Re: another unusual connection

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:32:29 +0100 Dominik Schaefer <schaedpq2@xxxxxx>
wrote:
>I just read the logs from yesterday:
>
>Feb 07 14:12:49.069 [Hinweis] Our IP Address has changed from 78.49.3.182 to
>212.112.242.159; rebuilding descriptor.
>Feb 07 14:12:59.749 [Hinweis] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable
>from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor.
>Feb 07 14:49:24.768 [Hinweis] Our IP Address has changed from 212.112.242.159
>to 78.49.3.182; rebuilding descriptor.
>Feb 07 14:50:07.350 [Hinweis] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is reachable
>from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor.
>
>tor-0.2.0.18-alpha on MacOS X 10.5.1, not very surprising: the host is behind
>a NAT router. So no point against your theory Roger.
>
     I've been reading these reports on this list carefully and with growing
alarm.  How is it that the reachability testing routine(s) fail to discover
that, upon connecting to the supposed new IP address on whichever TCP port the
tor server is using, it is *not connected to itself*?  I had been assuming all
along that the reachability testing would check for something so obviously
important.  Does DirPort reachability testing also fail to check the identity
of the server that answers its connection attempt?
     What does tor do if the server it tries to connect to, thinking that that
server is itself, uses a different TCP port?  The IP address in that case would
be reachable, but the tor server would not.
     It makes me wonder what other glaring holes may exist in tor's various
checking/testing routines.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************