> have there been any attempts to produce a pluggable transport which would emulate http?(Ah, I suppose there've been quite a bit of discussion indeed. (https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/8676, etc.))
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Kostas Jakeliunas <kostas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 insideI'm probably missing some previous discussions which might have covered it, but: have there been any attempts to produce a pluggable transport which would emulate http? Basically, have the transport use http headers, and put all encrypted data in the body (possibly prepending it with some html tags even)? This sounds like a nice idea.
the body of http then this may work.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Matthew Finkel <matthew.finkel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 04:18:56PM +0300, George Kadianakis wrote:This may be a good feature to have, in general, but it does not sound like
> tor-admin <tor-admin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Sunday 05 May 2013 14:50:51 George Kadianakis wrote:
> >> It would be interesting to learn which ports they currently whitelist,
> >> except from the usual HTTP/HTTPS.
> >>
> >> I also wonder if they just block based on TCP port, or whether they
> >> also have DPI heuristics.
> >>
> >> On the Tor side, it seems like we should start looking into #7875:
> >> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7875
> >> _______________________________________________
> > I am wondering if here is there a way for a user to ask bridgedb for a bridge
> > with a specific port?
> > _______________________________________________
> > tor-dev mailing list
> > tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
>
> If I remember correctly BridgeDB tries (in a best-effort manner) to
> give users bridges that are listening on port 443. Obfuscated bridges
> that bind on 443 are not very common (because of #7875) so I guess
> that not many obfuscated bridges on 443 are given out.
>
> In any case, I don't think that a user can explicitly ask BridgeDB for
> a bridge on a specific port, but this might be a useful feature
> request (especially if this "filtering based on TCP port" tactic
> continues).
this will solve the current problem in Iran. The last report says
they're whitelisting ports *and* protocols[1]. So even if a user attempts
to use obfs3 on port 443 it'll likely be blocked because obfs3 is not a
look-like-https protocol. If we had a PT that encapsulated obfs3 inside
the body of http then this may work. CDA also says SSL/TLS connections
are throttled to 5% of the normal speed [2], so that's no fun either.
[1] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331006059923795968
[2] https://twitter.com/CDA/status/331040305648369664
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev