On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 17:42 -0400, James Vasile wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2011 16:22:56 -0400, Ted Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 10:23 -0400, James Vasile wrote: > > > * Is a torrent client and can use TOR for that purpose. > > > > Is this a typo? Using Tor for BitTorrent traffic is frowned up by the > > Tor Project, and the default exit policy is to block common BitTorrent > > ports, and BitTorrent clients commonly leak information which has the > > capacity to de-anonymize users on the same circuit. I don't see why the > > FreedomBox Foundation would want to recommend this, as it doesn't make > > sense from a political or technical standpoint. > > This isn't a typo, but maybe it needs more than a single line to explain > it! > > It might be the case that each FreedomBox will need a specially > configured tor/torrent client for talking to other FreedomBoxes. And we > might need to confine the traffic to FreedomBox tor nodes. But it is > possible to combine tor and torrent without leaking identity and without > burdening the rest of the tor network. Exploring that possibility is > well within the goals of this project.
Have you considered OneSwarm? It's a privacy-enhanced BitTorrent client that would sidestep the several open engineering problems involved with building a separate Tor client that knows how to separate protocols into different circuits. IMHO, OneSwarm should at least be the default _for now_, since it's available _right now_, whereas this freedombox-tor fork isn't ;-) <http://www.oneswarm.org/>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
