unJim

Ah, I must have set that myself then, I was using a lot of trial and error to work out what was going on. # accept input from local lan to docker network (any port) iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 172.17.0.0/16 -j ACCEPT # accept output from docker network to local lan (any port) iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -p tcp -s 172.17.0.0/16 -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT works perfectly here, thanks. And thanks for the docker, it makes the whole setup much easier than any other solution I've tried.

ok so to be clear on the issue/feature request:- you want to be able to set cp to use privoxy to force cp to use the vpn when accessing index sites you want cp to also be able to notify kodi/plex when a download completes, which of course would be a dest of your local lan problem is cp cannot connect to local lan resources AND be configured to use privoxy is this the problem?, or at least one of the scenario's you are trying to fix?. Correct, I think I've fixed the problem by; commenting out this line out in privoxy config file; # permit-access 192.168.1.0/24 and adding the following iptables rules; iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -s 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT The IP addresses are the same as those specified in the LAN_NETWORK variable of the container so maybe this could be added to the docker so it persists? All now seems to work as expected.

Thanks for that, thats a useful command ! I too can ping LAN IP addresses, I have noticed something odd though; This if from within unraid: root@unRAID:~# tracepath 192.168.1.1 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: 192.168.1.1 0.546ms reached 1: 192.168.1.1 0.317ms reached Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 1 back 1 and this is from within the docker; [root@823a00624032 /]# tracepath 192.168.1.1 1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500 1: send failed 1: send failed Resume: pmtu 1500 now I'm inside I'll play about with it a bit and see if I can figure it out.

I was testing with Firefox connected to privoxy (CP wasn't involved), the fact that Firefox can't connect to any LAN address through privoxy leads me to believe that the routing inside the docker doesn't allow it to. I'm not very experienced with docker, trying to ping a LAN IP from within the docker would confirm it (I'd expect it to come back unreachable) but I'm not sure how to go about doing that. Thanks for your help in trying to get to the bottom of it.

Thanks, but that's the thing, I know that will work but it works by bypassing privoxy altogether for the local subnet. The reason I didn't do that is because I wanted to check if privoxy could connect to the LAN and it couldn't which is why it can't connect to sab. I was just trying to diagnose the problem.

I was wrong about that, I've done some testing but can't work it out, might be a problem with the routing table, although I've added a route in the openvpn config and it didn't help. Privoxy can't connect to the LAN no matter what I try (although it can connect to the deluge web ui in the same docker). I'm going to just install openvpn on my router and pipe everything through that unless anybody has any other ideas? There's nothing wrong with the way the container is out the box, I can access my LAN just fine. My LAN network is setup as 192.168.0.0/24 The only problem I've found is Couch won't connect to Plex or Kodi if it's configured to use the privoxy feature, it still works with deluge, nzbget and emby. Sonarr will use the privoxy just fine as long as it's set to bypass proxy for local addresses which leads me to conclude the issue is with Couch not Privoxy. Maybe its just my setup then, one of the things I tested to try and get to the bottom of it was set Firefox to use privoxy, I could get out to the Internet at large, access privoxys configuration pages and connect to the deluge webui but anything on the LAN couldn't be reached. Couldn't even connect to unraids web interface.

I was wrong about that, I've done some testing but can't work it out, might be a problem with the routing table, although I've added a route in the openvpn config and it didn't help. Privoxy can't connect to the LAN no matter what I try (although it can connect to the deluge web ui in the same docker). I'm going to just install openvpn on my router and pipe everything through that unless anybody has any other ideas?

That's exactly what it's for, in my testing I was able to connect from couchpotato running on another host on my LAN to delugevpn with success, can't see why you couldn't do the same for sab Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk I think the problem is that the sab api uses http so it's forced through privoxy when the proxy is set in couchpotato which then tries to connect to sab through the VPN which will obviously fail, couchpotato currently connects fine to deluge even with the proxy enabled in its settings, I'm assuming because the deluge daemon uses a different protocol.

Trying not to open sab up to the Internet, was hoping the LAN_NETWORK setting in the deluge docker would bypass the VPN for addresses in the specified range and allow a route to sab but no luck, guess I'm going to have to dig around in the privoxy configuration files.

I've been playing about with it a bit more and think it is managing to connect to the net through privoxy but the problem seems to be with connecting to sab when http requests are going through the proxy. I'm not bothered about notifications, did you happen to get any further than I have? ie. manage to get couch to send the nzb to sab with privoxy enabled?

I have this docker working great on its own with PIA and have been attempting to connect the linuxserver.io couchpotato docker to the instance of privoxy included but aren't having much luck, other machines on the network can connect to privoxy so I'm not sure what's going on, could it be that the linuxserver.io docker is in a different subnet? The logs don't show anything but when I add the proxy server settings to couchpotato it loses Internet access. Using the binhex vpn couchpotato docker isn't really an option as I think PIA has a 5 device limit.

Thanks squid, I'm glad you decided to add this, I have been hiding them from the start as mentioned earlier in the thread, is this addition going to affect anything for me as my bait files are already "dot" files? Should I delete my custom bait file directory?

I've just had a similar problem, turns out it was a permissions issue, checking / changing the permissions on the files through the command line might allow it to do its thing, I ended up running the "new permissions" tool and then unbalance would move the files.

They're pretty easy to see over the network from Windows, just need to have Explorer set to show hidden files and they'll all be visible, I haven't messed around with Windows programming for a good 10 years but I was thinking if you used the windows APIs to get the contents of a directory it would include hidden files so ransomware would likely attempt to encrypt them too, I might set up a Windows VM and test.

Nice plugin, do we know if ransomware purposfully avoids hidden files? I like to keep things looking clean so copied the bait files to flash and renamed them to .squidbait... and hid the dot files in samba settings. The plugin didn't behave how i'd have expected in this situation, it looks like it constantly gets triggered and gave me a stream of notifications until I disabled it.