<div>Thanks for the response. Just to clarify, I wasn't refering to routing other users circuts through the Tor network again, just the requests from a single Tor client running on my computer, and what the security implications of that would be. I don't really have any intention of routing all my Tor circuts through another Tor client that I'm also running - I'm just curious about the effects it would have...</div> <div> </div> <div>re: 1) Since we're talking about a single client used on a sporatic basis, I don't think that an extra 500KB per month would be a bandwidth issue...</div> <div> </div> <div>re:2) Assuming I used the ExcludeNodes directive to prevent that kind of looping, do you think this would still be a bad thing from a security standpoint?</div> <div> </div> <div>re:3) Also, why do you say it doesn't increase anonynimity?</div> <div> </div> <div>re:4) I had just that idea, and started a thread on this list about
it a few hours ago: <A href="http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2006/msg00156.html">http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2006/msg00156.html</A></div> <div> </div> <div>Thanks for your input :)<BR><BR><B><I>Ringo Kamens <2600denver@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <DIV>I don't think re-routing users through tor is good because:</DIV> <DIV>1. It increases network load</DIV> <DIV>2. They could end up in a very long loop with you as the exit point several times</DIV> <DIV>3. It doesn't increase anonymity (perhaps generating cover traffic would be better)</DIV> <DIV>4. Why don't you have your server fetch some SOCKS proxies from google and then route users through those instead?<BR><BR> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 4/27/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Tor User</B> <<A href="mailto:toruser256@yahoo.com">toruser256@yahoo.com</A>>
wrote:</SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> <DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr">I'm wondering what the anonynimity implications the following: <DIV>1) Running Tor using Freecap:<SPAN> </SPAN>By this I mean running a Tor client and using FreeCap to transparently redirect all of Tor's network connections through a SOCKS proxy.<SPAN> </SPAN>This seems to work, and 'feels' just like using Tor in the standard way, and is useful for getting around transparently filtered network environments where running a Tor client doesn't work. <SPAN> </SPAN>Is this any more or less secure and anonymous than running a Tor client normally?</DIV> <DIV>2) Running Tor over Tor using Freecap:<SPAN> </SPAN>This is the same as above, but instead of using some arbitrary SOCKS server, another Tor client is used as the SOCKS server.<SPAN> </SPAN>This means that the Tor circuit is routed
through another Tor circuit. <SPAN> </SPAN>I tried this and it (of course) increased latency, but what are the anonynimity <SPAN> </SPAN>and security effects?<SPAN> </SPAN><BR>NOTE: I understand that running a Tor circuit over an existing Tor circuit will put additional load on the Tor network, but I doubt a few kb/s of basic web surfing or instant messenger would hurt. </DIV></DIV> <DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr"><SPAN class=ad> <div>__________________________________________________<BR>Do You Yahoo!?<BR>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <BR><A onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mail.yahoo.com/" target=_blank>http://mail.yahoo.com</A> </div></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>
<hr size=1>Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman2/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com"> PC-to-Phone Calls</a> using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.