Are these bad quality private proxies?

[onething1]

And are there providers that fare better or worse under this stress test.

When you go to whatismyproxy.com and see this:

The HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL header exists, and is non zero. This may indicate a caching proxy.
HTTP/1.0 protocol does not include the HOST header, but we have received one. This indicates a proxy server receiving a HTTP/1.1 header from you and passing it on, while claiming only HTTP/1.0 for itself.
You have no reverse DNS entry. This may have been intentionally left blank as a concealment tactic.

 

[mazgalici]

I don't think so, I have the same message and I don't use any proxy...

 

[NIXMY]

HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL header is not a proxy header. It's sent by all browsers according to HTTP 1.1 RFC2616. What comes to blank rDNS entries, a majority of russian ISP's for example are not using rDNS's for obvious reasons. Russian has still bad repuration and this way they try to fool .htaccess based 'Deny from .ru' rules Basicly that service is right, all proper ISP's actually uses an rDNS entry. However, it's still legit not to use hostnames, i mean it does not violate any protocol in any way.

 

[mazgalici]

HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL header is not a proxy header. It's sent by all browsers according to HTTP 1.1 RFC2616. What comes to blank rDNS entries, a majority of russian ISP's for example are not using rDNS's for obvious reasons. Russian has still bad repuration and this way they try to fool .htaccess based 'Deny from .ru' rules Basicly that service is right, all proper ISP's actually uses an rDNS entry. However, it's still legit not to use hostnames, i mean it does not violate any protocol in any way.

Impressive answer. Thanks.

 

[39ster]

HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL header is not a proxy header. It's sent by all browsers according to HTTP 1.1 RFC2616. What comes to blank rDNS entries, a majority of russian ISP's for example are not using rDNS's for obvious reasons. Russian has still bad repuration and this way they try to fool .htaccess based 'Deny from .ru' rules Basicly that service is right, all proper ISP's actually uses an rDNS entry. However, it's still legit not to use hostnames, i mean it does not violate any protocol in any way.

Sorry for bumping an old topic, but i think this is important for private proxy sellers. I've tried 3 browsers (IE, Firefox and Chrome) and none of them send the Cache-Control (or HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL). Only the proxies themselves add this header. Many private proxies (ones that are being sold on these forums) are adding this header even though the original GET request does not include (this is bad). A good, elite proxy will not modify the headers in any way, other than the first line to remove the http://sitename.com from the GET request. Here is an article that suggests some sites are using this header to determine if the request is being made via a proxy:
http://www.proxyblind.org/anonymous-proxy-server.shtml

 

[thetraveller]

@39ster, it seems you know about this matter, can you elaborate more about quality proxies? how is the best way I can tell if a proxy is non-detectable, if it is real good? I actually study about being undetectable by google/youtube when authorizing into accounts and having a little activity.

Thank you.

 

[NIXMY]

To produce HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL header. Visit http://myproxylists.com/my-http-headers without a proxy.

Then just press Ctrl+F5 to refresh the page. And the HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL will show up. Proxy server should not send this header. Looks like I've already explained that browsers will send this header.

So simply by pressing ctrl+f5, your browser implies to http server by sending the HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL header that I want a fresh copy of the page.

 

[39ster]

@39ster, it seems you know about this matter, can you elaborate more about quality proxies? how is the best way I can tell if a proxy is non-detectable, if it is real good? I actually study about being undetectable by google/youtube when authorizing into accounts and having a little activity.

Thank you.

Well, i've noticed with youtube comment spamming, that when I'm using my own IP (no proxy) or VPN, and the IP gets soft-blocked after too many comments, it becomes unblocked a lot sooner than proxies. I also noticed the shared proxies i bought from "proxiesforrent" (does not send the Chache-Control header) also become unblocked sooner than more expensive ones from other services that do add "Cache-Control" to the headers. I made a little script http://leechtv.com/test.php that will display all the headers received from the request. Visit that without a proxy, then try with a proxy. If you see "Cache-Control" with a proxy, but it wasn't there when you had no proxy set, then you know the proxy added it.

To produce HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL header. Visit http://myproxylists.com/my-http-headers without a proxy.

Then just press Ctrl+F5 to refresh the page. And the HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL will show up. Proxy server should not send this header. Looks like I've already explained that browsers will send this header.

So simply by pressing ctrl+f5, your browser implies to http server by sending the HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL header that I want a fresh copy of the page.

Hey, you are right. But the value is still different. I noticed that with squid proxy server, you can actually change the value of "Cache-Control" but cannot remove. Perhaps if i set it to 0 like the result showing here, youtube will behave differently...

EDIT: Ok, the value when the browser itself does not set it is always like 29500 or something

EDIT: TBH, i'm probably completely wrong. Would the proxy even add this header in a POST command? I've only tested it with the GET.

 

[thetraveller]

Excuse my slow mind but anyway I ask this:

So if I get these results below while I'm under a proxy, it is the ultimate test that the proxy is real good?

HTTP_CONNECTION == keep-alive
HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL == no-cache
HTTP_PRAGMA == no-cache

Thanks.

 

[thetraveller]

@39ster, now after your latest edits I'm reeealy confused, lol.

Anyway I'm into yt too like I said before, and testing and testing to figure out things.

You mentioned about soft-blocking, can you tell the approximate amount of activity an ip/account can run until it gets soft-blocked?

EDIT: and also the time needed to be de-blocked ?

 

[39ster]

Okay, for those who are still paranoid about "Cache-Control" and think that it might be affecting your POST's, you can add "Cache-Control: no-cache" to the POST request headers and it will send it out in the same way a browser does. if you're using cURL and don't do this, a proxy might add "Cache-Control: max-age=259200" to your POST requests, which in turn might be used to determine if it's fake.

EDIT: A proxy being used via a browser will probably automatically add "Cache-Control: no-cache" to your POST's. I'm talking about via cURL or any other HTTP library.

@39ster, now after your latest edits I'm reeealy confused, lol.

Anyway I'm into yt too like I said before, and testing and testing to figure out things.

You mentioned about soft-blocking, can you tell the approximate amount of activity an ip/account can run until it gets soft-blocked?

EDIT: and also the time needed to be de-blocked ?

I don't know. It probably depends on how many comments have been marked as spam/flagged.

 

[NIXMY]

Excuse my slow mind but anyway I ask this:

So if I get these results below while I'm under a proxy, it is the ultimate test that the proxy is real good?

HTTP_CONNECTION == keep-alive
HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL == no-cache
HTTP_PRAGMA == no-cache

Thanks.

By default, proxy server software should not send those headers unless the client press Ctrl+f5 because if it does, the proxy lose it's meaning in terms of caching. Depending on this proxy setting, it will refresh the copy of a page on it's own.

If you're using squid proxy, when you press Ctrl+f5, those are the headers your client will send to the proxy and then the proxy server should forward only HTTP_CACHE_CONTROL == no-cache header to the server if I remember correctly. As a developer of various proxy related softwares, I've done debugging regarding http headers.

Maybe it was this proxy server software author intentions get always fresh copy of visited pages?

If you did not saw anything in red, the proxy you're using is high anonymous (good proxy)