Re: Tor and Firefox 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17/03/08 21:38, sigi wrote: | Hi, | | On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 07:16:22PM +0100, anonym wrote: |> On 13/03/08 00:07, defcon wrote: |> | Hey all, I have been using Firefox 3 from the early beta's and I |> | absolutely love torbutton dev version *but* it does not work correctly |> | with Firefox 3 in linux, what is a good alternative for the torrbutton |> | firefox addon? |> |> One alternative is a combination of the following addons: |> |> * FoxyProxy: [...] |> * NoScript: [...] |> * CS Lite: [...] |> * RefControl: [...] | | Does this mean, that I can securely remove all addons from above, if I | use torbutton? Only if you use the development version of Torbutton (i.e. versions 1.1.x). The current stable version (1.0.4) does not provide with any functionality for securing javascript, cookies etc. so with the old version you _should_ use NoScript, CS Lite and RefControl. | Until now, I used them all at the same time... was that a stupid | decision, and they all could have conflicted with torbutton in any way? If you have used the development version of Torubtton there can indeed have been conflicts and stuff went wrong, possibly without you noticing. As per the FAQ at https://torbutton.torproject.org/dev/ it is not recommended to use Torbutton in conjunction with NoScript. RefControl should be cool, but I don't know about CS Lite. FoxyProxy and Torbutton doesn't make much sense combining IMHO. And as per the warning in the FAQ, one has to be very careful when using FoxyProxy with Tor. Personally I only use it for protection against mass surveillance systems, google etc. for casual browsing. If I ever do something important where I want more security, I disable the FoxyProxy filters and switch to all Tor, no scripts and no cookies and so on. | regards, | sigi. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4GyYp8EswdDmSVgRAslUAKC87JpcGkD19Jcn+ikXMYbcj110IQCgu81S uYXBCCFDwu7V98wSH6Im3l8= =PxTK -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Recommended versions of Tor
On 3/18/08, Roger Dingledine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yep. Give us a bit more time for it to be there. :) Oh, ok then! :)
Re: Recommended versions of Tor
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:22:03PM +, john smith wrote: > I have received the following in my Tor log: > > [Warning] Please upgrade! This version of Tor (0.2.0.21-rc) is not > recommended, according to the directory authorities. Recommended > versions are: 0.1.2.19,0.2.0.18-alpha,0.2.0.19-alpha,0.2.0.22-rc > > When I check on the Tor download page, the only unstable version > available is 0.2.0.21-rc-0.1.0 & the recommended version 0.2.0.22-rc > does not seem to be available to download. Yep. Give us a bit more time for it to be there. :) --Roger
Recommended versions of Tor
Greetings! I have received the following in my Tor log: [Warning] Please upgrade! This version of Tor (0.2.0.21-rc) is not recommended, according to the directory authorities. Recommended versions are: 0.1.2.19,0.2.0.18-alpha,0.2.0.19-alpha,0.2.0.22-rc When I check on the Tor download page, the only unstable version available is 0.2.0.21-rc-0.1.0 & the recommended version 0.2.0.22-rc does not seem to be available to download. Regards, john smith
Re: Prebuilding circuits?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Kees Vonk wrote: > F. Fox wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> Kees Vonk wrote: >>> I have found that while using Tor the first connection to a site always >>> times out. As I understand it, this is because Tor is still building a >>> circuit to the site in question. >> (snip) >> >> First, a bit about Tor's circuitry: >> >> Tor doesn't build circuits to sites - it builds circuits from a user to >> an exit node. That exit node then makes "normal" (i.e., unencrypted) >> connections to sites on the user's behalf (along with many other users). >> >> (The exception to this are hidden services, which connect two circuits >> together at a rendezvous point.) >> >> I'm assuming that the site you mention is a "normal," unencrypted Web >> site - i.e., port 80; let's call that site, Site X. >> > > It is an encrypted site on a none standard port, would that make a > difference? > The non-standard port does, since it may not be part of the default exit policy. That would greatly reduce the number of potential exits - and your Tor client would likely have to start a circuit just for that site. >> For a fixed amount of time - by default, 10 minutes - Tor will re-use >> circuits. So, if you go to Site X, and then go to another site - let's >> call it Site Y - before that time is up, then Site X and Site Y will use >> the same circuit, come out the same exit, and have the same "virtual >> identity" (the IP you take on from the point of view of the sites). >> >> >> >> Next, a plausible explanation of what's going on: >> >> Depending on the nodes that Tor chooses to build a circuit through - >> usually chosen randomly - it may take a bit to build them. Overloaded or >> slow nodes might be part of the cause of this. >> >> If it's really a problem - or if you want to get some extra speed - you >> might add this to your torrc: >> >> CircuitBuildTimeout 5 >> >> That tends to favor fast nodes that aren't overloaded, at the tradeoff >> of some of the added anonymity that an unlimited "Tor cloud" would >> provide. > > That seems to improve things a little, but how bad would this trade off > be (I mean what percentage of Tor servers would be ignored because of > this). Honestly, I don't know. I suspect it would vary depending on overall network load. I also apologize for this reply taking so long. - -- F. Fox AAS, CompTIA A+/Network+/Security+ Owner of Tor node "kitsune" http://fenrisfox.livejournal.