> 29/10/12 19:54, a...@riseup.net wrote: > >>> IIRC, VirtualBox host software sets iptables/netfilter up in a way >>> that makes the guest system bypass the existing firewall / or be >>> blocked by it, so some care should be taken on this side. >> >> One idea is to use host-only networking in the virtualbox guest, and the >> apps in the guest can connect to appropriate socks-port(s) on the hosts >> host-only adapter > > Sure, a host-only adapter probably make this easier than the bridged > setup described in the link.
And more secure >> Bridge mode is the problem, it would be worth checking if the amnesia >> user >> can leverage the virtualbox bridge kernel module/driver to bypass tor. >> This would violate tails design because currently the amnesia user is >> not >> allowed direct internet access. > > This is interesting and certainly needs to be investigated further > (added to todo item). My initial testing shows that, indeed, bridged > adapters bypass the host's firewall. I suspect that the answer is Yes, by default the amnesia user can use the bridge adapter to bypass the host firewall, unless we do something to stop this >> Bridge mode and NAT support could simply be left out alltogether from >> tails, any drivers deleted/not-installed > > Allowing NAT is at least not a leaking-related problem since the NAT:ed > traffic appears "normally" in the host OS, so in Tails it will be caught > by the firewall. > >> If the kernel modules for bridge and NAT adapters is left out of tails, >> that would leave only the host-only networking adapter. > > vboxnetflt is used for bridged adapters, but host-only adapters requries > *both* vboxnetadp and vboxnetflt to be loaded. That is unfortunate, I'm sure we'll think of some way to fix the problem though _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev