Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-10 Thread monet
Is any IP6 in Iran? IP6 is blocked too?

___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-09 Thread Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)

On 5/9/13 1:34 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:

Maybe OONI ppl can help with that?


I have an idea that I think might help. It isn't related to any current
pluggable transport. I think we could pump out a transport that would
not be easy to block.


It would be also be very interesting to be able to play with the DPI 
system from an internal iranian intranet address space, if someone have 
an access from linux box.


-naif
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-08 Thread Nima
Andrea Shepard:
 On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 10:40:52AM +, Nima wrote:
 Iran is actively dropping connections to *any* unknown port right after
 *60secs*.
 Pluggable Transport successfully connects to Tor network, Although it
 can not make a circuit in many ISPs including Mobin.

 -- 
 Nima
 0x1C92A77B

 I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
 to say it --Evelyn Beatrice Hall
 
 Hmmm... what does it behave like during those 60 seconds?  Is it throttled,
 or can we get data through by cycling through a series of fresh TCP
 connections?
 
 What does it do with UDP packets?

Same thing. they target both TCP and UDP packets.

  Could a datagram-based protocol defeat
 this?  If they're interfering there, what about using TCP-looking packets to
 fake it?  I.e., send SYNs with the data we really want to get through in the
 body and let them waste resources on their routers tracking connections
 that don't even really exist.
 

I'd love to know this, but so far I haven't had a chance to get my hands
on that network.

We might be able to do something creative tho!
More than 30 ppl have sent queries to Tor Farsi help desk. Most of them
are willing to help.
Maybe we should write a very tiny small program, which will run few
tests and write results in a log file. So we can give it to our
volunteers inside Iran to run it and send us the result.

Maybe OONI ppl can help with that?

-- 
Nima
0xA4D4C009DB191C92A77B

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it --Evelyn Beatrice Hall



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-08 Thread Jacob Appelbaum

 Maybe OONI ppl can help with that?
 

I have an idea that I think might help. It isn't related to any current
pluggable transport. I think we could pump out a transport that would
not be easy to block.

Contact me off list if you'd like to help me with it.

All the best,
Jacob
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-07 Thread Andrea Shepard
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 10:40:52AM +, Nima wrote:
 Iran is actively dropping connections to *any* unknown port right after
 *60secs*.
 Pluggable Transport successfully connects to Tor network, Although it
 can not make a circuit in many ISPs including Mobin.
 
 -- 
 Nima
 0x1C92A77B
 
 I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
 to say it --Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Hmmm... what does it behave like during those 60 seconds?  Is it throttled,
or can we get data through by cycling through a series of fresh TCP
connections?

What does it do with UDP packets?  Could a datagram-based protocol defeat
this?  If they're interfering there, what about using TCP-looking packets to
fake it?  I.e., send SYNs with the data we really want to get through in the
body and let them waste resources on their routers tracking connections
that don't even really exist.

-- 
Andrea Shepard
and...@torproject.org
PGP fingerprint: 3611 95A4 0740 ED1B 7EA5  DF7E 4191 13D9 D0CF BDA5


pgpUmFVkGYq97.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-05 Thread Nima
George Kadianakis:
 Nima n...@redteam.io writes:
 
 Iran is actively dropping connections to *any* unknown port right after
 *60secs*.
 Pluggable Transport successfully connects to Tor network, Although it
 can not make a circuit in many ISPs including Mobin.
 
 Ugh. This sucks.
 
 What do you mean by unknown port? Which ports do they allow?

Not sure yet. Mostly like they've whitelisted the known protocols.
I didn't have a chance to login to my box yet :/

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23filternetsrc=hash

-- 
Nima
0x1C92A77B

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it --Evelyn Beatrice Hall



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-05 Thread tor-admin
On Sunday 05 May 2013 14:50:51 George Kadianakis wrote:
 It would be interesting to learn which ports they currently whitelist,
 except from the usual HTTP/HTTPS.
 
 I also wonder if they just block based on TCP port, or whether they
 also have DPI heuristics.
 
 On the Tor side, it seems like we should start looking into #7875:
 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7875
 ___
I am wondering if here is there a way for a user to ask bridgedb for a bridge 
with a specific port?
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-05 Thread Matthew Finkel
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 04:18:56PM +0300, George Kadianakis wrote:
 tor-admin tor-ad...@torland.me writes:
 
  On Sunday 05 May 2013 14:50:51 George Kadianakis wrote:
  It would be interesting to learn which ports they currently whitelist,
  except from the usual HTTP/HTTPS.
  
  I also wonder if they just block based on TCP port, or whether they
  also have DPI heuristics.
  
  On the Tor side, it seems like we should start looking into #7875:
  https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7875
  ___
  I am wondering if here is there a way for a user to ask bridgedb for a 
  bridge 
  with a specific port?
  ___
  tor-dev mailing list
  tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
  https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
 
 If I remember correctly BridgeDB tries (in a best-effort manner) to
 give users bridges that are listening on port 443. Obfuscated bridges
 that bind on 443 are not very common (because of #7875) so I guess
 that not many obfuscated bridges on 443 are given out.
 
 In any case, I don't think that a user can explicitly ask BridgeDB for
 a bridge on a specific port, but this might be a useful feature
 request (especially if this filtering based on TCP port tactic
 continues).

This may be a good feature to have, in general, but it does not sound like
this will solve the current problem in Iran. The last report says
they're whitelisting ports *and* protocols[1]. So even if a user attempts
to use obfs3 on port 443 it'll likely be blocked because obfs3 is not a
look-like-https protocol. If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 inside
the body of http then this may work. CDA also says SSL/TLS connections
are throttled to 5% of the normal speed [2], so that's no fun either.

[1] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331006059923795968
[2] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331040305648369664
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-05 Thread Kostas Jakeliunas
 have there been any attempts to produce a pluggable transport which would
emulate http?

(Ah, I suppose there've been quite a bit of discussion indeed. (
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/8676, etc.))

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kostas Jakeliunas kos...@jakeliunas.comwrote:

  If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 inside
 the body of http then this may work.

 I'm probably missing some previous discussions which might have covered
 it, but: have there been any attempts to produce a pluggable transport
 which would emulate http? Basically, have the transport use http headers,
 and put all encrypted data in the body (possibly prepending it with some
 html tags even)? This sounds like a nice idea.


 On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Matthew Finkel 
 matthew.fin...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 04:18:56PM +0300, George Kadianakis wrote:
  tor-admin tor-ad...@torland.me writes:
 
   On Sunday 05 May 2013 14:50:51 George Kadianakis wrote:
   It would be interesting to learn which ports they currently
 whitelist,
   except from the usual HTTP/HTTPS.
  
   I also wonder if they just block based on TCP port, or whether they
   also have DPI heuristics.
  
   On the Tor side, it seems like we should start looking into #7875:
   https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7875
   ___
   I am wondering if here is there a way for a user to ask bridgedb for
 a bridge
   with a specific port?
   ___
   tor-dev mailing list
   tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
   https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
 
  If I remember correctly BridgeDB tries (in a best-effort manner) to
  give users bridges that are listening on port 443. Obfuscated bridges
  that bind on 443 are not very common (because of #7875) so I guess
  that not many obfuscated bridges on 443 are given out.
 
  In any case, I don't think that a user can explicitly ask BridgeDB for
  a bridge on a specific port, but this might be a useful feature
  request (especially if this filtering based on TCP port tactic
  continues).

 This may be a good feature to have, in general, but it does not sound like
 this will solve the current problem in Iran. The last report says
 they're whitelisting ports *and* protocols[1]. So even if a user attempts
 to use obfs3 on port 443 it'll likely be blocked because obfs3 is not a
 look-like-https protocol. If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 inside
 the body of http then this may work. CDA also says SSL/TLS connections
 are throttled to 5% of the normal speed [2], so that's no fun either.

 [1] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331006059923795968
 [2] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331040305648369664
 ___
 tor-dev mailing list
 tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
 https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev



___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-05 Thread Kostas Jakeliunas
 If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 inside
the body of http then this may work.

I'm probably missing some previous discussions which might have covered it,
but: have there been any attempts to produce a pluggable transport which
would emulate http? Basically, have the transport use http headers, and put
all encrypted data in the body (possibly prepending it with some html tags
even)? This sounds like a nice idea.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Matthew Finkel matthew.fin...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 04:18:56PM +0300, George Kadianakis wrote:
  tor-admin tor-ad...@torland.me writes:
 
   On Sunday 05 May 2013 14:50:51 George Kadianakis wrote:
   It would be interesting to learn which ports they currently whitelist,
   except from the usual HTTP/HTTPS.
  
   I also wonder if they just block based on TCP port, or whether they
   also have DPI heuristics.
  
