Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There's this website I'm using which allows access based on your IP address, and my university's servers have access. Problem is, when I browse from one of the servers directly, I'm allowed access, but if I use a SOCKS proxy (with an SSH tunnel) to browse from a PC of mine, I don't get recognized. I suspect the SOCKS proxy is somehow reporting the PC's IP (maybe using the X-FORWARDED-FOR or Via headers?). How can I get my proxying done more opaquely?

I'll mention that if I just SSH-tunnel the connection to the website's HTTP port, I can connect just fine, so it's not some other issue in my setup.

I was thinking maybe something like SSH-tunneling to remotely-stated SOCKS host might work - but maybe there's something simpler/better.


  1. I control the client machine, but only have a user account on the server. Assume I can't do anything which will attract too much attention from the sysadmins. It's a big system, though, with hundreds logged in at any given time.
  2. I'm interested in either Windows and Linux solutions, preferable both.
share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

If your browser is Firefox, then you can spoof your IP address via addons. This might (or might not) be enough to throw off the access control.

Here are two addons that generate false IP addresses and might be useful (but which I never had any reason to try) :


share|improve this answer
Sounds interesting, I'll give it a try. –  einpoklum May 3 '13 at 16:06
ipFlood = ipFuck apparently, and they both set random, changing, header values for HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR, HTTP_CLIENT_IP and HTTP_VIA. But it doesn't seem to let me fix those to a constant value of my choosing. Maybe it's in the prefs. –  einpoklum May 6 '13 at 11:47
Then use ipFlood. There is supposed to be in the prefs the possibility for a non-random IP. –  harrymc May 6 '13 at 12:00
When I download ipFlood, the download link says ipFuck. Could they have been united as projects? –  einpoklum May 7 '13 at 10:23
My guess is that it was renamed because Mozila add-ons did not accept the name of IPFuck. –  harrymc May 7 '13 at 13:25

Only HTTP proxy may have the header X-FORWARDED-FOR or VIA. All socks proxies are highly anonymous (Opaque). They won't report your real IP address to the website. Maybe the socks proxy server itself doesn't have the access to the website.

FYI, Socks Proxy VS HTTP Proxy: http://www.multiip.net/socks-proxy-http-proxy/

share|improve this answer
Perhaps it's not about the headers, and there's some other way the server determines my connection is proxied. However, the SOCKS server itself (which runs on my machine naturally) does have access to the website. Also, what you wrote is not an answer to my question... –  einpoklum May 6 '13 at 11:45
As a suggestion I wouldn't just post a link but rather summarize the things found therein. –  KronoS May 6 '13 at 15:00

Better setup a VPN. The socks5 protocol doesnt't tunnel your whole traffic correctly. If you want a secure & stable solution setup a vpn on your server and use one of these following vpn clients:

OpenVPn Vicsority

share|improve this answer
It's not my server... I'll clarify that in the question. –  einpoklum May 3 '13 at 7:10
Which Client do you use for the Socks Proxy? –  The All Seeing Eye May 3 '13 at 7:15
I tried PuTTY and BitVise Tunnelier. –  einpoklum May 3 '13 at 7:26
Try Proxifier. It supports Socks4/5 protocol –  The All Seeing Eye May 3 '13 at 7:35
And the two I mentioned? They're also SOCKS. Does it have some specific advantage? –  einpoklum May 3 '13 at 7:51

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.