tbb-dev March 2017

tbb-dev@lists.torproject.org

5 participants
5 discussions

Next Tor Browser meeting time: Monday, April 3 1800 UTC in #tor-dev
by Georg Koppen 28 Mar '17

28 Mar '17

Hi all! As some of you might have realized there has been no Tor Browser meeting yesterday due to the meeting in Amsterdam. For the next meeting and the ones following that one we will change the time to 1800 UTC following daylight savings done in the US and Europe. Thus, the next meeting will happen on Monday, April 3 1800 UTC in #tor-dev on the OFTC IRC network. See you there, Georg

1 0

Good Morning Precipitant
by mark bollinger 24 Mar '17

24 Mar '17

I was wondering what is the best way to sign up to volunteer? I have experience and knowledge in I.T. also would love to help anyway I can. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

2 1

A proposal for redesigning Tor-Launcher for better usability
by irykoon 13 Mar '17

13 Mar '17

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi everyone! I am Iry. Currently, I have been working on the anon-connection-wizard, a Python-clone of the Tor Launcher which aims at providing Tor users with a graphical instruction on configuring the Tor. During the development process, I realized some problems shared by both anon-connection-wizard and Tor-Launcher. Therefore, I would like to post my proposal here, in a hope to let Tor-Launcher developer also realize the problems. I have noticed that it may be too late to give the feedback since there is a deadline (March 3rd) for it, accoding to this discussion: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tbb-dev/2017-February/000473.html But please let me if there is anything I can help! The proposal for redesigning anon-connection-wizard which was firstly posted on Github: https://github.com/Whonix/anon-connection-wizard/pull/ 3 # Background Currently, I have been working on the anon-connection-wizard, a Python-clone of the Tor Launcher which aims at providing Tor users with a graphical instruction on configuring the Tor. The application is especially helpful for users who live in Tor-censored area. This is because those users can only connect to the Tor network with the help of other censorship circumvention tools which include but are not limited to Tor bridges, pluggable transports and other third party Internet censorship circumvention tools like Lantern and VPN. # Problem Statement However, the current instruction provided by the anon-connection-wizard and Tor launcher may not be clear enough. That is to say, users are very likely to not be able to correctly connect to the Tor network even with the help of their instruction. # Related Research A detailed and published [research](https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2016/EECS-2016-5 8.pdf) conducted in 2015 also addressed the problem [1]. In that research, the researchers firstly did a small-scale user behavior experiment on the Tor Launcher for Tor Browser Bundle 5.0.3. And then, they redesigned the user interface of it basing on their observation on users’ behaviors and the direct feedback from the users. After finishing the redesign of the Tor launcher, they conducted a 124-participant experiment which aimed at examining the effectiveness of their redesign. The result showed an approximately 10 percentages of improvement in success rate and a 100 percentages of reducing on the time to success when comparing their redesign of Tor Launcher with the original one. For reasons I do not know, their [redesigned Tor Launcher](https://github.com/nmalkin/tor-launcher) [2] has not been adopted by the Tor project. However, since anon-connection-wizard is a clone of the Tor Launcher, it may be able to benefit from the recommendations and suggestions offered by that research. # Other Improvement If you believe the redesign of the anon-connection-wizard is a good idea, I also have some other recommendations. The current Tor Launcher mainly focuses on helping users circumvent the Internet censorship by Tor-supported methods like bridges and obfuscation technology. However, in areas under strict censorship, those methods may not be sufficient to help users to circumvent the Internet censorship. For example, in countries like China, the [only](https://www.torproject.org/docs/pluggable-transports) usable Tor-supported censorship circumvention method is “meek-amazon” [3], which also does not grantee working all the time. Besides, meek has not been [supported](https://phabricator.whonix.org/T386 ) by Whonix yet [4], making people in China or other heavily-censored area hard to connect to Tor only with the help of those Tor-supported censorship circumvention methods. In fact, people in those area usually use some third-party censorship circumvention tools to connect to the Tor network. Two main options are Virtual Private Network and proxy-based censorship circumvention tools like Psiphon3 and Lantern. Unfortunately, the Tor Launcher and the current anon-connection-wizard have not provided users using those third-party censorship circumvention tools with sufficient instructions. To clarify the problem, the following two examples simulate those users’ experience: 1. Alice uses a VPN to bypass the Internet censorship. One day she wants to try using the Tor. The first question asked by anon-connection-wizard is to describe her situation. Although knowledgeable users know she can connect to the Tor network “directly” using that VPN, Alice, as a first-time user may find “This computer’s Internet connection is censored” described her situation better. 