Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
hi, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote (17 Aug 2014 12:23:35 GMT) : > Here is what Bernhard says about authentication: > https://www.whonix.org/w/index.php?title=OnionCat&stable=0&shownotice=1&fromsection=Security#Security > A backport is necessary to take advantage of it. Uploaded. Will be in the NEW queue [1] shortly, and then will probably be processed within 0-2 weeks. [1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/backports-new.html > A backport of linphone is nice too, but not strictly necessary as > the first. Even if untested your linphone backport is very likely to > work so please include it too. No: we don't upload untested packages to Debian. Otherwise, the distro would be in much worse a shape, and in turn it could not possibly be the awesome base system it is for derivatives currently. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
ban...@openmailbox.org: > Here is what Bernhard says about authentication: > https://www.whonix.org/w/index.php?title=OnionCat&stable=0&shownotice=1&fromsection=Security#Security Alternative links: - https://www.whonix.org/wiki/OnionCat#Security - http://www.webcitation.org/6Rv71smMB ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
On 2014-08-16 14:00, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: On 2014-08-16 00:38, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: On 2014-08-15 15:22, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: On 2014-08-14 23:26, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: Hi. I found out why onioncat wasn't working and configured it accordingly with help from Bernhard. It was a peculiarity that had to do with our specific two machine design. Now VOIP works. Linphone is what we'll be using. Thought I'd tell you so you guys can add that too. Details: https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3360.html#msg3360 Unfortunately the Linphone version in Debian stable does not have zrtp support. But wouldn't Hidden Services and onioncat be providing the authentication layer? Note that Linphone does have a text messaging mode but its completely plaintext. Again it shouldn't matter if what I'm saying about Hidden Services is correct. More interesting information on the functionality of VOIP clients. you might like to factor them into your blueprint https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3396.html#msg3396 You are right. Please make a backport and I will work on instructions for authentication. Here is what Bernhard says about authentication: https://www.whonix.org/w/index.php?title=OnionCat&stable=0&shownotice=1&fromsection=Security#Security A backport is necessary to take advantage of it. A backport of linphone is nice too, but not strictly necessary as the first. Even if untested your linphone backport is very likely to work so please include it too. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
ban...@openmailbox.org wrote (16 Aug 2014 14:00:49 GMT) : > You are right. Please make a backport and I will work on instructions > for authentication. I'm a bit lost. Maybe you didn't reply in the sub-thread you wanted to. Do you want a backport of OnionCat, or a Linphone one? Both have improvements in the authentication area in Jessie. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
On 2014-08-16 00:38, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: On 2014-08-15 15:22, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: On 2014-08-14 23:26, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: Hi. I found out why onioncat wasn't working and configured it accordingly with help from Bernhard. It was a peculiarity that had to do with our specific two machine design. Now VOIP works. Linphone is what we'll be using. Thought I'd tell you so you guys can add that too. Details: https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3360.html#msg3360 Unfortunately the Linphone version in Debian stable does not have zrtp support. But wouldn't Hidden Services and onioncat be providing the authentication layer? Note that Linphone does have a text messaging mode but its completely plaintext. Again it shouldn't matter if what I'm saying about Hidden Services is correct. More interesting information on the functionality of VOIP clients. you might like to factor them into your blueprint https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3396.html#msg3396 You are right. Please make a backport and I will work on instructions for authentication. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Hi, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote (15 Aug 2014 15:22:30 GMT) : > Unfortunately the Linphone version in Debian stable does not have zrtp > support. Ah, right, I've now found https://bugs.debian.org/671815. Did anyone try to backport the Jessie package for Wheezy? > But wouldn't Hidden Services and onioncat be providing the > authentication layer? I think onioncat only provides authentication of the callee by the caller, not the opposite. Perhaps unidirectional mode (the default since r555, in Jessie, not available in Wheezy) fixes this. Want to check with the onioncat folks if this is correct? If unidirectional mode is needed, I can provide a backport of Jessie's onioncat for Wheezy. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
