[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] TOR and Obfsproxy packet size
> The difference is caused by the protocol headers that are wrapped around
> IP, TCP, and TLS.
How many bytes does TLS take?
if we say TOR cell is 512 bytes, then 512 + 20 (TCP) + 20 (IP) = 552 and
586 - 552 = 34 bytes for TLS. is it correct?
> How did you run your test? 543 sounds like the TCP segment length and
> not like the length of the IP packet.
> Also, obfsproxy is just a framework. Which obfuscation protocol did you
> run? Obfs3?
I used Obfs3.
I am using wireshark . i get the same packet size when using tcpdump. In
wireshark there are 5 layers. Application,Transport,IP,Ethernet and
physical layer. (in regular TOR) for the application layer it shows 543
bytes (probably TLS is included).
Overall packet size (including all layers) is 597 bytes [543 + 20 (TCP) +
20 (IP) + 14 (Ethernet) = 597 bytes].
According to what you said at first, if 586 bytes is for (cell + TLS + TCP
+ IP), then in my case
(cell + TLS + TCP + IP) equals to 543 + 20 + 20 = 583 bytes. There is 3
bytes difference here. Why is it so?
How about Obfs3 traffic that wireshark (tcpdump) shows 565 bytes for the
application layer? [565 + 20 (TCP) + 20 (IP) = 605 bytes]
> First, Tor has static-length and variable-length cells, so it's not
> entirely fixed. Second, what actually ends up on the wire isn't only up
> to the tor client. It depends on TCP, which tries to fill the link MTU
> if there's enough data in the send buffer.
Do you know when TOR uses static-length cell and when variable-length cell?
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to