Changes between Initial Version and Version 10 of Ticket #2355


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 23, 2011, 12:19:59 AM (9 years ago)
Author:
arma
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #2355

    • Property Status changed from new to needs_review
    • Property Cc amnesia@… added
    • Property Component changed from Tor Client to Tor Bridge
    • Property Priority changed from normal to minor
    • Property Milestone changed from to Tor: unspecified
  • Ticket #2355 – Description

    initial v10  
    11In T(A)ILS (https://amnesia.boum.org) we want to enable a bridge-only mode (chosen at the boot menu, or at least before Tor starts) which ensures that the Tor network is never directly connected to. We figure some people don't want to disclose that they are using Tor for various reasons.
    22
    3 Hence we'd like to have an option that can be set in torrc that makes Tor only use bridges, but without it being neccessary to specify a bridge in torrc -- the user should be able to do that through Vidalia at a later point, and then have Tor bootstrap as soon as a bridge has been set through the control port.
     3Hence we'd like to have an option that can be set in torrc that makes Tor only use bridges, but without it being necessary to specify a bridge in torrc -- the user should be able to do that through Vidalia at a later point, and then have Tor bootstrap as soon as a bridge has been set through the control port.
    44
    55Here follows the discussion on #tor-dev which suggests that a change of the meaning of UseBridges might be the way:
    66
    77(17:52:11) nickm: It seems like you may also want a "I am using bridges, even though I haven't configured any bridges yet" option
    8 (17:52:36) nickm: That seems much closer to what you are trying to achieve than "ReachableAddresses reject *:*"
     8(17:52:36) nickm: That seems much closer to what you are trying to achieve than "!ReachableAddresses reject *:*"
    99(17:53:14) nickm: You could even fake it, I bet, with something like Bridge 127.0.0.1:x, where x is an unused port.
    1010(17:53:17) anonym: yes, exactly
    1111(17:53:31) nickm: that's not a great solution, of course
    12 (17:56:30) anonym: a proper "EnforceBridges" or whatever would be best, yes. is that likely to get implemented if I file a feature request?
    13 (17:56:43) nickm: EnforceBridges is not really what you mean
     12(17:56:30) anonym: a proper "!EnforceBridges" or whatever would be best, yes. is that likely to get implemented if I file a feature request?
     13(17:56:43) nickm: !EnforceBridges is not really what you mean
    1414(17:56:57) nickm: Because Bridge settings _are_ and _should be_ enforced, always
    15 (17:57:10) nickm: You want "EnforceTheBridgesIHaventEvenToldYouAboutYet"
     15(17:57:10) nickm: You want "!EnforceTheBridgesIHaventEvenToldYouAboutYet"
    1616(17:57:13) nickm: or something
    1717(17:57:18) anonym: hence my "or whatever"
    1818(17:58:10) nickm: hang on.
    19 (17:58:13) nickm: what about UseBridges 1
     19(17:58:13) nickm: what about !UseBridges 1
    2020(17:58:32) nickm: ah.
    2121(17:58:53) nickm: if usebridges 1 is set, and you list no bridges, we reject the torrc
    22 (17:59:20) Sebastian: The value of the UseBridges config option is kind of debatable
     22(17:59:20) Sebastian: The value of the !UseBridges config option is kind of debatable
    2323(17:59:44) nickm: Sebastian: you mean, if they specify a bridge, UseBridges should automatically turn on?
    2424(17:59:56) Sebastian: yes
    2525(17:59:56) nickm: or something else?
    2626(18:00:15) nickm: if we agreed on that, then this sounds like a fine value for a tristate, with "auto" being the default.
    27 (18:00:40) nickm: I don't know if our existing code does the right thing with UseBridges set but Bridges empty; changing this shouldn't be _too_ hard though
    28 (18:00:42) anonym: and 1 being what was intended with "EnforceTheBridgesIHaventEvenToldYouAboutYet"
     27(18:00:40) nickm: I don't know if our existing code does the right thing with !UseBridges set but Bridges empty; changing this shouldn't be _too_ hard though
     28(18:00:42) anonym: and 1 being what was intended with "!EnforceTheBridgesIHaventEvenToldYouAboutYet"
    2929(18:00:42) anonym: ?
    3030(18:00:52) nickm: anonym: hypothetically yes