[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #7167 [Pluggable transport]: Combine traffic obfuscation with address diversity of flash proxy
#7167: Combine traffic obfuscation with address diversity of flash proxy
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Reporter: karsten | Owner: asn
Type: project | Status: needs_revision
Priority: normal | Milestone:
Component: Pluggable transport | Version:
Keywords: SponsorF20131101 flashproxy | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Comment(by dcf):
Replying to [comment:28 asn]:
> looking at the logic of `obfs-flash.git`, it seems that if we want a
bundle that contains `websocket`, `obfs2|websocket` and `obfs3|websocket`,
then we will have to spawn 3 `flashproxy-client`s and each one of them
will do its own registration.
>
> That's fine, but each of those `flashproxy-client`s should be aware of
the transport chain it supports, so that it can submit a proper client
registraton to the facilitator.
>
> How should we do this? Should we add a CLI swich to `flashproxy-client`
that looks like this: `--transport=websocket|obfs3`? Should we also be
able to specify a default port for that transport so that we can ask
people to forward a specific TCP port (like we currently do with
`DEFAULT_REMOTE_PORT`)?
Yeah, I like the `--transport` option. Although in this case I think it
would be `--transport=obfs3|websocket` (opposite order to match earlier
discussion). The default transport would be `websocket`. You have to add
the option to all the registration helpers too (`flashproxy-reg-email`
etc.). See `build_register_command` in `flashproxy-client`.
Knowledge of default ports should be built into the super-proxy, not
`flashproxy-client`, I think. What I am imagining is a configuration file
that shows what commands to run for the sub-proxies. `flashproxy-client`
takes its remote port from the command line like this. The super-proxy
will inform `flashproxy-client` of its remote port, and then `flashproxy-
client` forwards that port to the registration helpers.
If #5426 were done, then the super-proxy could do registration, rather
than `flashproxy-client` doing it.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7167#comment:30>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs