Just to touch base on this, and to give a rough status of where things
are.
The tor codebase no longer includes the C tor-fw-helper as of:
d2cb92332009567ae778b3570e8fd3420c207446
Closes https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13338
The new (Go based code) now lives at:
On 7/23/15, David Stainton dstainton...@gmail.com wrote:
Why are we avoiding allowing users to make this choice because of the
above reasons? If a user wants to run a relay or a bridge, we should
make it easy. We don't answer the above questions when it is hard -
are we really off the hook
On 7/24/15, Yawning Angel yawn...@schwanenlied.me wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:46:26 +
Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
[snip]
Do users know that their router's implementation of NAT-PMP/uPnP is
shit?
Who knows better than the user? And who better than the user to take
an
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:21:31 +
Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
[snip]
At this point with all the resources available, I will guess that if
the user needs something like tor-fw-helper, they probably have no
idea what router firmware is.
Right - but why should they need to
On 7/24/15, Yawning Angel yawn...@schwanenlied.me wrote:
...
I have less objections towards people using tor-fw-helper for bridges
than for something like flashproxy or full fledged relays.
...
IMO similar to relays with insufficient bandwidth, relays that can't
connect to any other relay on
On 7/23/15, Yawning Angel yawn...@schwanenlied.me wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:18:34 +
Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
Why are we avoiding allowing users to make this choice because of the
above reasons? If a user wants to run a relay or a bridge, we should
make it easy. We
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:46:26 +
Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
[snip]
Do users know that their router's implementation of NAT-PMP/uPnP is
shit?
Who knows better than the user? And who better than the user to take
an action and to learn it?
At this point with all the
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:38:00AM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and recommending
Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead. But before I do this, I'd like
to get some
Why are we avoiding allowing users to make this choice because of the
above reasons? If a user wants to run a relay or a bridge, we should
make it easy. We don't answer the above questions when it is hard -
are we really off the hook there? It just seems ridiculous.
Obviously NAT has
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:18:34 +
Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
Why are we avoiding allowing users to make this choice because of the
above reasons? If a user wants to run a relay or a bridge, we should
make it easy. We don't answer the above questions when it is hard -
are we
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:50:29 -0700
David Stainton dstainton...@gmail.com wrote:
But we have a gigantic userbase, and playing consumer router
support technician for all of the ones that ship with broken
uPnP/NAT-PMP implementations does not fill me with warm fuzzy
feelings.
I think
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Yawning Angel yawn...@schwanenlied.me wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:38:00 -0400
Nick Mathewson ni...@torproject.org wrote:
Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and
On 7/21/15, Nick Mathewson ni...@torproject.org wrote:
Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and recommending
Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead. But before I do this, I'd like
to get some sense of
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:26:33 +
Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
Also - does this mean that after many many years... that this new
version of tor-fw-helper be enabled by default at build time?
Pretty please? :-)
Unlikely, AFAIK the general plan was to have it as a separate
On 7/23/15, Yawning Angel yawn...@schwanenlied.me wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:26:33 +
Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
Also - does this mean that after many many years... that this new
version of tor-fw-helper be enabled by default at build time?
Pretty please? :-)
Also - does this mean that after many many years... that this new
version of tor-fw-helper be enabled by default at build time? Pretty
please? :-)
Unlikely, AFAIK the general plan was to have it as a separate package.
That is really a major bummer if so - we should be shipping this code
and
It's probably for the best. The implementation of upnp and nat-pmp is
frequently done incorrectly. Many implementations simply break the fw
security or leak identifying information by enabling the feature. I
once saw a case which opened port 0 everytime upnp was used. Not
closed, or stealth, but
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:54:33 +
Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
On 7/21/15, Nick Mathewson ni...@torproject.org wrote:
Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and
recommending Yawning's
Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and recommending
Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead. But before I do this, I'd like
to get some sense of whether folks are shipping tor-fw-helper today, or
using it in
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:38:00 -0400
Nick Mathewson ni...@torproject.org wrote:
Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and
recommending Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead. But before I
do this, I'd like
20 matches
Mail list logo
