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

Re: privoxy/firefox

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: privoxy/firefox
From: ADB <firefox-gen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:40:53 -0700
Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-talk@seul.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:41:56 -0400
In-reply-to: <7d9163f3050828194670d531e4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7d9163f3050828194670d531e4@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:

FF does SOCKS 5 securely, so I don't see why you couldn't. The only reason I do is because I'm paranoid and use Squid to filter out some http headers. Squid doesn't know SOCKS, so I need privoxy for http--->socks translation. Unless you're doing what I just described, you shouldn't have to. ~Andrew

Arrakis Tor wrote:

Other than not having cookies blocked, Is there anything to lose by
not having privoxy installed, and using firefox as its own sock5
proxy? Does this compromise security by dns headers?

This is in reference to:
http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/FireFoxUsage

Follow-Ups:
- Re: privoxy/firefox
  - From: Roger Dingledine

References:
- privoxy/firefox
  - From: Arrakis Tor

Prev by Author: Re: torserver verified without request
Next by Author: Re: reconsidering default exit policy
Previous by thread: privoxy/firefox
Next by thread: Re: privoxy/firefox
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread