Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #16824, comment 43


Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 17, 2018, 3:08:20 PM (13 months ago)
Author:
starlight
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #16824, comment 43

    initial v1  
    1 Replying to [comment:42 starlight]:
    2 > Seemed to me a warning would arrive once client activity commenced on a traffic forwarding relay.  Had not considered how it would be implemented, whether SocksPort!=0 and ORPort!=NULL would trigger it.  Perhaps the message should emit on the first socks connection when ORPort is configured?  Or perhaps SockPort=0 should default when ORPort is set and the message arrive when both are asserted?
    3 >
    4 > To quote my earlier self:
    5 >
    6 > > 2) some consider it a reasonable idea to configure a client
    7 > > and relay in the same daemon instance with the belief
    8 > > that this would obfuscate local client traffic to some
    9 > > degree; but with the implementation as it presently
    10 > > stands such an idea is false and should be denigrated
    11 >
    12 > The idea of the warning is to alert users to potential risk, in consideration of the time and effort that will likely pass before the risk is alleviated.  Already quite some time has passed.
    13 >
    14 > Mike Perry suggested a warning as an alternative to my original idea that such configurations be discouraged via a new parameter, his reasoning in comment:16 above.
     1replied when edit intended -- a peril of white-on-black color schemes in a black-on-white world