Re: Tor server for port 443

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:21:44 -0700 "F. Fox" <kitsune.or@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Grant Heller wrote:
>> Can I get some feedback regarding the deployment of an exit node
>> restricted to port 443?
>>  
>> My rationale is fairly simple, I believe in free speech and want to help
>> make it available to everyone, especially those whose governments
>> criminalize certain kinds of speech.  I am also aware of some of the
>> weakness' of Tor such as the lack of end to end encryption when
>> using nonsecure protocols.  My desire is to provide a communications
>> mechanism that enforces end to end encryption.
>(snip)
>
>In addition to port 443, you might consider ports like 995 - used for
>secure POP3 - and 587, used for secure SMTP on Gmail.

     Any idea why gmail uses 587 instead of the standard smtps port, which
is 465?  I wouldn't unblock an smtps port and for the same reasons I leave
the unencrypted smtp port (25) blocked.
>
>There are other ports used primarily with end-to-end encrypted
>protocols, you may want to look. =:o)

     995, as you point out, is good for safe (for the server operator) exits,
as is 993 (imaps).  I think there are other harmless ones, too, like 123 (ntp,
though why would anyone bother to use it?:-), 989 (ftps-data) and 990 (ftps),
22 (ssh), 481 (ph), and doubtlessly some others.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************