Simple reverse proxy for old printer with old SSL

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
My printer is an old trusty workhorse. It does, however, not support newer TLS, and the manufacturer has long forgotten they ever made the model and thus there is no new firmware. In fact it is so old that modern browsers hold their noses in disgust and refuse to talk to it.
How can I set up a simple basic reverse proxy, which I can connect to with a modern browser and which connects to my printer using the ciphers below?
Performance does not matter. Unencrypted traffic is acceptable.
I am hoping for something like:
$ myproxycommand --backend https://printer.tange.dk
--accept-old-ciphers --bindport 8080
And the be able to use: localhost:8080 in the browser.
$ sslscan --no-failed --tls1 printer.tange.dk
_
___ ___| |___ ___ __ _ _ __
/ __/ __| / __|/ __/ _` | '_
__ __ __ (_| (_| | | | |
|___/___/_|___/_____,_|_| |_|
Version 1.8.2
http://www.titania.co.uk
Copyright Ian Ventura-Whiting 2009
Testing SSL server printer.tange.dk on port 443
Supported Server Cipher(s):
Accepted TLSv1 256 bits AES256-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits AES128-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits RC4-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits RC4-MD5
Accepted TLSv1 112 bits DES-CBC3-SHA
Prefered Server Cipher(s):
TLSv1 256 bits AES256-SHA
ssl reverse-proxy
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
My printer is an old trusty workhorse. It does, however, not support newer TLS, and the manufacturer has long forgotten they ever made the model and thus there is no new firmware. In fact it is so old that modern browsers hold their noses in disgust and refuse to talk to it.
How can I set up a simple basic reverse proxy, which I can connect to with a modern browser and which connects to my printer using the ciphers below?
Performance does not matter. Unencrypted traffic is acceptable.
I am hoping for something like:
$ myproxycommand --backend https://printer.tange.dk
--accept-old-ciphers --bindport 8080
And the be able to use: localhost:8080 in the browser.
$ sslscan --no-failed --tls1 printer.tange.dk
_
___ ___| |___ ___ __ _ _ __
/ __/ __| / __|/ __/ _` | '_
__ __ __ (_| (_| | | | |
|___/___/_|___/_____,_|_| |_|
Version 1.8.2
http://www.titania.co.uk
Copyright Ian Ventura-Whiting 2009
Testing SSL server printer.tange.dk on port 443
Supported Server Cipher(s):
Accepted TLSv1 256 bits AES256-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits AES128-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits RC4-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits RC4-MD5
Accepted TLSv1 112 bits DES-CBC3-SHA
Prefered Server Cipher(s):
TLSv1 256 bits AES256-SHA
ssl reverse-proxy
Since unencrypted traffic is acceptable, why not use HTTP?
â Gilles
Dec 16 '17 at 18:38
The printer redirects HTTP to HTTPS.
â Ole Tange
Dec 16 '17 at 18:53
You might be able to do something withsocatas it hasopenssl,method=TLSv1but it is outside my domain of knowledge.
â meuh
Dec 18 '17 at 18:40
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
My printer is an old trusty workhorse. It does, however, not support newer TLS, and the manufacturer has long forgotten they ever made the model and thus there is no new firmware. In fact it is so old that modern browsers hold their noses in disgust and refuse to talk to it.
How can I set up a simple basic reverse proxy, which I can connect to with a modern browser and which connects to my printer using the ciphers below?
Performance does not matter. Unencrypted traffic is acceptable.
I am hoping for something like:
$ myproxycommand --backend https://printer.tange.dk
--accept-old-ciphers --bindport 8080
And the be able to use: localhost:8080 in the browser.
