Hi,
So I had a thought. It seems like a lot of the relays run off of various port
numbers (of course). However if all of the relays and bridges are running off
of various port numbers (ie 9001, 1, etc.), couldn’t this stop censored
users (who’s isp or local firewall only allows certain por
Am 21.06.2018 21:48 schrieb Keifer Bly:
Hi,
So I had a thought. It seems like a lot of the relays run off of
various port numbers (of course). However if all of the relays and
bridges are running off of various port numbers (ie 9001, 1,
etc.), couldn’t this stop censored users (who’s isp or
This is the reasoning I go with for using 443/80.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:11 AM Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> Am 21.06.2018 21:48 schrieb Keifer Bly:
> > Hi,
> >
> > So I had a thought. It seems like a lot of the relays run off of
> > various port numbers (of course). However if all of the relays
-relays] Prepping bridges for censorship
This is the reasoning I go with for using 443/80.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:11 AM Martin Kepplinger wrote:
Am 21.06.2018 21:48 schrieb Keifer Bly:
> Hi,
>
> So I had a thought. It seems like a lot of the relays run off of
> various port number
all guard and bridge relays configured like this?
>
>
>
> Maybe this should be a requirement for running a guard or bridge relay for
> this reason.
>
>
>
> What does everyone think?
>
>
>
> *From: *Matthew Glennon
> *Sent: *Friday, June 22, 2018 5:18 AM
Hi,
(This thread has a lot of top-posting, so I cut the context.)
> On 23 Jun 2018, at 06:54, Matthew Glennon wrote:
>
> No - and I don't think a standard port should be chosen. Tor comes with
> defaults and that's probably good enough. Keep them if you want, or customize
> them to fit your s
Yes, that’s a good point. I just thought that on observing that, it might be
too easy for a censoring isp to block tor just by blocking the ports the relays
usually listen on, or identify tor easily by port number even when using
obfscated bridges. Good point though, thanks
Sent from my iPhone
