Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

2016-12-06 19:51 GMT+01:00 arrase : > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Mihkel Raba wrote: >>> > There are other tor settings also entered manually. For example access >>> > to hidden service that requires cookie auth. >>> > HidServAuth site.onion mycookie >>> > >>> >

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

thank you :) 2016-11-23 2:00 GMT+01:00 Mark Murphy : > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016, at 19:57, arrase wrote: > > Ouch! the app builds but: > > > > AndroidRuntime: java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to get provider > > com.commonsware.cwac.provider.StreamProvider: > >

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016, at 19:57, arrase wrote: > Ouch! the app builds but: > > AndroidRuntime: java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to get provider > com.commonsware.cwac.provider.StreamProvider: > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Failed to parse >

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Hello There are other tor settings also entered manually. For example access to hidden service that requires cookie auth. HidServAuth site.onion mycookie Currently i use this feature to access my servers. On 21.11.2016 15:04, arrase wrote: > > And the services that a user configure manually?

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

2016-11-21 16:47 GMT+01:00 Hans-Christoph Steiner : > > > Nathan of Guardian: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016, at 05:21 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> What use case are you thinking for manually setting up a hidden service > >> in Orbot? > >> > >> Orbot

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016, at 05:21 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > What use case are you thinking for manually setting up a hidden service > in Orbot? > > Orbot doesn't provide any actual services beyond Tor and internet > proxying, so it seems that its not really the place for setting up and

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

And the services that a user configure manually? Why do you have to lose them? El 21 nov. 2016 2:00 p. m., "Hans-Christoph Steiner" < h...@guardianproject.info> escribió: > > About the hidden service backups, that certainly would be a useful > feature, but it should not be implemented in Orbot.

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

2016-11-21 0:25 GMT+01:00 Nathan of Guardian : > > We only need Internet permission, so haven't had to deal with the new > permission request framework. > > Why do we need a backup feature? I thought the approach was for apps to > manage their keys themselves, at

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Ok, permissions are working, and the backup creation feature works nice. There is only one thing to do, a way for a restore the backup. But there is a problem, i'm very bad building layotus, i mean, my layouts are always ugly as hell. So, if someone can build Orbot from the new brach and take a

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

I'm confused about Orbot permission management. Orbot needs several permission like WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE but there is no code related to the new runtime permissions api. When i try to do a backup to the external storage it fails because i need to request permissions but... How have

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Then you can implement TOFU in a simpler way and with backwards compatibility, nice, I will implement it El 17 nov. 2016 11:31 p. m., "Hans-Christoph Steiner" < h...@guardianproject.info> escribió: > > The idea is to do Trust-On-First-Use (TOFU) with TrustedIntents, not to > use the pin.

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

I have read about TrustedIntents, as a concept is good but if as Hans-Christoph said to make the user have to do too many interactions is not good, and implementing TrustedIntents in its current state requires the user to use an application (Checkey) To get the pin. Too much work for the user. I

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

this should fix the issue private void migratePreferences(){ String hsPortString = mPrefs.getString("pref_hs_ports", ""); if(hsPortString.length() > 0) { StringTokenizer st = new StringTokenizer (hsPortString,","); ContentResolver cr = getContentResolver(); while

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Updating to the new style makes sense. I don't know the current hidden API though. .hc arrase: > Ummm when you update an application from the store, you delete a > preference although the value is not going to be accessed has not been > erased, right? > > Can we do a routine that

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Ummm when you update an application from the store, you delete a preference although the value is not going to be accessed has not been erased, right? Can we do a routine that after updating look for the configuration of the old preferences and convert them to the new ones? makes

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

No, old ones do not runmust be requested again from the app, i complete rewrite the settings , i can't find a way to maintain the old one preference setup and the new one screen, has no sense if is put all together. A cursor content provider has more sense for store a big amount of domains

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Hmm, I may be okay with breaking backward compatibility. I don't think there are that many apps using the existing intent, and it would only be a problem from them to request a new intent (i.e. existing configured onion services would still work, right?) On Thu, Nov 17, 2016, at 09:55 AM, arrase

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

I have only done a quick read but ... this breaks backward compatibility, is it correct? I have no problem with that, but if we break the compatibility I'm going to change the Intent to accept a list of ports instead of just one El 17 nov. 2016 6:31 p. m., "Hans-Christoph Steiner" <

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Yes. Check out our TrustedIntents library for some methods. Also, this project has some other methods for validating Intents received by a Service: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/ .hc arrase: > Is it possible to know which app has sent an Intent service? I'll > investigate >

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Is it possible to know which app has sent an Intent service? I'll investigate It seems to me a good method if it is possible to implement it without having to ask the app to identify itself. 2016-11-17 17:42 GMT+01:00 Hans-Christoph Steiner : > > I think adding any

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

I think adding any kind of user interaction is too much complexity. This needs to be entirely transparent to the user, at least to start with. Orbot has no saved state beyond the basic config stuff (e.g. using VPN mode, allowing background starts, etc). So its entirely up to the app to save the

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Nice, I'm using that Intent (INTENT_ACTION_REQUEST_HIDDEN_SERVICE), I've extended it to maintain backward compatibility. I'm going to add another Intent to manage the small security layer that I'm adding when exporting the key of a service for its backup. Once the permission for export the key is

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

As Arrase point out though, there is an undocumented intent. This is what we use for CameraV currently. I think making it official, expanding it, and adding it into NetCipher makes a great deal of sense. On Thu, Nov 17, 2016, at 12:37 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > The documentation is

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

The documentation is mostly in the form of javadoc strings in the NetCipher library, since that's the usual developer interface to this stuff. Otherwise, there is a little bit here: https://guardianproject.info/code There isn't yet any official way to request a Hidden Service as of now. .hc

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

As I mentioned in the ticket, you need to run > ndk-build in the /orbotservice directory to create those native assets first. We are working on extracting the native binary build components into a separate gradle dependency, to make working on the app itself, easier. For now though, yes, you must

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

It's hard to build Orbot, I solved several problems with the toolchain but now I'm stuck here building Tor binary: zip ../orbotservice/src/main/assets/armeabi/pdnsd.mp3 ../orbotservice/src/main/libs/armeabi/pdnsd zip warning: name not matched: ../orbotservice/src/main/libs/armeabi/pdnsd zip

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

I think it would work like the start/status intents that are currently in Orbot. The app sends an Intent to Orbot to request a Hidden Service to be created, then Orbot sends reply status Intents to the app that made the request with all relevant info, including a FileProvider URI with GRANT URI

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

What do you think about the most obvious approach? Use public intents than any other app can call to create/delete a hidden service or for get config files of his service? 2016-11-15 15:17 GMT+01:00 arrase : > Are you suggesting something? XD > > I can take a look at the

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Are you suggesting something? XD I can take a look at the problem and propose a solution, it will not be fast but I can do it. Tonight I will try to compile Orbot from sources and try to familiarize myself with the code. (Is there a wiki with info??) How do you want to focus the change? What

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

2016-11-15 13:23 GMT+01:00 Michael Rogers : > Hi arrase, > > Thanks for discovering this bug. Can you describe how Briar's Tor daemon > conflicts with Orbot? What problems does it cause? Our goal is for Briar > to be able to operate on the same device as Orbot without

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Hi arrase, Thanks for discovering this bug. Can you describe how Briar's Tor daemon conflicts with Orbot? What problems does it cause? Our goal is for Briar to be able to operate on the same device as Orbot without problems. Thanks, Michael On 15/11/16 00:32, arrase wrote: > I have reviewed the

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

I have reviewed the application of: https://briarproject.org/ I have it installed and I see that when using its own Tor daemon it conflicts with Orbor and I think that is a problem. The people of briarproject could configure their application not to conflict with Orbot but I do not think that

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

2016-11-14 14:53 GMT+01:00 Nathan of Guardian : > I'm happy to improve the hidden service API that Orbot offers to make it > work for you. It is trivial for us to add support for requesting a > completely new hidden service. > > In general terms and in my modest

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

I'm happy to improve the hidden service API that Orbot offers to make it work for you. It is trivial for us to add support for requesting a completely new hidden service. Orbot can also support the temporary hidden service capability in tor, where you generate and provide the .onion key yourself.

Re: [guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

I forgot to mention, Orbot is set to use `CookieAuthentication`, so even if your app connects to the TCP socket, it shouldn't be able to do anything. If you have root, then of course you can get that cookie and use it. .hc Hans-Christoph Steiner: > > Hmm, this sounds like a bug report then :-/

[guardian-dev] Hi, i' new

Hi, I'm interested in developing applications under Tor and I've known your project, I find it interesting. Here is my github: https://github.com/arrase I am currently interested in writing something like TorChat or Ricochet for android ___ List info: