn't support SOCKS you have to use use a program called sockscap to launch the application. It acts like a wrapper and changes TCP/IP requests by the application to requests to the SOCKS server. 62.77.162.129 08:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"According to the OSI model it is an intermediate layer between the application layer and the transport layer." This doesnt seem right. In the OSI model the application and transport layers are not adjacent. Change this to TCP/IP model??

After looking around online, it seems to exist in the transport layer, on top of TCP.

this is exactly right. There is no formal TCP/IP model, and if there were one, socks would have no place in it. Socks is an additional layer to implement meta connectivity at transport level between networks that do not have connectivity at lower layers. The TCP/IP design does not include such a functionality - the perimeter of a TCP/IP network is conclusively defined at the network layer, transport only adds additional services. So SOCKS would be somewhere in the upper layers of layer 4, since socks is built upon layer 4 services, but also provides layer 4 services and nothing else. 145.253.3.223 16:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nylon is not a client. It's a server.Jdstroy 18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/386/18/4.html: SOCKS is an OSI session-layer protocol designed to allow access to an external network using TCP-based client/server applications from the internal network. Hrvoje p 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure, but isn't the IP address and port number in the example in host byte order? They should be in nbo as stated. I tested it and gave 62.77.162.129 to inet_aton(), then I printed the struct in_addr.s_addr value to stdout in hexdecimal presentation, and it came out like this: 0x63076642 which leeds me to believe that it is host byte order.

My ISP has blocked ports 1080, hundreds of Socks5 use this port. Is there anyway for me to bypass this? Please advise. Thanks.

"Exterior server"

Does "exterior server" have some special meaning, different from "external server"? Nurg 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not (any more) present in the aricle, so I can't know for sure. But since SOCKS is essentially designed as avehickle for firewall traversal, the key property of the server is that it is under somebody else's physical control than the client. Thus, "external". It also needs to have the actual connectivity the client needs but does not have, in order to do its job. Fore this it is often located at the outer network perimeter. Wefa 16:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

sorry but I dont like the SOCKS page much. It does not explain the protocol well or give a decent examples. Way to technical for a beginner.

External links cleanup/de-spamming

I have requested a review of article's external link lists here and here. Please do not remove cleanup-spam tag from the Software section until more people respond on a matter. The section is in clear violation with WP:EL guidelines and at the very least it requires an independent review. Alex Pankratov 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this "cleanup" you did/ordered is destructive and amounts to vandalism. This List was quite helpful and decently accurate. Please reinstate that list or at least explain in more detail why you destroyed/ordered to destroy it.Wefa 16:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for details. Alex Pankratov 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, I have read that page now. Apparently, it's a talk page for an ip address which you are basically using to talk to yourself. And that is supposed to explain? Especially when your main reason for deletion seems to be that some undefined person "leaves you no choice"? Especially, since you seem to think being "left no choice" to destroy worthwhile content? Now, is that rational article debate or some kind of power play? To put it mildly, I am confused. I suggest you reinstate that list, in whatever sequence you think one of those countless policies you quote mandates Wefa 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read my Talk page for the other person's responses. It sounds like you are not aware that there are two ways to conduct the discussion in WP - all exchange in one place (like the one we are having now), or using each peers' Talk pages. Latter is quite odd, but it's commonly accepted to use the way that the replying person chooses. Alex Pankratov 05:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To reply you on a subject matter - if you want the material to be reinstated, you may want to talk to a person who actually removed. The issue of external links is a tricky one. I was pretty much on the same page with you ("whatever the info, removing it is universally bad"), but then I asked other people's opinion on a matter (the link is a copy-paste from a page I linked above). Have a look at SiobhanHansa's response from 16:41 there. Hopefully it will clarify some hidden issues with EL to you as it did to me. Alex Pankratov 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Tag

This article is full of jargon and extreme technical detail that make the page difficult to understand for all but the most knowledgeable of network administrators or internet protocol programmers. For example, it is missing a simple analogy or example that explains the use of a SOCKS proxy, as well as simple details that explain the difference between a SOCKS proxy and other similar proxy protocols.

At the current time, I visited the page attempting to ascertain the difference between using an http proxy and a SOCKS proxy, but this page was not helpful in that pursuit. I suspect most people visiting this page will have a similar question. And I am a more technically-minded and computer saavy user than most. Rritterson (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I am well versed in SOCKS and HTTP proxy network systems and protocols (in a hobbyist capacity), and this article has several huge flaws. The first sentence does not accurately reflect what SOCKS is or what it does. The rest of the article seems to focus completely on the technical aspects of the protocol - which I admit is massively useful to someone writing a proxy server with the SOCKS protocol in mind - but the article fails to describe the uses of a SOCKS proxy and its differences to a HTTP proxy. I will alter a few sentences to fix some of these issues, but I will leave the bulk of things to someone with a much more professional level of experience. Burningmace 14:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, once I got started I ended up overhauling the whole article. If anyone has an objections or suggestions regarding the changes, shout up :) — Burningmace 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningmace (talk • contribs)

HTTP proxy not only for HTTP

SOCKS uses a handshake protocol to inform the proxy software about the connection that the client is trying to make and may be used for any form of TCP or UDP socket connection, whereas a HTTP proxy analyses the HTTP headers sent through it in order to deduce the address of the server and therefore may only be used for HTTP traffic.

This is completely wrong. What about HTTPS proxies?

HTTPS uses connect method exclusively, so for most practical purposes it does not differs from socks (as https proxies). Ordinary http proxies can use either GET or CONNECT methods, but https works only with CONNECT. SOCKS, also can route connections other way (incoming connections), no http proxy can do it, also socks can handle UDP traffic, no http proxy can do it either. -Yyy (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand

I don't understand what this article is about. It lists a few technical specifications - which is cool for hackers I guess - and some general technical information, but I don't get an idea about exactly WHAT it is SOCKS can be used for. For HTTP there's no problem, as I know that it's used to access mostly static web-pages, that is pages that are published and readily accessible to most people. The current version of this article (at the time of writing) appears as unclear about the use of SOCKS. --Kebman (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article

SOCKS uses a handshake protocol to inform the proxy software about the connection that the client is trying to make and may be used for any form of TCP or UDP socket connection

which basically sayss you can use whatever protocol you want as opposed HTTP only for HTTP proxies. A little reading goes a long way doesn't it. --antilived^{T | C | G} 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's difficult for a non-technical person to apply usage. --Hm2k (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of usage

I see no reason why we can't find sources of usage to be used as examples to assist non-technical users understand what SOCKS are for and how they are used. How are SOCKS used?

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

You can help too. --Hm2k (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that there is no available relevant news articles for SOCKS4 or SOCKS4A before 2000, however SOCKS5 appears in news articles as early as 1996. I believe this is because the SOCKS4 protocol was never approved by the IETF, where as SOCKS5 was. It seems the only reason why SOCKS4 and SOCKS4A are mentioned is due to them being extended into SOCKS5. I think the focus should be on SOCKS5. --Hm2k (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

I suggest the article be renamed as it seems to be becoming a spam target due to it's ambiguous title of "SOCKS" which is clearly being confused with Socks. I will boldly move it to SOCKS (Protocol) which should solve this. SOCKS will redirect here, but may be changed to Socks if that is deemed appropriate. --Hm2k (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what hatnotes are for. Regardless, "Protocol" should not have been capitalised. I've moved the page back as there is already a hatnote. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." as per WP:AT. "SOCKS" is NOT unambiguous. We're now in the process of WP:BRD. I propose a move to SOCKS_(protocol) as per your suggestion. --Hm2k (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ambiguous enough. The purpose of disambiguation is to ensure that people do not end up on the wrong page: it is not to attempt to find every article a canonical "correct" name. The term "SOCKS" in uppercase is distinct from the term "socks", which does not redirect here. Every incoming link to SOCKS refers to this subject. Disambiguating further is either pointless (if you would have SOCKS redirect to SOCKS (protocol)) or actively harmful (if you would have it redirect elsewhere, which would break ~50 incoming links. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving SOCKS to SOCKS (protocol) would not be harmful as those 50 links would be updated over time (usually by a bot) to the correct article title, while SOCKS should probably (eventually) be redirected to the Socks disambiguation article instead. The point or purpose as I have already explained is to make it clearer for users, especially those who are non-technical. With that in mind, I see no good reason not to move the article. --Hm2k (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't demonstrated why any confusion is not clarified by the article's hatnote. We do not disambiguate article titles unless it is actually necessary, which it is not. If you want to move the page again then I would suggest taking it to WP:RM for wider input. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history of the article you'll see that it has become a target of abuse due to it's ambiguous title. My proposal is to help prevent this and make the whole thing easier for non-technical users to understand. It's not necessary, but in the name of development, it's probably a good idea. --Hm2k (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, Page not moved Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOCKS → SOCKS (protocol) — To help prevent the article being a target of abuse and for disambiguation to avoid confusion with Socks. Hm2k (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to SOCKS (protocol) for clarity and for disambiguation. Whatever the theoretical issues around ambiguity of the capitalised form, it's clear that in practice it is confusing people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a hatnote. The most common use for the term "SOCKS", in capital letters, is to refer to the protocol. I've seen no actual evidence that this is confusing people other than some anonymous vandalism, and page moves are not the correct way to defeat that. Furthermore, the question remains of what SOCKS would point to after the page move. If it were to point to SOCKS (protocol), then all the vandals would follow anyway making that pointless. If it were to point to a disambiguation page, we'd be doing a disservice to other editors by making it more difficult to link the correct page, not to mention the need to dab the ~50 existing inbound links. Chris Cunningham (not at work) * talk 09:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agree -Yyy (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google is unable to decipher SOCKS from Socks, this rename would fix that making it clear for non-technical users and thus helping to prevent being an abuse target. Keeping it as SOCKS only prevents progress. --Hm2k (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true that SOCKS has many incoming links meaning the protocol, perhaps leave it alone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, all (173) of these links will be automatically updated by bots to the new title when the article is moved. While 44 external backlinks is no reason for this to stop progress. They will redirect and update in time anyway. --Hm2k (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of further abuse just today[1]. Can we fix this already? --Hm2k (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have semiprotected page SOCKS. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't resolve the issue. The reason why it is a target is because users searching for Socks end up at this article. Disambiguation in the title would help non-technical users understand that it is a technical article, which should encourage them not to attack it. --Hm2k (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for disambiguation as Wikipedia understands it. Nor is the existence of disambiguation bots an excuse for moving articles to arbitrary titles on ill-founded grounds. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Port naming issue

Port 1080 is not a well-known port, it is a Registered port - please change... ^[1] - Ze0h4x

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_port

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_port

[1]