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

Re: privoxy/firefox

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: privoxy/firefox
From: Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:04:09 -0400
Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-talk@seul.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:04:21 -0400
In-reply-to: <43129FE5.4080608@walala.org>
References: <7d9163f3050828194670d531e4@mail.gmail.com> <43129FE5.4080608@walala.org>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 10:40:53PM -0700, ADB wrote:
> FF does SOCKS 5 securely, so I don't see why you couldn't. The only 
> 
> >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?

Last I read the code, the way Firefox does socks5 is *not* secure from
Tor's perspective. It does the DNS resolve itself, then passes the IP
address to Tor via socks5.

Firefox 1.1 (not yet released, as far as I know) has an option to "do
dns remotely", which makes it safe. Adam Langley has a howto on this:
http://www.imperialviolet.org/deerpark.html

--Roger

Follow-Ups:
- Re: privoxy/firefox
  - From: ADB

References:
- privoxy/firefox
  - From: Arrakis Tor
- Re: privoxy/firefox
  - From: ADB

Prev by Author: Re: PIDFile not written/missing in tor-0.1.1.5-alpha-cvs
Next by Author: Re: Injecting client data through your own server
Previous by thread: Re: privoxy/firefox
Next by thread: Re: privoxy/firefox
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread