On 5/19/08, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 04:31:42 -0400 "Grant Heller" <torstatistics@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Can I get some feedback regarding the deployment of an exit node restricted
>to port 443?
>
>My rationale is fairly simple, I believe in free speech and want to help
>make it available to everyone, especially those whose governments
>criminalize certain kinds of speech. I am also aware of some of the
>weakness' of Tor such as the lack of end to end encryption when
>using nonsecure protocols. My desire is to provide a communications
>mechanism that enforces end to end encryption.
>
>Do any interested members of this list feel that such a restrictive exit
>node is worth the bother and helpful to the project?
>
Any relay is helpful. If you provide exit service to any ports at all,
it is an additional benefit. Please do it.
That said, you may also wish to browse through /etc/services if you are
on a UNIX/LINUX system to see which other ports are for services that you
might be comfortable providing an exit for. (I don't remember where the
equivalent list is to be found on a Windows system.) My situation is too
exposed and vulnerable at present for me to provide exit service for port 80,
but do provide it for many other ports on my server (MYCROFTsOtherChild --
look for its exit policy in your cached-descriptors file if you're curious).
I have not gotten any complaints about it from my ISP so far either.
Port 80 is worrisome to me for abuse reasons also. My ISP prohibits dedicated internet servers but I would like to negotiate the privilege to host the node I have specified above. Don't know if they will listen, but am willing to try. I am hoping that they can be convinced that 1. I will limit the bandwidth to a portion of what I purchase and 2. there will not be a flood of abuse complaints.
The host OS will be the server edition of Ubuntu 8.04.
btw, I think the Windows equivalent is \windows\system32\drivers\etc\services
Thanks for your reply