[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #6031 [Tor Hidden Services]: Distinguish when a Tor HS is "not found" vs "not reachable" (exists / does not exists)
#6031: Distinguish when a Tor HS is "not found" vs "not reachable" (exists / does
not exists)
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Reporter: naif | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_revision
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: 0.2.4.x-final
Component: Tor Hidden Services | Version:
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Comment(by nickm):
Replying to [comment:11 andrea]:
> I've tested this and it seems to work as advertised. Two issues,
though:
>
> First, RFC 1928 does not define status codes 0x23 or 0x24, and describes
all status codes >= 0x09 as simply 'unassigned'. It requires that clients
treat any status other than 0x00 as an error and disconnect, so the scope
for pathological behavior *from conforming clients* is limited here, but
do we know how well clients behave in practice?
What would you think about using "Host unreachable" for the case where
lookup fails and "connection refused" for the case where
introduction/rendezvous fails? I don't think we'd be doing a great
violence to either. (If only they had thought to introduce "name lookup
failed" when they introduced hostname addresses. But there's no use
crying over bad specs.)
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6031#comment:13>
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