Re: [tor-dev] The Torouter and the DreamPlug

["Runa A. Sandvik" <runa.sandvik@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Runa A. Sandvik <runa.sandvik@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Runa A. Sandvik <runa.sandvik@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Andrew Lewman <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:36:45 -0700
>> >> > Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > We would also need a way for users to easily change the hashed
>> >> >> > password. I can't remember if this is a feature that is already
>> >> >> > present in Vidalia.
>> >> >> Yes, we do need a way to change the password. We will also need a
>> >> >> way
>> >> >> to reset the password if the user is locked out of the control port.
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> generally think that this means we'll need a web UI... :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > It's built into vidalia.  Just click Advanced and you can change the
>> >> > password all you want.
>> >> >
>> >> >> I think the best thing is to make an autoconfiguring device with a
>> >> >> web UI; we can easily rate limit Tor to something reasonable and
>> >> >> make
>> >> >> it a middle node by default. In all cases it stands alone and simply
>> >> >> plugging it into a wall (power/ethernet) will provide more capacity
>> >> >> to the network if the OR port is reachable (ala tor-fw-helper + tor
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> init.d scripts to start Tor on boot).
>> >> >
>> >> > Most of me wants to wait for the freedombox people to derive their
>> >> > web
>> >> > interface, and then we can plug tor into it.  I realize this could be
>> >> > years at the current rate of progress. If someone whips up a quick
>> >> > interface that isn't a security nightmare, we could use that until
>> >> > freedombox has something tangible.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, I was hoping the freedombox people would have something we could
>> >> use. Doesn't seem like it, though. I think that, at some point, we
>> >> should create a web ui for the dreamplug. But not having one right now
>> >> should not be a blocker for the dreamplug-torouter.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I'm not sure what you mean... The FB is just a Debian machine.
>> > Pick a
>> > web server, write a cgi and perhaps that will be the main interface? :-)
>> > I'd
>> > email the FBF list and ask. Perhaps the best web UI is one that is
>> > already
>> > written? Is the web UI for the Excito free software?
>>
>> I was hoping there would be an existing ui what we could just plug Tor
>> into, just like we did with the Excito B3 interface.
>>
>
> I think it's fine to ship one web interface for us now and later find a good
> integration point with the Freedom Box later...

Yep, I agree.

>> >> > I suggest we ship the dreamplug with cli access only for those who
>> >> > want
>> >> > a cheap device to be a bridge or relay.
>> >>
>> >> I guess we can set up dreamplugs as bridges by default and include a
>> >> leaflet explaining the steps to take to change the configuration. Do
>> >> you think we should touch the default setup of the dreamplug (it
>> >> serves an open wifi by default, for example)?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I believe that by default we should be shipping middle relays and we
>> > should
>> > be shipping 0.2.3.x with tor-fw-helper enabled by default as well.
>> > I think the boxes should be re-flashed to have Debian or a modern Ubuntu
>> > and
>> > locked down except with Tor and OpenSSH as listening services. We also
>> > need
>> > things to sync time and so on.
>>
>> Sounds like a plan. I prefer bridge by default, but we can discuss that
>> later.
>>
>
> What's the rational there? While we certainly need more bridges, I'd like to
> see an increase in relays and encourage more Friend of Friend bridge
> sharing. We should include a bunch of common configs and make it easy to
> setup. Also, a public relay will be much easier to help with in terms of
> setup, I suspect.

Well, bridge by default is what they B3's are set up with. I also
figure that a bridge sees less traffic than a relay, and so it might
be more "friendly" for new users. But I like the idea of having a
bunch of common configs, and we can also suggest bandwidth limits.

>> >> > I suggest we ship the excito with the web ui as the easy to use
>> >> > option.
>> >>
>> >> Yep, the Tor web ui for the Excito B3 should be ready at the end of the
>> >> month.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Is it Free Software? Can we use it on the DreamPlug until we have
>> > something
>> > else?
>>
>> Yes, it's free software and will be available in the Excito GitHub
>> repository when it's released (not sure if it's there already, I don't
>> think so). The web interface is probably a bit too "heavy" (and
>> includes a good mix of php and perl) for the dreamplug, so we should
>> probably look for something else.
>>
>
> Can we rip out everything except the basics? If so, I think their web front
> end is perfect and it already has a Tor UI thanks to you... :-)

Maaaaybe. I haven't tried, but it can't be that hard. I'll look into it.

>> >> > In either case, we need to start testing, not keep thinking about
>> >> > what
>> >> > we could do.  We're going to get a flood of feedback from actual
>> >> > people
>> >> > testing the excito or dreamplug.
>> >>
>> >> Valid point.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think we need to talk about what we need for the OS. I suspect we need
>> > OpenSSH + Tor (tor-fw-helper, etc) + a few stock configuration files +
>> > time
>> > syncing (clockskew for example) + a randomly generated password that we
>> > uniquely key for each router in some non-silly way.
>> > Is there a trac ticket for the OS part of the Torouter?
>>
>> There is now: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/3374
>>
>> We can move the discussion to #3374 if you want.
>>
>
> I'm happy to keep hammering stuff out here and the we can dump the results
> into the bug report.

Works for me. It's great to get feedback that will help get me started.

> What do you think about a DreamPlug with Debian or Ubuntu? Do we have a
> preference?

Good question. I love Debian, but I'm sure Ubuntu would be great to
use as well. I'll do some research and see if there is a good reason
we should pick one over the other.

> What other software do we need beyond ntp, ssh, tor and a web UI?

> Do we want to support a transparent Tor wifi network by default?

Maybe this is something we can add later, and focus on bridge/relay
support first?

> I think Ubuntu's latest release is the best in terms of security and in
> theory support. It is however not as beloved as Debian for a number of solid
> reasons. I think NTP, OpenSSH with key auth (and perhaps fail2ban or
> something similar) and password auth, a very minimal web UI but still
> functional for real Tor configuration and that's about all we'll need.

Yeah, I agree.

> I also like the idea of a Tor wifi network by default for laptops like the
> CR-48 that I'm using right now. I'd kill to have a way to Torify the laptop
> because my main concern isn't privacy from my local network, it's data
> retention from the remote hosts... :-/

I'm sure it would be useful for a number of users. I wouldn't be too
difficult to include, and maybe the web interface can have an on/off
button so that they can choose whether or not to enable the Tor wifi
network.

-- 
Runa A. Sandvik
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev