17
An actually functional webproxy to self-host (lemmy.ml)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've been looking for a webproxy that would work with big websites like YouTube. So far I've found only very outdated and abandoned ones. Is there any up-to-date and actually functional webproxy I could host?

Edit: The reason I need this is that there are some locked up Windows computers I can't install any traditional VPNs on and that are used by non-tech-savvy people.

I can't pin the comment with the solution so here's the link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 3 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Close to invidious but not specific to any particular site. A page that allows to open other pages through it, like a browser inside a web page except it's only for opening a website and has no other browser functionality. Here's a proprietary example: croxyproxy.com

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

    Yeah what you want is a SOCKS5 proxy then just launch another browser with the proxy config.

    You can run a browser inside a docker or VM, and then use webvnc or something. I just don't see the point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Thanks! SOCKS5 proxy is a good option, I don't know why I didn't think of it from the very beginning...

    My goal is to bypass local censorship on university computers that don't allow running any executables except those provided by the administrator. And I'm trying to help professors who aren't particularly tech-savvy, so a webproxy is actually still a better option.

    A browser inside a docker is a very viable solution, however my VPS is super small, so I don't have resources for that unfortunately.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    These kinds of setups are used to bypass agressive network filtering and content censhorship. All the traffic is http(s). And then the way only a browser is needed means it works on locked down devices like chromebooks.

    The browser in docker is something I have used, but it requires more resources to host and can only be used by one person at once if you are using something like linuxserver's webtop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Then SOCKS is what you want. It can be used on a Chromebook as well.

    These proxying websites are running full browser instances in the background. It's the only way to guarantee all the traffic is routed through it.

    I just had a look at croxy you're right, it doesn't run a full browser.... and there's a TON of data that doesn't get proxied.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    No, Socks5 does not work for this usecase. You don't get permissions to run it locally via crostini (or use crostini in general) and the relevant proxy settings are locked in the chromebook settings. In addition to this, it is too easy to fingerprint, and some of the more aggressive setups will catch it and block it. For example, my high school would autodetect wireguard and then kick you off of the network for 10 minutes if you attempted to connect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent