Greetings everyone!
I've been approached by I2P folks for adding ".i2p" address support in Torsocks. Since what torsocks does can be applied for both Tor and I2P, they felt that duplicating was not a good idea thus asking if merging both systems make sense and is possible.
For now, it would only be .i2p address support (like .onion). In torsocks, it's not that difficult to support both addressing.
I'm all for it, I don't see why it should not be done so I'm asking the community what do you think about that :).
I can already see a question coming after this email being "Well there is "Tor" in torsocks". I'll keep that for an other thread because the whole naming of torsocks is on my todo list of things to discuss but before that I prefer getting the rewrite accepted. Thus, the naming is an "issue" but I want to address it later on (not only because of i2p).
Cheers! David
Hi David,
adding .i2p support to torsocks is perfectly fine. It's a feature, not a limitation. Who doesn't want to use it won't be annoyed by it. (Other than man page and --help entry, but well, life is tough. :)
Someone else already said on this list some time ago "since torsocks is agnostic about a Tor or a random socks server, there is no point in calling it torsocks". If it works fine with normal socks servers and you are willing to support that, sure, why not rename it.
I am very happy that you are taking the lead fixing torsocks so I think you also should also be the one who may make such decisions.
Cheers, adrelanos
Il 11/2/13 5:13 PM, adrelanos ha scritto:
Hi David,
adding .i2p support to torsocks is perfectly fine. It's a feature, not a limitation. Who doesn't want to use it won't be annoyed by it. (Other than man page and --help entry, but well, life is tough. :)
I'd love also if someone pickup I2P integration for Tor2web:
https://github.com/globaleaks/Tor2web-3.0/issues/82
On 02 Nov (16:13:37), adrelanos wrote:
Hi David,
adding .i2p support to torsocks is perfectly fine. It's a feature, not a limitation. Who doesn't want to use it won't be annoyed by it. (Other than man page and --help entry, but well, life is tough. :)
Someone else already said on this list some time ago "since torsocks is agnostic about a Tor or a random socks server, there is no point in calling it torsocks". If it works fine with normal socks servers and you are willing to support that, sure, why not rename it.
That is not entirely true. The rewrite effort made it actually *more* Tor aware. Furthermore, there is some Tor specific SOCKS extension for DNS resolution (that might actually be the norm elsewhere...) but for now seems not that agnostic.
So the goal of torsocks right now is *not* to be agnostic about Tor where for instance .onion support is quite tor-ish. But it does not mean we should not think of a better name *especially* in terms of usability where for most users "socks" does not mean anything. I guess this is why "usewithtor" and "torify" wrappers were created. And that would make more sense if i2p address support comes in.
David
I am very happy that you are taking the lead fixing torsocks so I think you also should also be the one who may make such decisions.
Cheers, adrelanos _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
Hi,
David Goulet wrote (02 Nov 2013 15:58:52 GMT) :
For now, it would only be .i2p address support (like .onion). In torsocks, it's not that difficult to support both addressing.
I guess that people who use both I2P and Tor within Tails would be very happy with this.
Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
For now, it would only be .i2p address support (like .onion). In torsocks, it's not that difficult to support both addressing.
Does I2P's SOCKS proxy work in a way that's similar to Tor? Other proxies in I2P are protocol-specific — e.g., ports 4444/4445 for HTTP(S) and 6668 for IRC. I am quite sure that protocol-specific local I2P proxies like HTTP and IRC strip sensitive information, so providing the user with an easy access to .i2p services via SOCKS might be the wrong thing to do. The SOCKS information page [1] is rather scarce on details of what actually goes on inside the proxy, however.
[1] http://www.i2p2.de/socks.html
On 02 Nov (19:25:42), Maxim Kammerer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
For now, it would only be .i2p address support (like .onion). In torsocks, it's not that difficult to support both addressing.
Does I2P's SOCKS proxy work in a way that's similar to Tor? Other proxies in I2P are protocol-specific — e.g., ports 4444/4445 for HTTP(S) and 6668 for IRC. I am quite sure that protocol-specific local I2P proxies like HTTP and IRC strip sensitive information, so providing the user with an easy access to .i2p services via SOCKS might be the wrong thing to do. The SOCKS information page [1] is rather scarce on details of what actually goes on inside the proxy, however.
For now, it's simply detecting an .i2p address, opening a connection to the i2p daemon and pushing the request there. The person at i2p I talked to told me that it's quite straight forward and no special SOCKS5 mangling would be needed.
If there is some work to do on the protocol side like you mention, I would imagine that the i2p daemon does it or else... well there is a problem :).
Putting someone from i2p in CC:
Cheers! David
[1] http://www.i2p2.de/socks.html
-- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
Apparently, I failed to put the person in CC :).
On 02 Nov (13:47:56), David Goulet wrote:
On 02 Nov (19:25:42), Maxim Kammerer wrote:
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, David Goulet dgoulet@ev0ke.net wrote:
For now, it would only be .i2p address support (like .onion). In torsocks, it's not that difficult to support both addressing.
Does I2P's SOCKS proxy work in a way that's similar to Tor? Other proxies in I2P are protocol-specific — e.g., ports 4444/4445 for HTTP(S) and 6668 for IRC. I am quite sure that protocol-specific local I2P proxies like HTTP and IRC strip sensitive information, so providing the user with an easy access to .i2p services via SOCKS might be the wrong thing to do. The SOCKS information page [1] is rather scarce on details of what actually goes on inside the proxy, however.
For now, it's simply detecting an .i2p address, opening a connection to the i2p daemon and pushing the request there. The person at i2p I talked to told me that it's quite straight forward and no special SOCKS5 mangling would be needed.
If there is some work to do on the protocol side like you mention, I would imagine that the i2p daemon does it or else... well there is a problem :).
Putting someone from i2p in CC:
Cheers! David
[1] http://www.i2p2.de/socks.html
-- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
I think i2p support makes sense. The only tricky part is what prereqs that reuuires. For an individual building torsocks, they'll either have or not have tor and have or not have i2p, and they can be detected, and that's fine. For a packaging system, the package has to have dependencies chosen, and this leaves the packager choosing wither to leave something out or inflict the dependency on everyone.
If torsocks doesn't need tor installed, because it just uses socks5, and similarly for i2p, then there's no issue - this sounds good.
-
adrelanos -
David Goulet -
Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) -
Greg Troxel -
intrigeri -
Maxim Kammerer