[oijaf888]

I don't understand what advantage this has over just doing: ssh -D8080 [e-mail]

Also does spiped natively act as a socks proxy? I was under the impression all it did was handle an encrypted stream of data from one socket to another.

[morgante]

> I don't understand what advantage this has over just doing: ssh -D8080 [e-mail]

I used to do precisely that, but I think spiped has two major advantages:

1. It is more resilient on a flaky connection.

2. I trust the security of its codebase more than SSH, both due to its smaller footprint and cperciva's reputation.

[dfc]

As for why not the simple `ssh -D` the author states:

  In my experience, the spiped tunnel is highly reliable and
  recovers more gracefully than a standard SSH tunnel.

[cobbal]

From the article:

> In my experience, the spiped tunnel is highly reliable and recovers more gracefully than a standard SSH tunnel.

I've never had an issue with ssh -D though

[cperciva]

does spiped natively act as a socks proxy

No, it manages an arbitrary number of streams of encrypted data, but all it does is push bits (and encrypt/decrypt, of course).