2. Similarly, Bob uses the Lantern software to connect to the free Internet. One day he wants to try using the Tor. After choosing the configure option, Bob is asked if he’s connection to the Tor-network is censored. Naturally, Bob answers yes to that question and then he is asked to configure bridges in order to connect to the Tor network. After finishing that step, he is asked if he needs a proxy to connect to the Internet. Of course Bob does not think he needs one because he just checked the weather on the Internet without even knowing what proxy is. However, we know that the bridges will not be very helpful for Bob and all he has to do is to set proxy to use Lantern. What’s even worse? Even if Bob knows he does not need a bridge but a proxy setting to connect to the Tor network, the next step is still not easy for him. Since every time the proxy setting is auto-configured by Lantern client, Bob even does not know which port Lantern is listening on. Bob also does not know what is the proxy IP of Lantern. Bob does not know what 127.0.0.1 or local-host means. Bob is not sure if he needs an username and a password for his proxy. All the confusing questions make Bob frustrated. With the last hope, Bob tries to visit the URL provided by the anon-connection-wizard for help. But this does not work neither because the Tor website is also blocked. # Alternative Choice The two examples above illustrates how confusing the current instructions in anon-connection-wizard is. However, one may argue that we can use an online documents to instruct users how to configure it correctly instead of redesigning the anon-connection-wizard. Although I agree that an online documentation can be helpful to users, I do not think it can replace the redesign of the anon-connection-wizard because it makes anon-connection-wizard meaningless. Beside the potential connection issue to the online documents, if a large amount of users have to see online documents to configure anon-connection-wizard, they can see an online guideline on how to configure the torrc file manually instead. # My Position According to the argument above, I would like to propose a redesign of the current anon-connection-wizard which aims at improving its usability. I hope that my work will help more people to connect to the Tor network efficiently and successfully. # Research Schedule My planning research schedule is as follows: 1. Generate ideas on redesigning the anon-continence-wizard users interface, basing on the recommendations from outside sources, problems discussed above and suggestions from other people (11/March/2017-12/March/2017); 2. Present the planning redesign to public to receive feedback (12/March/2017); 3. Implement the redesign (12/March/2017-17/March/2017); 4. Prepare for the user behavior experiment, including recruitment and setting up environment (18/March/2017-20/March/2017); 5. Conduct the experiment (21/March/2017); 6. Process and analysis the experiment data (22/March/2017-24/March/2017 ); 7. Write the research report (25/March/2017-29/March/2017). # References [1] Fifield, David et al. "Tor’S Usability For Censorship Circumvention". N.p., 2017. Web. 11 Mar. 2017. [2] "Nmalkin/Tor-Launcher". GitHub. N.p., 2017. Web. 11 Mar. 2017. [3] The Tor Project, Inc. "Tor Project: Pluggable Transports". Torproject.org. N.p., 2017. Web. 11 Mar. 2017. [4] “T386 Meek Pluggable Transport". Phabricator.whonix.org. N.p., 2017. Web. 11 Mar. 2017. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYxjVjAAoJEKFLTbxtzdU8Xu0P/2R9yvQSxVQe3SFm8ww1Bcjc z7hVw6JsaQR62yCC2zyxRjAbUEJ/22+taUMKunnGRKUpzhk3PcYLS3lzvk5/Bg+C Og+q7Z2J1puPfhYfKQg7IeFIuoLzGj4u7dBFw8+uSXk0P4512qKANhBV/EI8/+Zo vJV5Qvmhot8pDEladAStXzult0Bufe2SxY626ECfih98ysOpLJnCIwiAXXeswoy/ k4h/nsjaXzemattGBsH6lf41lIv2bsNfH78QMmTKjoAe1j3FazDWXRR52LjiR+CS xsdg9f1hLiJYp9wslsasdQKH07TyqJdHNjlJ7PLwkCnnGhKF4IQpgVOB41jTL7/f smLK6Suo/lyST3Vic+opkFZEl8lodgh30G6pog9t63hYMeKA1wdoP5YH+8rZ8Et8 RCMzYBnsCPGP2/I7l3V52sO6An8lMalGO1yfJI05NA+ZtVCSEGJpeqwLhviNX/fq HcEVf+DIhk/KSrBvFB7qGxz6d13KJDUHJ1kkkRHKi5GywjWbNxf9kA/CNgK5VAxU 7HxBZfILK0t2E24SPqNkLEy97cAgR4O5Avcrow9C0gB+wN0JSXVpmBk+t2A3hZsf bZD2XCa+vxq/kH1bFJpq+QEpsN19E2clU8GEkcCqDKFZrYW6jVbRxYiILXZzvBGR 4dP1V5n0xsowmfCC+4pL =EFLv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Fwd: [tor-project] [important] Trac usage and alternatives survey
by Georg Koppen 08 Mar '17

08 Mar '17

Hi! If you like/dislike dealing with our bug tracker then the Trac survey (see below) might be of interest to you. In any case we'd be happy to get feedback about our bug tracker deployment. Georg -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [tor-project] [important] Trac usage and alternatives survey Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:37:08 +0100 (CET) From: Silvia [Hiro] <hiro(a)torproject.org> Reply-To: tor-project(a)lists.torproject.org, hiro(a)torproject.org Organization: Tor Project To: tor-project(a)lists.torproject.org Hi everyone, as some of you might already know we have been working on a survey to see if we can identify possible Trac alternatives. The original question was: should we continue to patch Trac until we love it, or should we look around for a tool that might be able to do what we need? The idea of the survey is to identify what we actually need from a ticketing/wiki tool and eventually identify a solution that has all that we want (or that we can work with). So please take your time to answer the survey (it doesn't take longer than 2/3 minutes) https://storm.torproject.org/shared/mgNGJd30HpN8IL5XvoC4QhloRgDGLcpr6VzR89b… For any questions/doubts/rants feel free to write or ping me. -silvia _______________________________________________ tor-project mailing list tor-project(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-project

1 0

Feedback on design decision for Tor Launcher
by isabela＠riseup.net 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

Hello TBB team! and Linda ;) I would like to ask your feedback on some feature decisions we have to make for Tor Launcher. We got fund to work on improving Tor Launcher user experience. We are going to use Linda's paper as our reference on how we will go about that. We might add some new things on the top of the suggestions she makes on her paper, I know Linda herself has some stuff she wants to consider that is not there. But! This email is a question on a more specific thing, a question that comes out whenever one talks about Tor Launcher is 'why not automate it?'. And our sponsors are asking us that exactly question. I am in favor of making it easier for the user that will prefer not to deal with settings, but I am also a big fan on making sure our users are safe. As I believe you all are! Our sponsors are asking for the PT selection part of the launcher to be automated. For us to test the user network and figure out the best solution to get the user connected to the Tor network - we could leave an option for those users who would prefer to go through settings and configure it as they will. That said, Linda has specific design considerations that lead her to decide against that because of user security. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorLauncherUX2016#Designc… Another thing to consider is that we this will already obtain enormous gains with the improvements we will be doing at the Tor Launcher step, even without this automation piece. Linda's paper shows that. So, I would prefer we don't base this decision on 'gains' for Tor (of course automation will increase metrics is the easiest growth hack trick) but to base it on the user and their security. What we are looking for here is feedback on those points on 'design considerations' to make sure we are not missing anything here. Does the threats there has enough weight for us to not consider automation? Does anyone think different or has other points we are not considering? We would like feedback on this soon as we have a deadline (March 3rd) to decide on what to do about this feature request. Thanks! Isabela ps: Linda is updating her paper once that is done we will share with y'all o/

5 12

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

tbb-dev March 2017