Alex Pyattaev wrote:
> Hm, Colin, probably you are right. Those who actually need a tunnel can
> set it up theirselves anyway (e.g. via SSH). And those who can not set
> up a tunnel via ssh, probably will be happy with zero-configuration
> proxy for web access.
> And, there is an political issue about tunnels to the internet from the
> freenet. Now it is impossible to use freenet as a massive anonymous
> proxy. Probably, that's for good, since the first people to use such
> system would be hackers and spammers, who actually need to have full
> anonymous access to the internet.
> So probably it is better to leave it "just HTTP" for now.
My university is blocking IRC (via a packet shaper), so when i have heard of
that idea that was the first thing i thought about.
While i do agree that perhaps we should allow every protocol to pass through,
limiting it only to HTTP is too much i think.
- Volodya
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Colin Davis <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> I think Matthew's Proposal is a great idea-
> I don't think that Freenet should do a general port proxy though, Alex.
>
> The big difference from a user-standpoint is that for HTTP, they can
> just enter a URL into their browser, and it'll connect and pull over the
> page. They don't need to set proxy information, or anything else.
> That's DRAMATICALLY simpler for the user.
> From an implementation standpoint, ICQ, IRC, etc require a constant
> bitstream, which is more complex to engineer than individual http
> requests.
>
> But a web-page request and forward would be very useful, immediately,
> and gives people a good incentive to use Freenet. It's a gateway-drug,
> and is useful both in increasing Freenet adoption and in increasing the
> number of darknet connection.
>
> -Colin
>
>
> Alex Pyattaev wrote:
> >
> > Heh, you'll never belive, but I have had the same idea a few days
> > before when I was first installing freenet. And in fact, in order to
> > help those trapped inside a firewall, a more convinient for those
> > trapped solution could be found - a tunnel. A tunnel is much more
> > flexible in terms of protocol - it allows to transmit IRc, ICQ, email
> > ,HTTP or whatever else, and does not require any protocol
> implementation.
> > In fact, a primitive tunnel consists of a daemon which listens to a
> > particular port and sends all packets to some other host inside
> > freenet's internal encrypted datastream just as a simple file.
> Outside
> > the firewall the very same daemon unpacks the datastream and sends
> > packets to IP layer of the host OS, which routes them appropriately.
> > The only thing that needs to be done is faking the sender IP so that
> > it matches the tunnel provider's external IP address.
> > So, exact transportation process looks like this:
> > Sender behind firewall:
> > IPSRC: any
> > IPDST: banned site's IP
> > DPORT: tunnel's entrance port
> > SPORT: any valid port
> > All intermediate peers transmit the packet inside encrypted
> > datastream, so they do not care much
> > Packet when exiting tunnel(sent from the daemon on the exit side):
> > IPSRC: external IP of the exit
> > IPDST: unchanged
> > DPORT: the port the tunnel was configured for
> > SPORT: the port which tunnel provider's tunnel daemon listens on
> > When the response packet gets to the tunnel provider's node, it
> > automatically gets into the tunnel and is transmitted to the
> > firewalled machine.
> > The only issue is that the tunnel needs to be configured separately
> > for each connection, which is not very convinient, but will work for
> > any protocol, not just HTTP.
> > PS: for such cases there are some existing tunneling programs, so the
> > banned site might consider using them. Or, we could use them as a
> > backend - e.g. SSH. It is cross-platform, fast, and provides good
> > level of security.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Evan Daniel <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Matthew
> > Toseland<[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> > <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> > > I propose that as a darknet value-add, and as an additional
> tool
> > for those in hostile regimes who have friends on the outside, we
> > implement a web-proxy-over-your-darknet-peers option. Your
> Friends
> > would announce whether they are willing to proxy for you, and you
> > could choose which friends to use, or allow it to use all of them
> > (assuming people on the inside don't offer). You could then
> > configure your browser to use Freenet as a proxy. This would not
> > provide any anonymity but it would get you past network obstacles
> > and/or out of Bad Place and into Happy Place. It's not a long
> term
> > solution, but:
> > > - We have expended considerable effort on making darknet
> viable:
> > IP detection, ARKs etc.
> > > - It could take advantage of future transport plugins, but even
> > before that, FNP 0.7 is quite hard to block.
> > > - Many people are in this situation.
> > > - It is easy to implement. HTTP is complex but cache-less
> > proxies can be very simple.
> > > - It could be combined with longer term measures (growing the
> > internal darknet), and just work for as long as it works. Most
> > likely it would be throttled rather than blocked outright to
> start
> > with, hopefully allowing for a smooth-ish migration of users to
> > more robust mechanisms...
> > > - We could allow recursive proxying to some depth - maybe
> friend
> > of a friend. This would provide a further incentive to grow the
> > internal darknet, which is what we want.
> > > - The classic problem with proxies is that they are rare so
> > hundreds of people connect to them, and the government finds out
> > and blocks them. This does not apply here.
> >
> > I like it. Darknet features are a very good thing. This
> probably
> > also needs some care wrt bandwidth management (related to 3334 --
> > similar considerations probably apply).
> >
> > However, as I mentioned on IRC, there are several things I think
> > should be higher priority. Of course, I'm not the one
> implementing
> > any of this, but here's my opinion anyway ;) In no
> particular order:
> >
> > - Documentation! Both the plugins api and making sure that
> the FCP
> > docs on the wiki are current and correct.
> > - Bloom filter sharing. (Probably? I have no idea what the
> relative
> > work required is for these two.)
> > - Freetalk and a blogging app of some sort (though these are
> probably
> > mostly for someone other than toad?).
> > - A few specific bugs: 3295 (percent encoding is horribly,
> > embarrassingly broken -- in at least 5 different ways), 2931
> (split
> > blocks evenly between splitfile segments -- should help
> dramatically
> > with availability), fixing top block healing on splitfiles
> (discussed
> > in 3358).
> > - Low-latency inserts flag as per 3338. (I know, most people
> probably
> > don't care all that much, but I'd really like to see whether
> Freenet
> > can hit near-real-time latencies for the messaging app I'm
> working
> > on.)
> >
> > Also, it's worth considering other ways to make darknet
> connections
> > more useful (in addition to this, whether before or after I
> don't have
> > a strong opinion on). Enabling direct transfer of large
> files would
> > be good (at a bare minimum, this shouldn't fail silently like
> it does
> > right now). Improving messaging would be good; I should be
> able to
> > see recently sent / received messages (including timestamps),
> queue a
> > message to be sent when a peer comes online, and tell whether a
> > message I've sent arrived successfully.
> >
> > Evan Daniel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devl mailing list
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devl mailing list
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
--
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://www.freedomporn.org/ Freedom Porn, anarchist and activist smut
"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
