[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-talk] Bridge: Why not just stateless TCP socket proxy / forwarders?

On 1/15/12 11:54 PM, andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 04:58:56PM +0100, lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote 0.3K bytes in 11 lines about:
> : does Bridge really need to be Tor Servers?
> : Why they can't be just be simpler TCP socket proxy?
> We've been through this already. ;) No, a bridge is
> just a way to reach the tor network from a tor client,
> it can be any proxy or tcp forwarder. I refer you to
> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/strategies-getting-more-bridge-addresses
> again. Specifically, approach four and five.

So, if a third party would like independently to:
- develop a TCP forwarder (very simple  code)
- submit to the BridgeDB
- decide to which host to connect back

which would be the step do be done from technical standpoint of view?

Because that way it would be possible for a lot of third party to
develop very lightweight "Tor TCP Proxy" that doesn't have inside other
than the basic logic to do the TCP Proxy.

Is the availability for third party software/script for that goals


tor-talk mailing list