   On the Tor side, it seems like we should start looking into #7875:
   https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7875
   ___
   I am wondering if here is there a way for a user to ask bridgedb for a
 bridge
   with a specific port?
   ___
   tor-dev mailing list
   tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
   https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
 
  If I remember correctly BridgeDB tries (in a best-effort manner) to
  give users bridges that are listening on port 443. Obfuscated bridges
  that bind on 443 are not very common (because of #7875) so I guess
  that not many obfuscated bridges on 443 are given out.
 
  In any case, I don't think that a user can explicitly ask BridgeDB for
  a bridge on a specific port, but this might be a useful feature
  request (especially if this filtering based on TCP port tactic
  continues).

 This may be a good feature to have, in general, but it does not sound like
 this will solve the current problem in Iran. The last report says
 they're whitelisting ports *and* protocols[1]. So even if a user attempts
 to use obfs3 on port 443 it'll likely be blocked because obfs3 is not a
 look-like-https protocol. If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 inside
 the body of http then this may work. CDA also says SSL/TLS connections
 are throttled to 5% of the normal speed [2], so that's no fun either.

 [1] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331006059923795968
 [2] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331040305648369664
 ___
 tor-dev mailing list
 tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
 https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev

___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-05 Thread Kostas Jakeliunas
(Sorry, last email for now --) I see that StegoTorus is an Obfsproxy fork
that extends it to a) split Tor streams across multiple connections to
avoid packet size signatures, and b) embed the traffic flows in traces that
look like html, javascript, or pdf. However, its public repo seems to
haven't been updated for more than nine months. [1] Also,
'Format-Transforming Encryption' looks interesting, but I take it not much
in terms of implementation beyond a research paper [2] (which looks
interesting).

[1] https://gitweb.torproject.org/stegotorus.git
[2] https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/494

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Kostas Jakeliunas kos...@jakeliunas.comwrote:

  have there been any attempts to produce a pluggable transport which
 would emulate http?

 (Ah, I suppose there've been quite a bit of discussion indeed. (
 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/8676, etc.))


 On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kostas Jakeliunas 
 kos...@jakeliunas.comwrote:

  If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 inside
 the body of http then this may work.

 I'm probably missing some previous discussions which might have covered
 it, but: have there been any attempts to produce a pluggable transport
 which would emulate http? Basically, have the transport use http headers,
 and put all encrypted data in the body (possibly prepending it with some
 html tags even)? This sounds like a nice idea.


 On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Matthew Finkel 
 matthew.fin...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 04:18:56PM +0300, George Kadianakis wrote:
  tor-admin tor-ad...@torland.me writes:
 
   On Sunday 05 May 2013 14:50:51 George Kadianakis wrote:
   It would be interesting to learn which ports they currently
 whitelist,
   except from the usual HTTP/HTTPS.
  
   I also wonder if they just block based on TCP port, or whether they
   also have DPI heuristics.
  
   On the Tor side, it seems like we should start looking into #7875:
   https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7875
   ___
   I am wondering if here is there a way for a user to ask bridgedb for
 a bridge
   with a specific port?
   ___
   tor-dev mailing list
   tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
   https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
 
  If I remember correctly BridgeDB tries (in a best-effort manner) to
  give users bridges that are listening on port 443. Obfuscated bridges
  that bind on 443 are not very common (because of #7875) so I guess
  that not many obfuscated bridges on 443 are given out.
 
  In any case, I don't think that a user can explicitly ask BridgeDB for
  a bridge on a specific port, but this might be a useful feature
  request (especially if this filtering based on TCP port tactic
  continues).

 This may be a good feature to have, in general, but it does not sound
 like
 this will solve the current problem in Iran. The last report says
 they're whitelisting ports *and* protocols[1]. So even if a user attempts
 to use obfs3 on port 443 it'll likely be blocked because obfs3 is not a
 look-like-https protocol. If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 inside
 the body of http then this may work. CDA also says SSL/TLS connections
 are throttled to 5% of the normal speed [2], so that's no fun either.

 [1] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331006059923795968
 [2] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331040305648369664
 ___
 tor-dev mailing list
 tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
 https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev




___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Iran

2013-05-05 Thread David Fifield
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 10:44:01PM +0300, Kostas Jakeliunas wrote:
 Also, 'Format-Transforming Encryption' looks
 interesting, but I take it not much in terms of implementation beyond a
 research paper [2] (which looks interesting).
 
 [2]https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/494

I haven't tried it yet, but they do have an implementation and are
inviting testers.

http://fte.kpdyer.com/

David Fifield
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev