Orbot's inclusion of Privoxy (was: [tor-commits] r24630: {} adding binaries to res/raw folder (in projects/android/trunk/Orbot/res: . raw))
Nathan Freitas <nathan@freitas.net> wrote:
Author: n8fr8 Date: 2011-04-15 16:38:53 +0000 (Fri, 15 Apr 2011) New Revision: 24630
Log: adding binaries to res/raw folder
___________________________________________________________________ Added: svn:mime-type + application/octet-stream
Added: projects/android/trunk/Orbot/res/raw/privoxy =================================================================== (Binary files differ)
This seems to be (or based on) Privoxy 3.0.12 released in 2009. What's the rationale for not using a more recent version? Is this vanilla Privoxy or are there any custom patches? I get the impression that you are currently distributing the Privoxy binary as part of Orbot without even mentioning the license. Is that correct, or am I missing something?
Property changes on: projects/android/trunk/Orbot/res/raw/privoxy ___________________________________________________________________ Added: svn:executable + * Added: svn:mime-type + application/octet-stream
Added: projects/android/trunk/Orbot/res/raw/privoxy_config =================================================================== --- projects/android/trunk/Orbot/res/raw/privoxy_config (rev 0) +++ projects/android/trunk/Orbot/res/raw/privoxy_config 2011-04-15 16:38:53 UTC (rev 24630) @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +# Generally, this file goes in /etc/privoxy/config +# +# Tor listens as a SOCKS4a proxy here: +forward-socks4a / 127.0.0.1:9050 .
Privoxy 3.0.12 already supports SOCKS5 which allows superior error messages in case of connection failures. Note that this requires the templates to be available and according to https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/2168 at least some of them aren't.
+confdir /data/data/org.torproject.android +logdir /data/data/org.torproject.android +# actionsfile standard # Internal purpose, recommended +#actionsfile default.action # Main actions file +#actionsfile user.action # User customizations +#filterfile default.filter + +# Don't log interesting things, only startup messages, warnings and errors +#logfile logfile +#jarfile jarfile
FEATURE_COOKIE_JAR shouldn't be supported in the vanilla 3.0.12 release. It has been removed in 3.0.11 due to being useless.
+#debug 1 +#debug 0 # show each GET/POST/CONNECT request
debug 0 has no effect.
+#debug 4096 # Startup banner and warnings +#debug 8192 # Errors - *we highly recommended enabling this* + +#user-manual /usr/share/doc/privoxy/user-manual +listen-address 127.0.0.1:8118 +toggle 1 +accept-intercepted-requests 1
Are the iptables rules used documented somewhere? Did you run into any issues with Privoxy on Android in general? Are the considerations that lead to the use of Privoxy documented somewhere? Thanks Fabian
Thanks for the note, Fabian. On 04/16/2011 06:24 AM, Fabian Keil wrote:
This seems to be (or based on) Privoxy 3.0.12 released in 2009. What's the rationale for not using a more recent version?
At this point, that is the latest version we have successfully cross-compiled for Android. We are working on updating our build process to the new Android Native Dev Kit cross-compiler, and updating all relevant components. I will admit that our focus on keep bundled versions current have been more focused on Tor, than on Privoxy. I will make sure that we keep as close tabs on that component, as well. We have not included the binary files in the repo historically. However, there have been a number of Android app/UI developers who wished to contribute code there, but were unable to setup the entire OS build chain on their Mac or Windows machines, that is required to build the C binaries. If we provide them pre-built binaries for dev purposes, it increases the likelihood we will have more contributors.
Is this vanilla Privoxy or are there any custom patches?
It is vanilla, save for one setting: export ac_cv_func_setpgrp_void=yes as documented here: https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/android/trunk/Orbot/BUILD
I get the impression that you are currently distributing the Privoxy binary as part of Orbot without even mentioning the license. Is that correct, or am I missing something?
We mention the inclusion in our app About screen, but you are current that our inclusion is not mentioned in the license file or screens. This is an unfortunate oversight, that I will address today. Best, Nathan
Nathan Freitas <nathan@freitas.net> wrote:
On 04/16/2011 06:24 AM, Fabian Keil wrote:
This seems to be (or based on) Privoxy 3.0.12 released in 2009. What's the rationale for not using a more recent version?
At this point, that is the latest version we have successfully cross-compiled for Android. We are working on updating our build process to the new Android Native Dev Kit cross-compiler, and updating all relevant components.
I will admit that our focus on keep bundled versions current have been more focused on Tor, than on Privoxy. I will make sure that we keep as close tabs on that component, as well.
Great. Please let me know if you run into any issues.
We have not included the binary files in the repo historically. However, there have been a number of Android app/UI developers who wished to contribute code there, but were unable to setup the entire OS build chain on their Mac or Windows machines, that is required to build the C binaries. If we provide them pre-built binaries for dev purposes, it increases the likelihood we will have more contributors.
Makes sense.
Is this vanilla Privoxy or are there any custom patches?
It is vanilla, save for one setting: export ac_cv_func_setpgrp_void=yes
as documented here: https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/android/trunk/Orbot/BUILD
Interesting. I see that you aren't copying the template files Privoxy uses for the CGI messages. Is this intentional because of space constraints or just an oversight?
I get the impression that you are currently distributing the Privoxy binary as part of Orbot without even mentioning the license. Is that correct, or am I missing something?
We mention the inclusion in our app About screen, but you are current that our inclusion is not mentioned in the license file or screens. This is an unfortunate oversight, that I will address today.
Thanks. Fabian
participants (2)
-
Fabian Keil -
Nathan Freitas