port 53 for dirport for firewalled users?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 I know that many intranet firewalls have bandwidth limiters on port 53, especially the more severe types of firewalls, but for accessing directory mirrors this isn't a big deal, I mean sure, it slows down the process initially but once a cache is built most of the time the speed will be of little issue. I think that probably then port port 80 or 443 could then be the ORPort, with the configuration modification suggested in the tor wiki, one could then provide a harsh firewall-accessible route to tor access while running a webserver. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFFJzNGkOzwaes7JsRAxOwAJ9/AWr/0iYAPX2YvDHfSVzFAuZz+QCfajN+ jTixLp3yKDsjn3D3gc6Y0oY= =7GeE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
oopsy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 ok, i see what i need to do here now, sorry to ask an faq question -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFFH4pGkOzwaes7JsRAxomAJsH8CHJz6ICR9fge82Iz/AXVuSdHwCeJXZo JyWQPP0CH7wZYxAFct6G4qY= =pW07 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
using low ports when running vidalia on gentoo or allowing vidalia to modify configs on init.d configured tor server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Hi, I'm running my tor server through vidalia so I can more easily monitor it's bandwidth utilisation and access that neat tor network browser/map thing, the problem I'm having is that I was unable to get vidalia to do configuration if I tried to make it connect to a server running via the standard /etc/init.d script so I've ended up running it under my normal login, which then makes it impossible for me to run it on low ports. I presume the simplest solution is getting the config and logging interfaces from vidalia talking to the tor user owned files, but I'm buggered if I can figure out how to do it. Any help would be appreciated. Glymr -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFFHzgGkOzwaes7JsRA2KYAKC1d2AMQJeOwNXONzxqjCmUQqYjdgCfQP9k lV8lY2eVA2eSN1y4eub9TsU= =W415 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Tor strange errors
Sep 22 13:15:29.515 [notice] Tor 0.1.1.23 opening new log file.
Sep 22 13:15:30.125 [notice] I learned some more directory information, but not
enough to build a circuit.
Sep 22 13:15:30.312 [warn] connection_dir_client_reached_eof(): Received http
status code 403 ("Response denied") from server '140.247.60.64:80' while
fetching
"/tor/status/fp/FFCB46DB1339DA84674C70D7CB586434C4370441+719BE45DE224B607C53707D0E2143E2D423E74CF+847B1F850344D7876491A54892F904934E4EB85D+38D4F5FCF7B1023228B895EA56EDE7D5CCDCAF32+7EA6EAD6FD83083C538F44038BBFA077587DD755.z".
I'll try again soon.
Sep 22 13:16:31.312 [warn] connection_dir_client_reached_eof(): Received http
status code 403 ("Response denied") from server '18.244.0.114:80' while
fetching
"/tor/status/fp/FFCB46DB1339DA84674C70D7CB586434C4370441+719BE45DE224B607C53707D0E2143E2D423E74CF+847B1F850344D7876491A54892F904934E4EB85D+38D4F5FCF7B1023228B895EA56EDE7D5CCDCAF32+7EA6EAD6FD83083C538F44038BBFA077587DD755.z".
I'll try again soon.
Sep 22 13:17:32.421 [warn] connection_dir_client_reached_eof(): Received http
status code 403 ("Response denied") from server '18.244.0.188:9031' while
fetching
"/tor/status/fp/FFCB46DB1339DA84674C70D7CB586434C4370441+719BE45DE224B607C53707D0E2143E2D423E74CF+847B1F850344D7876491A54892F904934E4EB85D+38D4F5FCF7B1023228B895EA56EDE7D5CCDCAF32+7EA6EAD6FD83083C538F44038BBFA077587DD755.z".
I'll try again soon.
Can anyone decipher what is causing this?
Re: Using Gmail (with Tor) is a bad idea
Fabian Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] top posted (please don't): > > I'm not quite sure what you are saying? > > > > Are you saying that some info gets leaked if you use > > unencrypted http to transfer mail with gmail? > > Yes, and some info means everything but your password. > > And even if you enter through https://mail.google.com/, > a man in the middle can send your browser a redirect to > http://mail.google.com/, Google then sends your browser > another redirect to the encrypted login page on another > server and after the secured login you will get redirected > back to http://mail.google.com/. > > Firefox/1.5.0.7 honours an unencrypted redirect > as response for a https connection request. > You don't get a warning, but of course if you look for it, > you can see that the connection is unencrypted. I missed something here: in my test Firefox was already configured to use Privoxy as SSL proxy, which means it has to ask the proxy to connect to the SSL server. As this happens with an unencrypted request, the client also accepts an unencrypted response. Most likely the client does not accept an unencrypted redirect while trying to open a direct SSL connection (without any proxy involved). It might not even work, if the man in the middle isn't already located between SSL proxy and browser. If this is true, a Tor exit node wouldn't be the right place to send these bogus redirects. Fabian -- http://www.fabiankeil.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
