shadowsocks-rust cannot communicate with python or libev versions #887
Comments
dnomd343
added a commit
to dnomd343/ProxyC
that referenced
this issue
Jul 6, 2022
ghost
mentioned this issue
|
Does the problem still exist in the latest version? It was quite a long time since the issue was created. Some tests:
|
|
Stream ciphers also works correctly. Test case was |
|
@zonyitoo I tried the latest version Normal cipher suites, such as
|
|
So the only problem is the "table" cipher, right? The latest version of shadowsocks-libev couldn't start with "table" cipher. |
|
Just made 2 test cases, which expected data are from shadowsocks-libev's TABLE implementation: #[test]
fn test_table_box() {
let key: &[u8] = b"password";
let ebox: [u8; 256] = [
157, 219, 245, 15, 85, 7, 195, 211, 55, 126, 37, 117, 249, 229, 98, 205, 254, 61, 137, 77, 253, 135, 138, 185,
45, 100, 75, 97, 46, 22, 28, 84, 143, 160, 175, 136, 194, 2, 201, 173, 132, 155, 23, 174, 95, 54, 0, 239, 6,
153, 180, 34, 149, 26, 19, 101, 203, 247, 214, 111, 127, 119, 81, 177, 53, 142, 13, 216, 115, 241, 202, 73, 48,
86, 1, 11, 43, 125, 41, 121, 209, 193, 199, 51, 47, 32, 36, 90, 255, 156, 38, 108, 3, 99, 238, 179, 50, 237,
158, 186, 110, 217, 76, 223, 118, 196, 107, 83, 39, 63, 9, 129, 72, 5, 56, 234, 91, 250, 224, 228, 251, 146,
170, 151, 21, 10, 171, 114, 154, 172, 58, 78, 140, 197, 67, 35, 130, 92, 12, 31, 189, 166, 122, 29, 123, 113,
215, 94, 165, 89, 221, 240, 93, 178, 150, 218, 220, 232, 144, 188, 65, 88, 52, 59, 139, 242, 71, 62, 182, 57,
225, 147, 30, 17, 68, 243, 80, 44, 141, 4, 200, 42, 16, 102, 134, 246, 70, 244, 145, 124, 213, 8, 187, 66, 183,
191, 40, 103, 162, 74, 87, 148, 230, 25, 120, 60, 233, 18, 176, 227, 184, 112, 20, 131, 109, 152, 14, 163, 49,
24, 222, 181, 164, 133, 207, 104, 210, 236, 27, 106, 96, 64, 33, 116, 79, 206, 69, 212, 82, 169, 105, 235, 190,
128, 226, 208, 168, 192, 167, 159, 161, 231, 204, 198, 248, 252,
];
let dbox: [u8; 256] = [
46, 74, 37, 92, 179, 113, 48, 5, 191, 110, 125, 75, 138, 66, 216, 3, 182, 173, 207, 54, 212, 124, 29, 42, 219,
203, 53, 228, 30, 143, 172, 139, 85, 232, 51, 135, 86, 10, 90, 108, 196, 78, 181, 76, 177, 24, 28, 84, 72, 218,
96, 83, 162, 64, 45, 8, 114, 169, 130, 163, 205, 17, 167, 109, 231, 160, 193, 134, 174, 236, 186, 166, 112, 71,
199, 26, 102, 19, 131, 234, 176, 62, 238, 107, 31, 4, 73, 200, 161, 149, 87, 116, 137, 152, 147, 44, 230, 27,
14, 93, 25, 55, 183, 197, 225, 240, 229, 106, 91, 214, 100, 59, 211, 145, 127, 68, 233, 11, 104, 61, 204, 79,
142, 144, 189, 77, 9, 60, 243, 111, 136, 213, 40, 223, 184, 21, 35, 18, 22, 164, 132, 178, 65, 32, 158, 188,
121, 171, 201, 52, 154, 123, 215, 49, 128, 41, 89, 0, 98, 249, 33, 250, 198, 217, 222, 148, 141, 248, 246, 239,
122, 126, 129, 39, 43, 34, 208, 63, 153, 95, 50, 221, 168, 194, 210, 23, 99, 192, 159, 140, 242, 195, 247, 81,
36, 6, 105, 133, 253, 82, 180, 38, 70, 56, 252, 15, 235, 224, 245, 80, 226, 7, 237, 190, 58, 146, 67, 101, 155,
1, 156, 150, 220, 103, 118, 170, 244, 209, 119, 13, 202, 251, 157, 206, 115, 241, 227, 97, 94, 47, 151, 69,
165, 175, 187, 2, 185, 57, 254, 12, 117, 120, 255, 20, 16, 88,
];
let cipher = Table::new(key, b"");
assert_eq!(cipher.ebox, ebox);
assert_eq!(cipher.dbox, dbox);
}
#[test]
fn test_table_encrypt() {
let key: &[u8] = b"password";
let plain_text: &[u8] = b"hello world";
let cipher_text: &[u8] = &[118, 217, 39, 39, 129, 143, 228, 129, 56, 39, 110];
let mut cipher = Table::new(key, b"");
let mut text_buffer = plain_text.to_vec();
cipher.encrypt_slice(&mut text_buffer);
assert_eq!(cipher_text, text_buffer);
}And tests are running very well. So, why? |
|
Well I see. This is because in the original shadowsocks-libev implementation, the |
zonyitoo
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2024
- fix #887 - Reference Implemetation: shadowsocks-libev, shadowsocks (Python) https://github.com/shadowsocks/shadowsocks-libev/blob/5ff4f27b74be9f390e639b960a6ec8baafc1e850/src/encrypt.c#L1395-L1399
|
This commit should fix this issue. Please help testing it in your environment. |
Yes, so I used shadowsocks-python for testing. I also tested the
|
|
Is that Ok in your environment? @dnomd343 |
|
I tried ss-rust and ss-python as the server and client respectively, using the table cipher suite for communication, and the compiled products on the latest master branch worked well. Thank you very much, this problem has been solved. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
When using
tableencrypt method, a handshake with shadowsock (python) or shadowsocks-libev will fail, whether shadowsocks-rust is a server or a client, but the python version communicates with libev version normally. This problem is observable under both x86_64 and aarch64, and shadowsocks-rust enablesstream-cipherfeature, compiled using cargo1.62.0. Below are the results of my test.As the table shows, the rust version can only communicate with itself, and other versions can shake hands normally, but none of them can connect with the rust version. But other encryption methods do not exist this problem, such as
rc4-md5,aes-128-ctr, etc., all versions including rust connections are available.shadowsocks-rust as server and shadowsocks as client
We start a shadowsocks-rust server locally, use shadowsocks as a client connection and expose the socks5 port, and then use
curlto test it.shadowsocks-rust as client and shadowsocks as server
We start a shadowsocks server locally, use shadowsocks-rust as a client connection and expose the socks5 port, and then use
curlto test it.shell> curl baidu.com --socks5 127.0.0.1:1080 curl: (52) Empty reply from serverThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: