[stunnel-users] Comparing with BarracudaDrive and Proxytunnel

[Michal Trojnara]

On 2006-06-11, at 21:39, http s wrote:
> I am curious if anyone has made a comparison of Stunnel with the  
> BarracudaDrive HTTPS tunnel and/or Proxytunnel?
>
> http://barracudaserver.com/examples/BarracudaDrive/HttpsTunnel/ 
> index.html

1. BarracudaDrive is *not* a free software (even though its home page  
claims so).  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for  
details.

2. It only works on Windows, Linux, QNX and Mac OS X.  Compare it to  
the list on http://stunnel.mirt.net/.

3. BarracudaDrive is designed to be used for file transfer, while  
stunnel is a universal tool for encrypting TCP streams.  As the result  
stunnel is much more flexible, but it won't perform any file transfer  
by itself.

> http://proxytunnel.sourceforge.net

1. It's not really an encryption tool, but rather an extension for  
OpenSSH client.  It has some optional basic SSL code (as for version  
1.6.0), but it's currently broken.  The code incorrectly assumes that  
SSL_read() only needs to read from a file descriptor and SSL_write()  
only needs to wrote to a file descriptor.

2. Proxytunnel supports NTLM authentication that is not currently  
supported by stunnel.

3. It looks like an interesting addition to stunnel on a Unix platform.  
  The client configuration should be something like:

[Proxytunnel]
client = yes
accept = 12345
exec = /path/to/proxytunnel
execargs = proxytunnel -p proxy:8080 -u user -s pass -d  
mybox.athome.nl:443

4. Optional use of stunnel is recommended in README file of Proxytunnel  
1.6.0.  8-)

Best regards,
     Mike