tor-dev June 2011

tor-dev@lists.torproject.org

31 participants
26 discussions

TOR control protocol timeout
by Sean Robinson 25 Jun '11

25 Jun '11

Is there a defined timeout for the TOR control protocol? How long should a control port client wait around for socket data when reading? Or writing? The only references to timeouts that I find in control-spec.txt are about circuit and stream timeouts reported back through the control port. -- Sean Robinson WiFi Radar - http://wifi-radar.berlios.de Python WiFi - http://pythonwifi.wikispot.org pymnl - http://pymnl.wikispot.org

2 4

Tor AF independence patch - first big step to Tor IPv6
by Jeroen Massar 20 Jun '11

20 Jun '11

Hi, As this is World IPv6 day, let me present the first big step to Tor IPv6: the Address Family independence Patch ;) https://unfix.org/projects/ipv6/tor/tor-af-independent.diff it is diff against a recent git checkout and should apply more or less cleanly. Why AF independence[1,2] and not "IPv6 patch", well, for a program to be able to support IPv6 it should first not care about IP in the first place. With Tor that is a tricky thing as it actually needs to know about IP for quite a few places. As such this patch primary function is to make most functions use toraddr_t, that way both IPv6 and IPv4 are supported. Note that a lot of functionality for supporting IPv6 (or any other IP protocol in the longer term) is already present in current versions of Tor (even unittests are present already!). Note also that this is not a 'true' AF indepencence patch as in that case we would have to swap toraddr_t with a sockaddr_storage structure, which, when recompiled, would be true AF independent. In the case though that ever a new IP-alike protocol arises and then we still use BSD style sockets, this patch should make it easy to use that new address family too, but don't hold your breath ;) The problem with that though is that at this stage that means that everywhere IPv6 can be stuck just like IPv4 while these should be separate. And to make it a bit worse, one should actually have them also properly in the packets being sent between nodes and there is no separation between exit policies etc. There is thus a lot to discuss on this subject, and one of the first things that really need to be done is ORMultiPort (proposal 118) to be able to separate IPv4 and IPv6 ports. A question there also becomes, do we want to show a Tor node as separate IPv4 and IPv6 routers, or are they to be seen as one, if it is one, we require the above ORMultiport, so that we can have multiple IP addresses and ports on a single node. As such, I suggest we have a big discussion on the flaws of my patch and how to resolve some of the remaining problems and then start moving work to the ORMultPort patch so that we can start enabling IPv6 everywhere, as then we are getting quite close. And maybe, it could be useful to have a special branch on torproject's git server for this, as it is quite a bit of patch ;) Greets, Jeroen (fuzzel on #tor-dev) [1] = http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ [2] = http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/~eva/IPv6-web/ipv6.html

2 3

[PATCH] Allow tordnsel to build on Squeeze
by Jérémy Bobbio 20 Jun '11

20 Jun '11

Hi! Quoting IRC: <phobos> I give up on tordnsel, I'm unable to get git head to compile in squeeze Attached are 3 patches that allow tordnsel to build on a Squeeze system. I unfortunately lack a test environment to ensure that the resulting binary works fine. Haskell has proven quite trusty, though. The work needed to make it work for the next versions of GHC (7.x) is going to be an order of magnitude bigger, so it probably makes sense to get the Python implementation working until Squeeze is EOL. Cheers, -- Jérémy Bobbio .''`. lunar(a)debian.org : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism `. `'` `-

2 1

RFC: remove TorUtil.Enum
by Sean Robinson 18 Jun '11

18 Jun '11

I have been reviewing the TorCtl package and I will be submitting tickets (usually with patches) for clean-ups, fixes, etc. Before I submit a ticket for removing TorUtil.Enum, I wanted to hear from other devs. There are no users of this class within TorCtl, so Enum is now cruft. Does anyone have a problem with removing Enum? If I do not get negative feedback about this patch, I will submit it later in the week. The following patch is also attached to this message as a gzipped patch file. diff --git a/TorUtil.py b/TorUtil.py index 3163d09..1d27144 100644 --- a/TorUtil.py +++ b/TorUtil.py @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ if sys.version_info < (2, 5): else: from hashlib import sha1 -__all__ = ["Enum", "Enum2", "Callable", "sort_list", "quote", "escape_dots", "unescape_dots", +__all__ = ["Enum2", "Callable", "sort_list", "quote", "escape_dots", "unescape_dots", "BufSock", "secret_to_key", "urandom_rng", "s2k_gen", "s2k_check", "plog", "ListenSocket", "zprob", "logfile", "loglevel", "loglevels"] @@ -127,16 +127,6 @@ def read_config(filename): loglevel = config.get('TorCtl', 'loglevel') -class Enum(object): - """ Defines an ordered dense name-to-number 1-1 mapping """ - def __init__(self, start, names): - self.nameOf = {} - idx = start - for name in names: - setattr(self,name,idx) - self.nameOf[idx] = name - idx += 1 - class Enum2(object): """ Defines an ordered sparse name-to-number 1-1 mapping """ def __init__(self, **args): -- 1.7.5.1 -- Sean Robinson WiFi Radar - http://wifi-radar.berlios.de Python WiFi - http://pythonwifi.wikispot.org pymnl - http://pymnl.wikispot.org

2 2

Looking at Bridge users oddities
by Arturo 17 Jun '11

17 Jun '11

Hi, Jake made me notice that there has been a huge spike in tor bridge users in Italy in the past week (https://metrics.torproject.org/users.html?graph=bridge-users&start=2011-02-…). This prompted me to hack up a quick little script to analyse the Tor bridge usage data and see if it is possible to draw some conclusions from some patterns that emerge in it. I don't feel like expressing a personal an opinion at this point on what this data might mean, but I think spikes in Bridge usage could be used do draw conclusions on socio-political happenings. What the script does is it basically looks for spikes in Bridge traffic by giving it a time frame and a factor for triggering the alert. As already said it's just a quick hack so don't expect it to be performing or even well written :P. A couple of neat things that came out: factor | date1 date2 1: users at date1 2: users at date2 (country code) 23.0512820513 | 2011-06-10 2011-05-29 1: 1798 2: 78 (es) 22.0707070707 | 2011-06-10 2011-06-05 1: 4370 2: 198 (it) 4.14 | 2011-06-11 2011-06-04 1: 207 2: 50 (tw) 5.13333333333 | 2011-06-11 2011-06-05 1: 231 2: 45 (ar) 5.42857142857 | 2011-06-11 2011-06-05 1: 836 2: 154 (br) 4.38181818182 | 2011-06-11 2011-06-01 1: 241 2: 55 (il) 16.5208333333 | 2011-02-15 2011-01-18 1: 48 2: 793 (de) 15.4285714286 | 2010-08-23 2010-07-26 1: 648 2: 42 (au) 13.7916666667 | 2011-03-11 2011-02-15 1: 1655 2: 120 (sa) A one liner to get some interesting stats: python bridge-user-alert.py -f 4 | sort -g Hope somebody finds this little research useful, Cheers, Art.

1 0

Re: [tor-dev] license question
by Ted Smith 16 Jun '11

16 Jun '11

On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:51 +0200, Frederic Bor wrote: > Hello, > > > Im currently implementing transparent proxying for tor with Layered Service > Provider feature on windows. Microsoft provides a sample to demonstrate how > to implement an empty LSP (this is a lot of work, even to do nothing). This > sample is distributed under the license attached in this email. I have been > advised on #tor-dev to ask here about its compatibility with 3-clause BSD. > > It seems compatible to me but the following restriction may be a problem in > an open source context: > > "You may not [...] modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable > Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An > Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification > or distribution, that: > - the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form, or > - others have the right to modify it." > > The wording "requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution" > seems to allow to use the sample in tor, since there is no such requirement > in 3-clause BSD. > > Does this seem right to you? You might want to ask licensing(a)fsf.org -- that looks like a clause designed to exclude copyleft licenses, so they'd probably know about it and what effects it would have on non-copyleft licenses.

