[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Exit enclaves and FQDNs
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Exit enclaves and FQDNs
- From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:17:34 -0400
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:17:43 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=GUSx6li6rkInmpVDf1Sl+ze1l9pRvN25PHO/St91wiw=; b=fw1J1dOW0vwpVhAD3ysgI89kSg8McNPL6hEWuFaJ807sTiha+9bH0w3lcKd6rbOkKEFyciF3V2udOTbXFqr7fV60P4ANG4bGdzuBVmJd8PEe9xQadVbWQ/ERSSIkdSEb5nUScMbGxPSsCFH2iqGbt0+OfCmybDQ5EFC54pUHa5c=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=Si5FABjAGAOhxIOu4aYa4HI1ZWPzEsbF94ZfjI7Jkwrwc4SMsbk5HTBVBIiDLZfIwbD9pTv70MoAzNzt7WQ6La5TWYtbn1kyH13LFzdseZ9OYhAsVUACB9X+lfDcflxagLLpjFQ57wcviFhObwu75Jf5UlYBLKR/naym5eY/gtk=
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm working on setting up a number of nodes as exit enclaves. If I use
a normal socks4 client (resulting in local DNS resolution) it works
exactly as I would expect: All traffic to the exit host uses the exit
host local tor node.
If instead I use a client with privoxy and sock4a with DNS resolution
performed via tor I find that the *first* request to the FQDN of my
exit host uses some random exit. After that my tor client appears to
have cached the result and all further http accesses are via the local
exit.
Because this first request doesn't use the exit enclave it
reintroduces in a loss of end-to-end encryption and risk of malicious
exits. While one connection isn't so bad... for http a malicious exit
could respond with a redirect to a proxy they control.
Am I missing some aspect of the configuration which removes this vulnerability?