Mitm proxy is very reliable and is reviewed by human properly. Looking into source code, this project is hot mess written by claude and isn't reviewed properly....
I agree mitmproxy is very reliable as it has years of polish. Oproxy is still in very early phase and in active development and need much more human review. I would appreciate feedback on specific improvements, so that I can work on them.
Oproxy ships with an AI assistant that can be used to get insights on live session, tweaking rules in plain English, e.g. "map all requests from api.test.com to github.com".
Also its built in rust whereas mitmproxy has python runtime.
Clawchrome uses a mitm proxy like this for network capture of a browser. I had my agent test using network capture with playwright, then again with simple HAR style reconstruction of the mitm proxy capture. It was just as effective.
Check it out if you want to give your agent a real browser, no cdp. clawchrome.com
I can understand the motivation for CLI-based clients, but the browser built-in network inspector overlaps a lot.
There is more to Oproxy with traffic shaping but would it be enough to convince ? Spawning a Docker is easy today but it would be less friction with a normal app imho.
How does it compare to mitmproxy?
Mitm proxy is very reliable and is reviewed by human properly. Looking into source code, this project is hot mess written by claude and isn't reviewed properly....
I agree mitmproxy is very reliable as it has years of polish. Oproxy is still in very early phase and in active development and need much more human review. I would appreciate feedback on specific improvements, so that I can work on them.
Oproxy ships with an AI assistant that can be used to get insights on live session, tweaking rules in plain English, e.g. "map all requests from api.test.com to github.com". Also its built in rust whereas mitmproxy has python runtime.
If you try it out, I'd appreciate feedback on the assistant. It's still experimental but I am curious about its usability.
I don't see how you actually see the web interface for the traffic it is tossing, and that is not explained in your readme so far as I have found.
I have it running in docker with docker run --rm \ --name oproxy \ --ulimit nofile=65535:65535 \ -p 8080:8080 \ -p 1080:1080 \ -e OPROXY_BIND_HOST=0.0.0.0 \ -e OPROXY_MITM_ENABLED=true \ -v oproxy-certs:/app/certs \ -v oproxy-storage:/app/storage \ ghcr.io/sauravrao637/oproxy:latest
and I set the proxy to use it, and it appears to work, but I don't have a way to see what it is doing.
It's mentioned in README, You can access the UI on localhost:8080 itself.
I'm working on something similar - https://github.com/synlace/ferret
Clawchrome uses a mitm proxy like this for network capture of a browser. I had my agent test using network capture with playwright, then again with simple HAR style reconstruction of the mitm proxy capture. It was just as effective.
Check it out if you want to give your agent a real browser, no cdp. clawchrome.com
I can understand the motivation for CLI-based clients, but the browser built-in network inspector overlaps a lot.
There is more to Oproxy with traffic shaping but would it be enough to convince ? Spawning a Docker is easy today but it would be less friction with a normal app imho.
this one looks interesting, will try out later
[dead]
[flagged]
I think its pretty neat