I'm not against keeping some around, but this warning is unlikely to turn around the thousands that currently match this configuration--hopefully it'll just encourage future bridge operators to use a 'safer' configuration. The obfs4proxy README shows users how to set-up obfs4 running over port 443 which is probably the most desirable option: those users can evade network restrictions without enabling discovery by scanning.
On Sun Dec 14 2014 at 10:35:16 AM Philipp Winter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:33:05PM -0800, Vlad Tsyrklevich wrote: > > I've attached a patch to warn bridge operators running with ORPort set to > > 443 or 9001 as a stop-gap measure. > > You are raising good points here but keep in mind that we also want at > least *some* (vanilla) bridges which run on port 443. There are some > adversaries such as captive portals which only allow communication over > a small set of ports and 443 is one of these ports. While these bridges > would easily fall prey to Internet-wide scanning, they would still be > useful for users behind captive portals. > > Cheers, > Philipp > _______________________________________________ > tor-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev >
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
