> Is there a trac ticket for this feature request? Not that I'm aware of. It was mentioned in: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2010-April/000198.html
"> Second, Jake made a great point that at present if a malicious party > gets ahold of the control port then the relay's quite effectively > screwed. The current capabilities of the control port are overkill for > many controllers (like arm) which are just interested in retrieving > information from tor (GETINFO options, event listening, etc). To make > the control port safer we could include a torrc option that makes the > control port read-only... > > SafeControlPort 0|1 > Restricts access of the control port to only include read-only operations. > (Default: 0) > > Making this the default would be a no-go due to vidalia (though still > a nice option to have...). If this is implemented its setting should > be part of the PROTOCOLINFO response. Ah - I'm sorry, I should have been clearer! I meant to suggest another control port _entirely_: SafeControlPort Port SafeControlListenAddress IP[:PORT] SafeHashedControlPassword This would mean that you could expose a second control port that is designed to give generalized, rounded, perhaps even delayed statistical information to a visualization engine. The first I had in mind was arm but there could be useful stuff for mrtg or another graphing program. I don't need or want my graphing programs to have the ability to control Tor - I just want to get some data out to help me manage my relay. With that said - I don't think it's a good idea to focus on such a feature at this time. Work on getting the statistics to your controller first. When you have a good case for the features being available in a different, more safe way, you can make it happen." _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