$ sslscan --no-failed --tls1 printer.tange.dk
_
___ ___| |___ ___ __ _ _ __
/ __/ __| / __|/ __/ _` | '_
__ __ __ (_| (_| | | | |
|___/___/_|___/_____,_|_| |_|
Version 1.8.2
http://www.titania.co.uk
Copyright Ian Ventura-Whiting 2009
Testing SSL server printer.tange.dk on port 443
Supported Server Cipher(s):
Accepted TLSv1 256 bits AES256-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits AES128-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits RC4-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits RC4-MD5
Accepted TLSv1 112 bits DES-CBC3-SHA
Prefered Server Cipher(s):
TLSv1 256 bits AES256-SHA
ssl reverse-proxy
My printer is an old trusty workhorse. It does, however, not support newer TLS, and the manufacturer has long forgotten they ever made the model and thus there is no new firmware. In fact it is so old that modern browsers hold their noses in disgust and refuse to talk to it.
How can I set up a simple basic reverse proxy, which I can connect to with a modern browser and which connects to my printer using the ciphers below?
Performance does not matter. Unencrypted traffic is acceptable.
I am hoping for something like:
$ myproxycommand --backend https://printer.tange.dk
--accept-old-ciphers --bindport 8080
And the be able to use: localhost:8080 in the browser.
$ sslscan --no-failed --tls1 printer.tange.dk
_
___ ___| |___ ___ __ _ _ __
/ __/ __| / __|/ __/ _` | '_
__ __ __ (_| (_| | | | |
|___/___/_|___/_____,_|_| |_|
Version 1.8.2
http://www.titania.co.uk
Copyright Ian Ventura-Whiting 2009
Testing SSL server printer.tange.dk on port 443
Supported Server Cipher(s):
Accepted TLSv1 256 bits AES256-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits AES128-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits RC4-SHA
Accepted TLSv1 128 bits RC4-MD5
Accepted TLSv1 112 bits DES-CBC3-SHA
Prefered Server Cipher(s):
TLSv1 256 bits AES256-SHA
ssl reverse-proxy
asked Dec 16 '17 at 13:53
Ole Tange
11.4k1344101
11.4k1344101
Since unencrypted traffic is acceptable, why not use HTTP?
â Gilles
Dec 16 '17 at 18:38
The printer redirects HTTP to HTTPS.
â Ole Tange
Dec 16 '17 at 18:53
You might be able to do something withsocatas it hasopenssl,method=TLSv1but it is outside my domain of knowledge.
â meuh
Dec 18 '17 at 18:40
add a comment |Â
Since unencrypted traffic is acceptable, why not use HTTP?
â Gilles
Dec 16 '17 at 18:38
The printer redirects HTTP to HTTPS.
â Ole Tange
Dec 16 '17 at 18:53
You might be able to do something withsocatas it hasopenssl,method=TLSv1but it is outside my domain of knowledge.
â meuh
Dec 18 '17 at 18:40
Since unencrypted traffic is acceptable, why not use HTTP?
â Gilles
Dec 16 '17 at 18:38
Since unencrypted traffic is acceptable, why not use HTTP?
â Gilles
Dec 16 '17 at 18:38
The printer redirects HTTP to HTTPS.
â Ole Tange
Dec 16 '17 at 18:53
The printer redirects HTTP to HTTPS.
â Ole Tange
Dec 16 '17 at 18:53
You might be able to do something with
socat as it has openssl,method=TLSv1 but it is outside my domain of knowledge.â meuh
Dec 18 '17 at 18:40
You might be able to do something with
socat as it has openssl,method=TLSv1 but it is outside my domain of knowledge.â meuh
Dec 18 '17 at 18:40
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f411257%2fsimple-reverse-proxy-for-old-printer-with-old-ssl%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Since unencrypted traffic is acceptable, why not use HTTP?
â Gilles
Dec 16 '17 at 18:38
The printer redirects HTTP to HTTPS.
â Ole Tange
Dec 16 '17 at 18:53
You might be able to do something with
socatas it hasopenssl,method=TLSv1but it is outside my domain of knowledge.â meuh
Dec 18 '17 at 18:40