Hi, intrigeri <intrig...@boum.org> wrote: > Alan wrote (15 Feb 2015 00:42:34 GMT) : > > intrigeri <intrig...@boum.org> wrote: > >> I'd love to understand why this would be more useful than some > >> existing GNOME network monitor that we don't have to maintain, and so > >> far I fail to. You find it desirable, so there's probably a good > >> reason. > > > As an example, when using a poor connection, I like to see if there is > > Tor traffic going on or not. I must admit I never tried to use GNOME > > System Monitor for that and that it may very well work (or not). > > On Tails/Jessie, "Applications -> Utilities -> System Monitor -> > Ressources" seems to address the need you're expressing. We ship it > already. Please try it out before writing code that duplicates this > existing functionality :) > I'll try.
> >> And now, I'll add another candidate feature: > >> > >> - Can access the Tor control port via a tight filtering proxy > >> > >> I'm curious what kind of access the new thing needs. > > > Tor monitor uses stem, and I didn't search about hidden things stem > > might need. I use methods that directly call: > > > - GETINFO circuit-status > > - GETINFO stream-status > > - GETINFO ip-to-country > > I guess the only way to know is to actually run Tor Monitor behind our > filtering proxy, have the latter log refused commands, append to the > whitelist until everything works, and then report back what the > whitelist is. Are you interested in doing this? > Couldn't this be a 2nd step? I might be interested but I'd like to see this as a project mainly for fun. Currently I'm more into doing it good enough to replace vidalia. Does this makes sense to you? > >> And forcibly keeping this access read-only tightens things a bit against > >> X11-based attacks. > >> > > We need at least to query Tor for its open circuits and streams if we > > want to be able to start Tor Monitor after Tor. If we can ensure that > > Tor Monitor connects to Tor before Tor has open any circuit or stream, > > then it may be possible to have read only access if no command on the > > control port is needed to be notified of circuit or stream changes. > > Everything that you're describing here sounds like read-only access to > me, so I don't understand what you mean. Does "query[ing] Tor for its > open circuits and streams" need anything else but read-only access? > > Just to clarify: I count retrieving info about the Tor state (GETINFO) > as read-only access, even if technically this is wrong. Maybe that's > where the misunderstanding was. The security feature I'm asking for is > that Tor Monitor shouldn't be allowed to *configure* Tor, and it > should only be allowed to *retrieve* the info it really needs via > a GETINFO filter. > OK, then it has "read only" access in your sense of "read only". > >> And a few more questions: > >> > >> - Why does Tor Monitor need to use a Tor SOCKS port? Just curious :) > > > To get details on a path. As Tor currently uses microdescriptors which > > contains very few information, I use stem remote descriptor downloader, > > which connects directly to Tor directory. Looking more deeply at what I > > can get directly from Tor, I just found that I can get the IP and other > > information missing in microdescriptors from Tor network status, so I'd > > only miss platform and uptime - which are not visible in Vidalia > > anymore. > > I definitely wouldn't miss it if the platform and uptime info > disappeared, and we got tighter security as a result. Let's just do > that and get rid of the SOCKS port access requirement, then? > Done in git. > >> - Has there been any thought put already into how Tor Monitor would > >> integrate into #7437 ("Add a progress indicator while establishing > >> a connection to Tor"), or live aside of it? I was kinda hoping that > >> removing Vidalia would help consolidating the sources of > >> information we provide to the user about the network bootstrap > >> process: I bet the variety of such sources participate in confusing > >> users. So if Tor Monitor is meant to be an independent tool, > >> perhaps it's better if it does *not* start by default. Anyway, I'm > >> wandering a bit off-topic here, but you don't want me to wait > >> 6 months before I ask this question, right? > >> > > I was thinking about an application that an user would only launch from > > the Applications menu/overview. I also thought about a button in the > > "Tor is ready" notification. > > I like it this way. > Good. I'm up for doing that in Tails/Jessie as soon as we get a consensus on the rest. Cheers _______________________________________________ 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.