-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Jesse V:
On 04/03/2017 05:01 PM, Jeremy Rand wrote:
Maybe this topic has already been brought up, but in case it hasn't, I'll do so. I notice that Prop279 (onion naming API) defines its own API rather than using DNS. I guess that this is because of security concerns about the centralization of the DNS.
Hi Jeremy,
I believe that the general idea with prop279 is simply to introduce an API for resolving pseudo-TLDs before they were sent through the Tor network. How that is done is entirely dependent on the naming system.
For example, if a user typed in example.bit into a Namecoin-enabled Tor browser, the software could then perform your proposed DNS lookup and rewrite the request before turning it over to the tor binary. In my case, my OnioNS software rewrites .tor to .onion, since the tor binary knows how to handle .onion. At the moment, this is a bit hacky because the software has connect with tor's control port, manually review and process each lookup, rewrite the the request, and then tell tor to connect it with a circuit. Prop 279 is designed to make this much easier and avoid hacky solutions.
Hi Jesse,
Yes, I understand that the goal is to provide an abstraction layer for naming systems that doesn't rely on control port hacks -- and that's great! My primary inquiry here is about whether the DNS protocol might be a better-suited protocol for Tor to use for talking to naming systems, rather than a Tor-specific protocol as is proposed now. I don't hold a strong opinion on this; I'm mostly just curious whether it was considered, and if so, what led to the decision not to use it.
Cheers, - -- - -Jeremy Rand Lead Application Engineer at Namecoin Mobile email: jeremyrandmobile@airmail.cc Mobile PGP: 2158 0643 C13B B40F B0FD 5854 B007 A32D AB44 3D9C Send non-security-critical things to my Mobile with PGP. Please don't send me unencrypted messages. My business email jeremy@veclabs.net is having technical issues at the moment.