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBR+AElOj8TXmm2ggwAQhr0w//Wn5w5vIDLVSvkIGSxb3mCC84vkNduUeP 67exYybAwMXlib/EEcMUQRSru+uDZwfPvOUqdIZ58rZVSlotphqtg0dwD108uMgB HRkLcVf5qn2u9Je14LhGPx5Tcnj9X142BeweQPIrt6vZgUcwFhz8N/RmEc8nO2oW SqFCWGncL0sUuuZMhB70145IipOASUT+Sc3Q5F6sgzKgCxlandM/wDEUXruhlfd0 yXSqPK2Fm09UpjvDrKnFy8XuRxEdAuf7sf5Q2HSIeE4RbUOrKbnv0SpbCbqwPhL6 u0BWiQFG98PlCcru6XIfxOK/MCPRanipyCLkYBdSwUyeA3KGXraRyJZkFUNuOvh2 1JUDDmVxfiklHempK9MwyxnxnQdDVX1mU0jWPZNWY7UzYK4nNSK6K24p3wEsawJx gwCw0i5oK5DWQpJeKHR3p2pVSsp9spfZF9Jn7R23joPODKuUCV4jtJcOep2U+BlS 2LmeCMu3cDKxzv6ydk3bNFz31lbUsB/Ooei2z5DQaonA2dTIEpUakeRcJQXnZvjN IIy5Ec/uqIDZrhfEsqL7vGtP3bKdbTw2y2/3wY5BbDlJprY2OPMwEGJVL3NQOrci vu+OSJCC1sq+3ABeSfvg86txamthcFgeAe82B0KiH3Z2lndyzAFjKgS+6p3Ihp8e brwLPdezoes= =O6it -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Torbutton 1.1.17-alpha released
Il 18/03/2008 11:31, bao song ha scritto: I downloaded the Tor all-in-one Tor/Privoxy/Torbutton package from torproject.org, but when I checked, I had torbutton 1.04.01 From http://torbutton.torproject.org/ The stable version is: 1.0.4 (01 Jun 2006) From http://torbutton.torproject.org/dev/ The unstable development version is: 1.1.17 (15 Mar 2008) Jan
Changing configuration depending on local IP?
Hi, My laptop is running tor, and its connectivity to the global Interned depends on where I connecti it to. I'd like to change the tor configuration depending on my IP address. More precisely, I'd like to usually run as a client in the default confi- guration, as a client behind a paranoid firewall if I'm in 192.168.4.0/24, and as a server if I'm on a certain (globally routable) prefix. Yes, I know I could manage with a bunch of sed scripts in if-up.d, but it would be much more convenient if I could just tell tor about the various IP prefixes and be done with that. Juliusz
Re: Torbutton 1.1.17-alpha released
I downloaded the Tor all-in-one Tor/Privoxy/Torbutton package from torproject.org, but when I checked, I had torbutton 1.04.01 a) Which torbutton is distributed with the Tor package? b) If it's a version later than 1.04.01, what am I doing wrong that I still have 1.04.01? Thanks. Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Re: Tor server behind NAT on Vista,, Update,,
I have Tor 12.1.9 running on windows Vista as a server for a few hours only relaying Tor server (I hope) information. System unexpectedly crashed once, I don't know why. System stats indicate pretty normal usage,, Log below. *** Mar 18 01:14:28.812 [Notice] Tor v0.1.2.19. This is experimental software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity. Mar 18 01:14:28.812 [Notice] Initialized libevent version 1.3e using method win32. Good. Mar 18 01:14:28.812 [Notice] Opening OR listener on 0.0.0.0:443 Mar 18 01:14:28.812 [Notice] Opening Directory listener on 0.0.0.0:9030 Mar 18 01:14:28.812 [Notice] Opening Socks listener on 127.0.0.1:9050 Mar 18 01:14:28.812 [Notice] Opening Control listener on 127.0.0.1:9051 Mar 18 01:14:29.250 [Notice] Your Tor server's identity key fingerprint is 'Expermental1 275E A41D 518D FEAF 4C3A 7102 0640 2FA1 F5F9 54A7' Mar 18 01:14:34.625 [Notice] Tor has successfully opened a circuit. Looks like client functionality is working. Mar 18 01:15:03.109 [Notice] Self-testing indicates your DirPort is reachable from the outside. Excellent. Mar 18 01:15:08.314 [Notice] Performing bandwidth self-test...done. *** One thing I noticed, right now Tor Bandwidth Usage GUI tells me recv:24.56 MB and Sent: 69.23 MB I am allowing my server to act as Directory Mirror, but, troubling discrepancy between Recv and Sent. Anyone have a clue about that? If it was just passing info between servers it should be near same, right? Also, on my machine behind NAT and SPI hardware firewall I am also running Zone Alarm. ZA's logs show a high rate of blocked intrusion attempts, I am currently tracking down some using Whois,, I guess that is just part of the game running a server,,,Comments welcome,, :) Algenon algenon flower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Tor developers and experienced users As an experiment, I a attempting to run a Tor server on windows Vista home premium (I have to wait for another machine to run RedHat Linux Fedora) behind a NAT firewall. Although I am new to the D-Link hardware firewall I believe I did open ports 443, 9030, 9001 to both incoming and outgoing traffic and so enable my machine running Vista to work as a Tor server. At this point I am restricting all traffic to other Tor servers until I solve some troublesome issues. Tor log says Dir port reachable, but can't reach OrPort,, Bandwidth graph shows a few bursts of activity, then none. (?) Humm, will go back to the firewall permissions and look for error, if anyone sees obvious err, please say :),, Will post results of Tor server on Vista OS,, Algenon - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
