Re: [tor-talk] TorWall - experimental transparent Tor proxy for Windows

[reqrypt <basil@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 > Bastik pointed out the trademark thing:  
 > But I'll take it a step farther to explain that there actually 
 > already *is* a Torwall in the past: 

Yeah oops...In hindsight the project was mis-named.
However, this is a proof-of-concept prototype.  I'll rename it if it's worthwhile developing further.
(suggestions for a name are welcome).
 
 > Hm. These both seem like pretty big impediments. As intrigeri said, Tails 
 > stopped doing the transparent proxy thing years ago, on the theory that 
 > if the given application isn't specifically configured to use Tor, it's 
 > probably going to screw up privacy-wise. Privoxy is really no substitute 
 > for correctly anonymizing the application-level traffic. 

I don't disagree with any of this.
I think the problems with Tor and transparent proxying are well-known.
It is really for those who know and understand the risks (possibly a very limited market?)

 > Back to this topic: is it intercepting outgoing port 80, or is it DPIing 
 > on traffic flows to decide they're http? I would be nervous about both 
 > of these in terms of the "corrupt plugin" you mention above. 

The current prototype intercepts outgoing port 80 and redirects it to Privoxy (and then onto Tor).
It also intercepts DNS.  All other non-Tor(*) traffic is blocked.

(*) currently based on port number, which is pretty weak, but it _is_ a prototype.

-basil

PS: I'm attempting to reply from digest mode.  Apologies if this message ends up in the wrong place...

_______________________________________________
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk