[tor-bugs] #17721 [Wiki]: doc/TorPlusVPN confusing and/or inconsistent - refinements, please.

["Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki" <blackhole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#17721: doc/TorPlusVPN confusing and/or inconsistent - refinements, please.
------------------------------+-----------------
     Reporter:  HBcDM719w9j6  |      Owner:
         Type:  defect        |     Status:  new
     Priority:  Medium        |  Milestone:
    Component:  Wiki          |    Version:
     Severity:  Normal        |   Keywords:  vpn
Actual Points:                |  Parent ID:
       Points:                |    Sponsor:
------------------------------+-----------------
 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorPlusVPN is confusing,
 and possibly incorrect/inconsistent in terms of self-consistency.

 -- granted, it's a sophisticated topic, and although I might not be a guru
 in all things, I'm not a 'newbie'.

 (1) Given: "X in this article stands for, "either a VPN, SSH or proxy""

 (2):
 (2.1) } you -> X -> Tor
 (2.2) } you -> VPN/SSH -> Tor

 By (1), (2.2) is covered by (2.1), thus the presence of (2.2) makes one
 go, Huh, what, this is covered above! i.e. That (2.2) is the refinement of
 a specific case of (2.1) is not immediately apparent. I suspect part of
 the problem is little header formatting difference between the two - if
 the character sizes are different, they aren't sufficiently different that
 the difference is immediately apparent. Suggestion: Underline (2.1).

 (3):
 } you -> Tor -> x
 } This is generally a really poor plan.

 -- a link as to why it's a poor plan would be useful.

 (4) } you -> Tor -> VPN/SSH

 -- same comment as (2)
 -- if (3) is bad, (4) should be just as bad, yet the descriptive text
 infers that the approach is 'reasonable'.
 -- "You can also route VPN/SSH services through Tor."
 --= This is what caused me to register to submit this ticket.
 --=- Shouldn't this be 'You can also route Tor through VPN/SSH
 services'???
 --=- Thus, confusing, and it's hard enough following the ball as it
 bounces through this. i.e. If it shouldn't be that, it's not apparent that
 it shouldn't be that - which is to say the article being clearer would be
 useful. If it should be as suggested ...
 -- "In our experience, establishing VPN connections through Tor is chancy"
 but one is reading this to establish Tor -> VPN, so one questions if this
 pertains to what they're trying to find out about, confusion results ...
 and the (excellent) purpose in writing the article in the first place
 isn't being met.

 I don't mean to say that I am reading correctly, and thus making accurate
 comments, however, if I'm not, it's not apparent or clear that I'm not.
 Perhaps refactoring the article makes sense.

 (5) } general

 I got to this article as it is made clear that Tor anonymizes TCP traffic.
 I was looking to see that all other traffic was anonymized as well. (Let
 alone, more traffic leaks from a machine than I can possibly track, so
 having a catch all seems prudent.) 'General' referring to this use case /
 reason for coming to consume the article would be useful. i.e. Means one
 has gotten to a page that addresses what they're thinking about - if this
 page does not deal with that use case, a link to such other as does would
 be useful.

 (6) } Practical

 I got to this article from whonix. This reference makes things circular.
 Something to help one break this circular reference would be useful.

 Thanks for listening.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/17721>
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