1 0

license question
by Frederic Bor 16 Jun '11

16 Jun '11

Hello, Im currently implementing transparent proxying for tor with Layered Service Provider feature on windows. Microsoft provides a sample to demonstrate how to implement an empty LSP (this is a lot of work, even to do nothing). This sample is distributed under the license attached in this email. I have been advised on #tor-dev to ask here about its compatibility with 3-clause BSD. It seems compatible to me but the following restriction may be a problem in an open source context: "You may not [...] modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that: - the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form, or - others have the right to modify it." The wording "requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution" seems to allow to use the sample in tor, since there is no such requirement in 3-clause BSD. Does this seem right to you? Cheers, Frederic

1 0

Thoughts on simplified packaging
by Andrew Lewman 15 Jun '11

15 Jun '11

As I talk to more and more people, they are confused by all of the different software packages we offer. From the simple, "I just want to be a relay, why is this so hard?" to "I just want to safely get to the BBC, I don't care about configuration and such. Can't you just make it a simple download and have it work by default?" I've written down my thoughts at https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/roadmaps/proposed-package-roadmap.t…. I'm looking for your thoughts and feedback. The goal is to simplify what we produce and make it easy for people to get the software and configuration they want. -- Andrew pgp 0x74ED336B

4 3

Python TorCtl development questions
by Sean Robinson 12 Jun '11

12 Jun '11

I have begun using the Python TorCtl package to develop a gui TOR controller. So, I am looking at the TorCtl source to understand how to use it properly. In this examination, I have begun adding comments, renaming vars to be more explicit, etc. How open are the developers to these changes? Will the devs accept patches to remove unused code. I'm looking at you, TorCtl.TorUtil.Enum. Is there interest in making TorCtl into a more mainstream form of Python package? See https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/2585 How far back in Python versions are we trying to maintain compatibility? As an example: TorCtl.TorUtil.Callable seems to be used to create static methods, but the staticmethod function to do this was added in Py2.2 (Dec 2001) and the @staticmethod decorator form was added in Py2.4 (Nov 2004). And thank you for TorCtl, it certainly saved me time not to have to implement a protocol engine from scratch. -- Sean Robinson WiFi Radar - http://wifi-radar.berlios.de Python WiFi - http://pythonwifi.wikispot.org pymnl - http://pymnl.wikispot.org

2 3

Will people running a relay be blocked from accessing CN destinations?
by tagnaq 11 Jun '11

11 Jun '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Ian, I made a new thread to avoid this discussion in the 'The Torouter and the DreamPlug' thread. > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:47:10PM +0200, tagnaq wrote: >>> > > Doesn't "make random people into public (middle-only) relays" have the >>> > > (well maybe not "problem", but "issue"?) that when GFW blocks them, they >>> > > (the random people who bought an Excito/etc.) won't be able to connect >>> > > to anything in .cn any more? Although I don't _often_ connect to .cn >>> > > domains, it seems unfortunate to effectively auto-ban these people from >>> > > Chinese websites. >> > >> > I did not experience any problems connecting to .cn while using a relay >> > IP address. I think they are just blocking an IP:port combination and >> > not the entire IP address. >> > ...but things might change > Hmm. I wonder what happens if the packets are fragmented so that the > TCP port information isn't in the first fragment... possibilities: a) a fragmented IP packet doesn't get blocked b) they don't allow IP fragmentation (Don't Framgent Bit set) c) their firewall is able to find out whether the fragment is part of a blocked destination (IP:port) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF4EAREKAAYFAk3znv4ACgkQyM26BSNOM7ZB5QD+J7p1OSqD7uopViiigmop84sp nlzbSV6dqK2ZvT+PrbUA/i2hLQKHkYZfVUQqTp4hu2o9bp5GbHsNylNP6l1lKByB =aKCK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-dev June 2011