Sure, here is the diagram:my web browser-->privoxy-->tor1-->tor2--> internettor1 is a Tor instance running in client mode and started using FreeCap. All of its internet connections are transparently redirected through tor2 by FreeCap, using SOCKS. tor2 is another instance of Tor running in client mode that is acting as a SOCKS server for tor1. tor2 has no special configuration changes and is NOT run through FreeCap.On a related note, if you have any comments on this thread, they would be appreciated: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2006/msg00156.html
Ringo Kamens <2600denver@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:Well, I'm fine with the network load personally but I know people get hate mail for network load.I guess I'm a little confused as to what exactly you're trying to do. Can you possibly draw a diagram such as this:my client-->tor-->tor loop 2 --> internetI'm a little confused here.As for increasing anonymity, the attacks that work against tor such as end-to-end or timing attacks simply won't be slowed down by routing through more tor nodes since each node can't really reveal where your connection came from (to my knowledge). It does work on normal socks proxy chains because they aren't blind and many keep logs.Ringo
On 4/27/06, Tor User <toruser256@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:Thanks for the response. Just to clarify, I wasn't refering to routing other users circuts through the Tor network again, just the requests from a single Tor client running on my computer, and what the security implications of that would be. I don't really have any intention of routing all my Tor circuts through another Tor client that I'm also running - I'm just curious about the effects it would have...re: 1) Since we're talking about a single client used on a sporatic basis, I don't think that an extra 500KB per month would be a bandwidth issue...re:2) Assuming I used the ExcludeNodes directive to prevent that kind of looping, do you think this would still be a bad thing from a security standpoint?re:3) Also, why do you say it doesn't increase anonynimity?re:4) I had just that idea, and started a thread on this list about it a few hours ago: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2006/msg00156.htmlThanks for your input :)
Ringo Kamens <2600denver@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:I don't think re-routing users through tor is good because:1. It increases network load2. They could end up in a very long loop with you as the exit point several times3. It doesn't increase anonymity (perhaps generating cover traffic would be better)4. Why don't you have your server fetch some SOCKS proxies from google and then route users through those instead?
On 4/27/06, Tor User <toruser256@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:I'm wondering what the anonynimity implications the following:1) Running Tor using Freecap: By this I mean running a Tor client and using FreeCap to transparently redirect all of Tor's network connections through a SOCKS proxy. This seems to work, and 'feels' just like using Tor in the standard way, and is useful for getting around transparently filtered network environments where running a Tor client doesn't work. Is this any more or less secure and anonymous than running a Tor client normally?2) Running Tor over Tor using Freecap: This is the same as above, but instead of using some arbitrary SOCKS server, another Tor client is used as the SOCKS server. This means that the Tor circuit is routed through another Tor circuit. I tried this and it (of course) increased latency, but what are the anonynimity and security effects?
NOTE: I understand that running a Tor circuit over an existing Tor circuit will put additional load on the Tor network, but I doubt a few kb/s of basic web surfing or instant messenger would hurt.__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.