On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Runa A. Sandvik <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:runa.sandvik@gmail.com">runa.sandvik@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <<a href="mailto:jacob@appelbaum.net">jacob@appelbaum.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Runa A. Sandvik <<a href="mailto:runa.sandvik@gmail.com">runa.sandvik@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Andrew Lewman <<a href="mailto:andrew@torproject.org">andrew@torproject.org</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:36:45 -0700<br>
>> > Jacob Appelbaum <<a href="mailto:jacob@appelbaum.net">jacob@appelbaum.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> > We would also need a way for users to easily change the hashed<br>
>> >> > password. I can't remember if this is a feature that is already<br>
>> >> > present in Vidalia.<br>
>> >> Yes, we do need a way to change the password. We will also need a way<br>
>> >> to reset the password if the user is locked out of the control port. I<br>
>> >> generally think that this means we'll need a web UI... :-)<br>
>> ><br>
>> > It's built into vidalia. Just click Advanced and you can change the<br>
>> > password all you want.<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> I think the best thing is to make an autoconfiguring device with a<br>
>> >> web UI; we can easily rate limit Tor to something reasonable and make<br>
>> >> it a middle node by default. In all cases it stands alone and simply<br>
>> >> plugging it into a wall (power/ethernet) will provide more capacity<br>
>> >> to the network if the OR port is reachable (ala tor-fw-helper + tor +<br>
>> >> init.d scripts to start Tor on boot).<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Most of me wants to wait for the freedombox people to derive their web<br>
>> > interface, and then we can plug tor into it. I realize this could be<br>
>> > years at the current rate of progress. If someone whips up a quick<br>
>> > interface that isn't a security nightmare, we could use that until<br>
>> > freedombox has something tangible.<br>
>><br>
>> Yeah, I was hoping the freedombox people would have something we could<br>
>> use. Doesn't seem like it, though. I think that, at some point, we<br>
>> should create a web ui for the dreamplug. But not having one right now<br>
>> should not be a blocker for the dreamplug-torouter.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean... The FB is just a Debian machine. Pick a<br>
> web server, write a cgi and perhaps that will be the main interface? :-) I'd<br>
> email the FBF list and ask. Perhaps the best web UI is one that is already<br>
> written? Is the web UI for the Excito free software?<br>
<br>
</div></div>I was hoping there would be an existing ui what we could just plug Tor<br>
into, just like we did with the Excito B3 interface.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think it's fine to ship one web interface for us now and later find a good integration point with the Freedom Box later...</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">
>> > I suggest we ship the dreamplug with cli access only for those who want<br>
>> > a cheap device to be a bridge or relay.<br>
>><br>
>> I guess we can set up dreamplugs as bridges by default and include a<br>
>> leaflet explaining the steps to take to change the configuration. Do<br>
>> you think we should touch the default setup of the dreamplug (it<br>
>> serves an open wifi by default, for example)?<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I believe that by default we should be shipping middle relays and we should<br>
> be shipping 0.2.3.x with tor-fw-helper enabled by default as well.<br>
> I think the boxes should be re-flashed to have Debian or a modern Ubuntu and<br>
> locked down except with Tor and OpenSSH as listening services. We also need<br>
> things to sync time and so on.<br>
<br>
</div>Sounds like a plan. I prefer bridge by default, but we can discuss that later.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What's the rational there? While we certainly need more bridges, I'd like to see an increase in relays and encourage more Friend of Friend bridge sharing. We should include a bunch of common configs and make it easy to setup. Also, a public relay will be much easier to help with in terms of setup, I suspect.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
>> > I suggest we ship the excito with the web ui as the easy to use<br>
>> > option.<br>
>><br>
>> Yep, the Tor web ui for the Excito B3 should be ready at the end of the<br>
>> month.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Is it Free Software? Can we use it on the DreamPlug until we have something<br>
> else?<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, it's free software and will be available in the Excito GitHub<br>
repository when it's released (not sure if it's there already, I don't<br>
think so). The web interface is probably a bit too "heavy" (and<br>
includes a good mix of php and perl) for the dreamplug, so we should<br>
probably look for something else.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Can we rip out everything except the basics? If so, I think their web front end is perfect and it already has a Tor UI thanks to you... :-)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">
>> > In either case, we need to start testing, not keep thinking about what<br>
>> > we could do. We're going to get a flood of feedback from actual people<br>
>> > testing the excito or dreamplug.<br>
>><br>
>> Valid point.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I think we need to talk about what we need for the OS. I suspect we need<br>
> OpenSSH + Tor (tor-fw-helper, etc) + a few stock configuration files + time<br>
> syncing (clockskew for example) + a randomly generated password that we<br>
> uniquely key for each router in some non-silly way.<br>
> Is there a trac ticket for the OS part of the Torouter?<br>
<br>
</div>There is now: <a href="https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/3374" target="_blank">https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/3374</a><br>
<br>
We can move the discussion to #3374 if you want.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm happy to keep hammering stuff out here and the we can dump the results into the bug report.</div><div><br></div><div>What do you think about a DreamPlug with Debian or Ubuntu? Do we have a preference?</div>
<div>What other software do we need beyond ntp, ssh, tor and a web UI?</div><div>Do we want to support a transparent Tor wifi network by default?</div><div><br></div><div>I think Ubuntu's latest release is the best in terms of security and in theory support. It is however not as beloved as Debian for a number of solid reasons. I think NTP, OpenSSH with key auth (and perhaps fail2ban or something similar) and password auth, a very minimal web UI but still functional for real Tor configuration and that's about all we'll need.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I also like the idea of a Tor wifi network by default for laptops like the CR-48 that I'm using right now. I'd kill to have a way to Torify the laptop because my main concern isn't privacy from my local network, it's data retention from the remote hosts... :-/</div>
<div><br></div><div>All the best,</div><div>Jake</div></div>