On 2014-08-15 15:22, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: On 2014-08-14 23:26, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: Hi. I found out why onioncat wasn't working and configured it accordingly with help from Bernhard. It was a peculiarity that had to do with our specific two machine design. Now VOIP works. Linphone is what we'll be using. Thought I'd tell you so you guys can add that too. Details: https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3360.html#msg3360 Unfortunately the Linphone version in Debian stable does not have zrtp support. But wouldn't Hidden Services and onioncat be providing the authentication layer? Note that Linphone does have a text messaging mode but its completely plaintext. Again it shouldn't matter if what I'm saying about Hidden Services is correct. More interesting information on the functionality of VOIP clients. you might like to factor them into your blueprint https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3396.html#msg3396 ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Hi, thank you for your interest! By the way this has now been documented in Whonix's wiki as user friendly as I could make it for now: https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Voip#linphone Just now tested by me. One machine had speaker off and microphone on, the other one vice versa. Could hear myself. There was a 1 or 2 s delay, but that shouldn't annoy one much. I yet have to test this setup with an actual calling partner. Maybe Jason will test it with me, but we yet have to find a time when we're both online due to different time zones. So if anyone does not mind revealing its voice to me and interested in testing, please get in contact. This linphone setup currently talks Tor hidden service to Tor hidden service. I am wondering how much delay and perhaps quality loss this will produce compared to alternative setups. I am still curious to see setups with just one hidden service as server and a client as well as setups using third party clearnet servers. The latter would have to include, that the server can long nothing useful, just notice, that two random pseudonyms have an encrypted voice chat. ban...@openmailbox.org: > On 2014-08-14 23:26, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: >> Hi. I found out why onioncat wasn't working and configured it >> accordingly with help from Bernhard. It was a peculiarity that had to >> do with our specific two machine design. >> >> Now VOIP works. Linphone is what we'll be using. Thought I'd tell you >> so you guys can add that too. >> >> Details: >> https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3360.html#msg3360 > > Unfortunately the Linphone version in Debian stable does not have zrtp > support. But wouldn't Hidden Services and onioncat be providing the > authentication layer? > > Note that Linphone does have a text messaging mode but its completely > plaintext. Again it shouldn't matter if what I'm saying about Hidden > Services is correct. Since we're using Voip over onioncat over Tor hidden services, all that ZRTP would give us would be a second layer of encryption and authentication, so I think this assertion is correct. But, if it comes available, why not use it. Cheers, Patrick ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
On 2014-08-14 23:26, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote: Hi. I found out why onioncat wasn't working and configured it accordingly with help from Bernhard. It was a peculiarity that had to do with our specific two machine design. Now VOIP works. Linphone is what we'll be using. Thought I'd tell you so you guys can add that too. Details: https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3360.html#msg3360 Unfortunately the Linphone version in Debian stable does not have zrtp support. But wouldn't Hidden Services and onioncat be providing the authentication layer? Note that Linphone does have a text messaging mode but its completely plaintext. Again it shouldn't matter if what I'm saying about Hidden Services is correct. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Hi, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote (14 Aug 2014 23:26:54 GMT) : > Now VOIP works. Linphone is what we'll be using. Thought I'd tell you so you > guys can > add that too. Wooohoo, congrats! Did you successfully test zRTP too? > Details: > https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3360.html#msg3360 Added this info to our blueprint, thanks :) Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Hi. I found out why onioncat wasn't working and configured it accordingly with help from Bernhard. It was a peculiarity that had to do with our specific two machine design. Now VOIP works. Linphone is what we'll be using. Thought I'd tell you so you guys can add that too. Details: https://www.whonix.org/forum/index.php/topic,407.msg3360.html#msg3360 ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
ban...@openmailbox.org wrote (10 Aug 2014 02:29:25 GMT) : > However onioncat keeps complaining about not finding a peer to forward to. > Any idea what this is about or what I need to do? I would set up a *really* simple test case to reproduce this (e.g. with a very simple server software listening behind OnionCat, instead of complicate VoIP thingies), and then if it manage to make it fail, I would ask the OnionCat community / mailing-list / developers for help. > As an aside, The Linphone version in Wheezy does not support ZRTP. > Suppose I get this working, will that be a problem? I'm not sure I get what this question is about exactly. If you're willing to rely purely on Tor hidden services for encryption and authentication, then it's not a problem. Otherwise, yes, it will probably be a problem. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
On 2014-08-09 18:10, intrigeri wrote: Hi, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote (09 Aug 2014 16:41:54 GMT) : I'm currently working on getting UDP based chat clients like Linphone working over Onioncat using Whonix. Great news! I'm very glad to see someone working on this, which I've been wanting to do for years, but clearly failed to. Woohoo :) Since you will be using UDP settings anyway, then IMHO concentrating on serverless options are probably the better way forward as it lessens the burden on users. Full ACK. I'm personally wary of encouraging users to put trust into yet another server, hence my interest in OnionCat: I've been maintaining it in Debian for years, in the hope it can be useful for such uses; glad to see someone trying it out! 1. Can you please tell me if there is any additional configuration that you did to your firewall to make Onioncat work? We've made it work 2-3 years ago in Tails, but I'm afraid I don't remember any of the details. Are you actually seeing reject logs from the firewall, that indicate it's the culprit? 2. From looking at this: https://www.cypherpunk.at/onioncat_trac/wiki/Security I got the impression that anyone running Onioncat can connect to anyone else that has it too. I don't know if the version currently available in Debian stable has the authentication features in r555. As one can see in the source package, Wheezy's 0.2.2+svn553-3 doesn't apply any patch on top of the upstream source. If needed, I can rebuild and upload Jessie's 0.2.2+svn559-1 to wheezy-backports. What firewall precautions are needed to cope with this situation if necessary? No idea. I would instead look into handling the authorization and authentication in the VoIP client instead. Cheers, My status report so far: The conflict is not caused by the firewall form the logs I checked. However onioncat keeps complaining about not finding a peer to forward to. Any idea what this is about or what I need to do? From what I understand using Onioncat is as simple as running it with ocat and then connecting to the IPv6 address of the other endpoint with the software in question. In this case its the local Linphone client calling the user@[IPv6] address. Correct? N.B. As an aside, The Linphone version in Wheezy does not support ZRTP. Suppose I get this working, will that be a problem? ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Hi, ban...@openmailbox.org wrote (09 Aug 2014 16:41:54 GMT) : > I'm currently working on getting UDP based chat clients like Linphone working > over > Onioncat using Whonix. Great news! I'm very glad to see someone working on this, which I've been wanting to do for years, but clearly failed to. Woohoo :) > Since you will be using UDP settings anyway, then IMHO concentrating on > serverless > options are probably the better way forward as it lessens the burden on users. Full ACK. I'm personally wary of encouraging users to put trust into yet another server, hence my interest in OnionCat: I've been maintaining it in Debian for years, in the hope it can be useful for such uses; glad to see someone trying it out! > 1. Can you please tell me if there is any additional configuration that you > did to > your firewall to make Onioncat work? We've made it work 2-3 years ago in Tails, but I'm afraid I don't remember any of the details. Are you actually seeing reject logs from the firewall, that indicate it's the culprit? > 2. From looking at this: > https://www.cypherpunk.at/onioncat_trac/wiki/Security I got > the impression that anyone running Onioncat can connect to anyone else that > has it > too. I don't know if the version currently available in Debian stable has the > authentication features in r555. As one can see in the source package, Wheezy's 0.2.2+svn553-3 doesn't apply any patch on top of the upstream source. If needed, I can rebuild and upload Jessie's 0.2.2+svn559-1 to wheezy-backports. > What firewall precautions are needed to cope with this situation if necessary? No idea. I would instead look into handling the authorization and authentication in the VoIP client instead. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
BitingBird wrote (09 Aug 2014 17:43:04 GMT) : > Tails blocks all ipv6 traffic, as mentionned in the design document > https://tails.boum.org/contribute/design/#index32h3 Well... you might want to have a look at the OnionCat package description. I don't feel like pasting it a second time over the course of a few days on this list. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
ban...@openmailbox.org: > I'm currently working on getting UDP based chat clients like Linphone > working over Onioncat using Whonix. > > At the moment I simulated a two part chat each running their hidden > service and instance of Onioncat but they are not seeing eachother when > configured to use IPv6 to do direct IP chat. Tails blocks all ipv6 traffic, as mentionned in the design document https://tails.boum.org/contribute/design/#index32h3 Cheers, BitingBird ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
I'm currently working on getting UDP based chat clients like Linphone working over Onioncat using Whonix. At the moment I simulated a two part chat each running their hidden service and instance of Onioncat but they are not seeing eachother when configured to use IPv6 to do direct IP chat. Since you will be using UDP settings anyway, then IMHO concentrating on serverless options are probably the better way forward as it lessens the burden on users. I tried Jitsi and its IPv6 support seems broken as it doesn't recognize such addresses for contacts. Its also more resource heavy than Linphone. 1. Can you please tell me if there is any additional configuration that you did to your firewall to make Onioncat work? 2. From looking at this: https://www.cypherpunk.at/onioncat_trac/wiki/Security I got the impression that anyone running Onioncat can connect to anyone else that has it too. I don't know if the version currently available in Debian stable has the authentication features in r555. What firewall precautions are needed to cope with this situation if necessary? ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/08/2014 01:25 PM, intrigeri wrote: >> I would assume, that documentation would say, that one of the two >> Tails user must bite the bullet and set up a Tor Hidden Service >> Murmur server. > > I'm curious: did anyone test this and confirmed that Mumble can > actually work this way? > It can and should work. That is how we use Mumble on I2P, via forced TCP mode; one person sets up a Mumble server on a standard server tunnel, and other users connect their Mumble clients to it via standard client tunnels. >> Maybe I am missing something here. Would OnionCat improve >> usability and ease the process? > > I'm not sure. The idea (IIRC, was long ago) was to use it to make > things work, using UDP if needed. > >> Or does Mumble have a mode for serverless peer-to-peer >> connections? > > Last time I checked, it didn't have any such thing. Confirmed, it currently requires a server. str4d -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT5ck4AAoJEIA97kkaNHPnGNIP/jpKM/zIKUigdp8SBq8zKYgI xq+j1WEV13h3qg2i9SKoO5HgTRSEurKfLpt+I3n2vJBz0EfnOD7EkFe8TnA5QQ01 z27YYcVOGLi0z8/lT2VDD9wNSo7gTk0gnsTABTIusiDxWNM5uxu2v5Pw2smAswIJ hXgwYHHEoXs1AA4O135nKvRfTlRvMP77JiJZcH62GzYc8ifqeopt9V3AynAdX/5x jZu3isH0dpCfbgUZAdRXII3J/ajMST65VePll4z1lu6A4V1PAtDA6/apmOIRDKRR b4K6qoskhDe2M1q5fyFPYnoGOiGGCGBMvIH49AH3rO/2Trc/0QnxzqlOJVK0/A79 +EM9570ZnZOfH43J5ZRE6zNzcIYvSTL2Vk6lEIarS44H5RYwzXY999DMa0wOboyg a6M2kDDSle2F6t9LW+DW3RINRbch0Q+BeQ6pl0wUoK4yHIgKhwxdNOJfCr35e4zB wHfMvbx5hTFQoz+KCR4d2wRNb/BJ7N5AoIAofGg4ZDsx6N5XGNaLfxSOjFuvCYc0 S1e5/KDCEyUQr9abmQJFZRG6Q5JT8oifEX5QEcg+sQhxaMQD+XKhROx2LnmCilQL g1+g+POXcoHooiYDTWhoOE4z6NGai2LwRB6x+zlDQXvmjm4pkk/fsjFjNtbabjnW 9MzPtKBUtO5rClzFUp7g =kuTq -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Hi, Patrick Schleizer wrote (06 Aug 2014 14:22:30 GMT) : > Well, with OnionCat you must involve Tor Hidden Services as well? Well, the Debian package description reads: Description: IP-Transparent Tor hidden service connector OnionCat creates a transparent IP layer on top of Tor hidden services. It transparently transmits any kind of IP-based data through the Tor network on a location hidden basis. You can think of it as a point-to-multipoint VPN between hidden services. . OnionCat is a stand-alone application which runs in userland and is a connector between Tor and the local OS. Any protocol based on IP, such as UDP or TCP, can be transmitted. . OnionCat supports IPv6; native IPv4 forwarding, though still available, is deprecated: the recommended solution for IPv4 forwarding is to build a IPv4-through-IPv6 tunnel through OnionCat. >> how do you initiate >> a peer-to-peer conversation between two Tails users using Mumble? >> >> In other words: which Mumble server do you use, and how much do you >> need to trust it? > I would assume, that documentation would say, that one of the two Tails > user must bite the bullet and set up a Tor Hidden Service Murmur server. I'm curious: did anyone test this and confirmed that Mumble can actually work this way? > Maybe I am missing something here. Would OnionCat improve usability and > ease the process? I'm not sure. The idea (IIRC, was long ago) was to use it to make things work, using UDP if needed. > Or does Mumble have a mode for serverless peer-to-peer connections? Last time I checked, it didn't have any such thing. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
intrigeri: > Patrick Schleizer wrote (05 Aug 2014 02:04:30 GMT) : >> Mumble has a TCP mode. Why involve QnionCat? > > Without involving Tor Hidden Services, Well, with OnionCat you must involve Tor Hidden Services as well? > how do you initiate > a peer-to-peer conversation between two Tails users using Mumble? > > In other words: which Mumble server do you use, and how much do you > need to trust it? I would assume, that documentation would say, that one of the two Tails user must bite the bullet and set up a Tor Hidden Service Murmur server. Maybe I am missing something here. Would OnionCat improve usability and ease the process? One must run Murmur so or so? Or does Mumble have a mode for serverless peer-to-peer connections? Cheers, Patrick ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Hi, Patrick Schleizer wrote (05 Aug 2014 02:04:30 GMT) : > Mumble has a TCP mode. Why involve QnionCat? Without involving Tor Hidden Services, how do you initiate a peer-to-peer conversation between two Tails users using Mumble? In other words: which Mumble server do you use, and how much do you need to trust it? Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Patrick Schleizer wrote: Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble? Mumble has a TCP mode. Why involve OnionCat? Mumble's UDP mode is more reliable over all and theoretically has better flow/congestion control. Any performance improvements gained by using UDP would probably be nullified by the fact that it's being used over Tor in the first place, but on the other hand the voice quality may be better using Mumble-UDP with OnionCat than using Mumble-TCP alone. We should test this. ~Griffin (and thus the only time that my gamer knowledge will be useful on tails-dev) ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
[Tails-dev] Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble?
Hi! Quote https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/VoIP_support/ : > Preliminary testing showed OnionCat + Mumble to be a working and relatively easy to setup Tor-enabled VoIP solution; the 1/2s - 1s delay is only slightly annoying. Why OnionCat + Mumble - why not just Mumble? Mumble has a TCP mode. Why involve QnionCat? Cheers, Patrick ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
