Damnit! Aparently Dingledine was right. Etherial picked up the DNS
queries. It seems that just because Tor doesn't say that there's a
problem, it doesn't mean that there isn't a DNS leak going on. Could
this behavior (or lack thereof) be considered a bug?|
Arrakis Tor wrote:
I would very much appreciate an investigation into it. On 8/29/05, ADB <firefox-gen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The latest stable (1.0.6) operates without causing any screen messages when tor is set to 'notice' loglevel. Programs known not to do DNS in a safe manner do result in such notifications. When did you last review the source? I'll do a local ethernet sniff w/ Etherial if you would like further verification (it's late right now otherwise I would just do it immediately). Roger Dingledine wrote: 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 .