Re: [tor-relays] [tor-dev] Fwd: Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay | Tor & Echo | Adding Entry-Relays as Reflec-Tor to Exit-Nodes
Hello,
Similar to Briar, even developers of such clients above tell the loss of messages and low reliability of the hidden to hidden path. Some of you might know, that there were use cases with missing messages in a range of 35-45 %.
Sorry, but this is just not the case from my experience - it may take a while to fetch the descriptor of the hidden service, but once a TCP connection is established, aka. the ACK packet has been received, there should be no problems with packet-loss, this is one of the core features of TCP: Retransmission on various conditions. I also hosted a hidden IRC server, as well as a Tor hidden service on my grandmothers laptop, to be able to SSH in through Tor and troubleshoot problems. Experienced no packet loss, unless a relay in the circuit suddenly went offline. If you want, I can measure packet loss from various locations (Northern Europe, East Europe, and New York, USA). Also, to improve latency and throughput, you could make the server a one hop hidden server by enabling:
HiddenServiceSingleHopMode
This way the looking up the server is faster, but clients remain anonymous using a normal 3-hop circuit. I don't think we need extra code for this, you could just build your app using the programming language of your desire and use the existing network. That's what I was doing with my ~200 user IRC server, and it worked fine, even while being hosted at home at a limited uplink of 15 Mbps, which now got upgraded to 30 Mbps. Unfortunately fiber is not an option, so we have to rely on 60+ years old copper wires maintained by Telecom, I have a quite fancy industrial router with modem software and capabilities, and we still use VDSL2 17a G.Vector (ITU G.993.5). I do however own a virtual machine machine on my friends colocated server at DataWagon, they are very exit friendly, zero abuse so far, I believe they just redirect abuse mails to /dev/null or something.. lol. Anyway, point is that I never encountered packet loss, and even if, the protocol would compensate for it. This became kind of a rant while I'm at work, so if it's not that useful, Im sorry. Regards, George On Wednesday, August 14th, 2024 at 9:12 AM, Sam <alleestrasse100@gmail.com> wrote:
System wrote via Tor Project <noreply@forum.torproject.org>: ============================================================
Feedback: Please submit the proposal also to tor-dev: tor-dev Info Page =======================================================================
Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay | Tor & Echo | Adding Entry-Relays as Reflec-Tor to Exit-Nodes
=============================================================================================================================================
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/1e4te8m/introducing_discussing_reflect...
============================================================================================
========================
============================================================== ==============================================================
Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay | Tor & Echo | Adding Entry-Relays as Reflec-Tor to Exit-Nodes ============================================================================================================================================
Tor-Messaging: Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay |
Hello,
I think this belongs to this core, general, relay topic-forum, as it is also a development & community issue, request and efford, I post it here into the reddit forum for your core discussion:
The idea is to add next to Bridges, Relays and Exit-Nodes also "Entry-Nodes" as "Reflec-Tor"(s) to the point of Exit-Nodes. Hence: Exit-Nodes are developed futher to be also an Entry-Node.
Some may remember when gnutella got hybrid with edonkey and then also with torrent, Mike Stokes from Shareaza did that.
The idea today, 20 years later, is to add some Echo-capabilities to Tor in regard of the servers for Exit and Entry.
Vision: Every (updated) Exit-Node is an Echo-Server - For a better Tor-Messaging.
What does that mean?
An Echo-Server is a server for chat-messaging to send an incomming message packet again out to all connected clients at the moment. Ping-in and Ping-Out to all. That simple, that's why it is called the Echo. Like a shout in front of a forrest, all connected users can hear and get the (encrypted) shout or message or packet back from the tree wall.
There are 3 software applications for Echo-Servers:
- https://github.com/textbrowser/spot-on (Desktop, sercer in the Listener Tab)
- https://github.com/textbrowser/smokestack (java for Android)
- https://github.com/textbrowser/spot-on-lite (headless deamon for Linux)
Now, the Listener function with ping in and ping out should be implemented within a Tor-Exit-Node.
When it comes to Tor-Messaging, there are some pathes possible:
`A) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Tor - Internet - Echo-Server - Internet - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (Tor-proxied Chat-Server, which only accepts encrypted packets)`
`B) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Echo - Tor - Tor - Echo - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (Echo Tor-tunneled)`
`C) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Echo-Server - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (direct connection to Echo-Server with only encypted packets)`
The request here is to build and develop option A.
That is just right now also possible, by an Exit-Node of Tor running the Echo-Server-Software on the same machine in parallel. Just the port is different.
This is an idea for some might be new, but thinking Tor Messaging a bit, it comes quickly to this ideas and better soluttion.
The way to connect
`D) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Hidden Onion Server v3 - Tor - Tor - Hidden Onion Server v3 - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob`
is the current given way for clientes like RicoChet Refresh, Quiet or Cwtch.
Similar to Briar, even developers of such clients above tell the loss of messages and low reliability of the hidden to hidden path. Some of you might know, that there were use cases with missing messages in a range of 35-45 %. Don't quote me on that, but as core developers and community members you might be in contact with those who experience this.
Furthermore the Messaging clients are not advanced in functionality, nor advanced in strong encryption.
It would be third a long development way to got that route.
It is cost effective and needs cappable developers.
Some project have stamped on and made a workable client, but does that unite all our power in the sense of Tor-Messaging?
Messaging needs a Vision and Statement from the Tor-Core-Developer team with a discussion in the community in that regard with honor to the individual projects and also with support for their chosen path (Model D). At the same time we have to state that it is as it is, a HTTP-Server in the middle like in Model A is faster than Model D.
In the graph-path the Echo-Server in the middle handles only encrypted traffic, so it is just like another Relay. We can call it "Reflec-Tor". The only sense it to multiply incomming encrypted packets from one node to all connected nodes.
With that Idea, the Messenger Spot-On could be used as a Tor-Messenger.
This Messenger has stong encryption and is full of feature for messaging and also cryptography.
it is like adding Firefox to Tor-Browsing, when Spot-On is added to Tor-Messaging.
Something to read at the community forum:
Also there is a Mobile Client for Android, which also connects to Reflec-Tors, find "Smoke" Messenger at F-Droid.org.
Please, get this right, it is not about a technical view on slow and failing chat-packets to hidden servers, and it is not about those start-up clients using this inside technology, some do a good project. It is about the idea, that an Reflec-Tor mirroring and pinging back packets on the Exit-Node this hop within the path of tor is not outside, it is always fully encryted for the messaging packets and should be seen as one Tor-Path, especially if the Listener-Ping-Back function (the Echo capabilities) is build in the Exit-Node-Tor Software.
Spot-On is already a Tor-Messenger - as it uses also HTTPs and it sends only encrypted packets.
A test is easy to make:
`(1) Start the Tor-Browser, which has always the Port 9051 to Tor, Tor is running.`
`Next to Surfing with Tor-Browser Firefox the Chat with Tor-Messenger Spot-On can start.`
`(2) Start Spot-On on a webserver and create in the Listeners Tab a Listener on Port 4710.`
`(3) Start two Spot-On Instances Alice and Bob on two Laptops, in the Neighbors Tab you connect the Webserver via Tor: Add the IP and Port 4710 to the neighbor and choose Proxy:` 127.0.0.1 `Port 4710.`
You get the the Path:
`Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Tor - Internet - Echo-Server - Internet - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob`
The idea is now to integrate this a bit more:
`Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Alice - Tor - [Tor-Exit-Node also Reflec-Tor (Echo-Server)] - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Bob`
You see, the way stays all within the Tor-Family.
For sure, in case Alice does not want to use Tor, she also can message to Bob, who is behind Tor.
`Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Alice --> [Tor-Exit-Node as Entry-Node also Reflec-Tor (Echo-Server)] - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Bob`
The IP of an Entry-Node is shown in the Tor-Browser and can get a port added. Then two user can simply cata over that node.
We need in times of surveillance, data retention, chat control and for sake of the needs of whistleblowser and people who want to chat privat and anonymously more decentral and open source chat server.
The mission is: Every Tor-Exit Node is an Entry-Node for Chat.
It should be not a lot of code to be added to the ports of an Exit-Node and displaying the Port of the Exit-Node in the Tor-Browser path icon.
This makes sense in several effects to be discussed and developed further:
- Taking the next Development Step for Tor-Messaging: BTW, A Forum about Tor-Messaging could be made as a category here in the forum please.
- directly support Tor-based Messaging for the Spot-On Messaging client
To be developed and discussed is, if this infra-structure could help to
- support bootstrapping of Tor
- support Censorship circumvention of Tor Reflec-Tors as SnowFlakes over the Messenger with EPKS
- Accept, that some routing to an HTTPS internet server at the Tor-Node is faster than to an hidden onion server at the Tor Node.
Well, to add some "ping-in-and-out" for an packet is what every netcat and socat under linux can do. It is a small development step to make each Tor-Exit node a free chat server for messaging, which is a big step for mankind to have a network of free messaging chat servers.
Lets also see, how users and community will test and develop this messaging. So it is not only a discussion for developers, it is also a step forward the needs of the communities for a free internet:
- for chat and their discussions.
A few code lines to exit nodes make them a Reflec-Tor and messaging over Tor can start really decentral and open source and free.
What do you think? does this privacy-concept bring more privacy and reliability in packet delivery to messaging with Tor?
Regards
Hello, many thanks, George, for your response, feedback and sharing experience with servers within Tor. Sharing experiences and measuring might be individual cases and conditions. After it has been reported, we all need to make up our mind to find solutions. So one result as a contribution is the Reflec.Tor concept. I tried to test all the Tor-Messaging apps and yes, some had packet-loss and latency problems and others were quite workable for a 1:1 chat, all probably depending on the circumstances. Though, it is like with your GSM cat-tracker, it must work, if it is needed, that is when the cat was jumping in a foreign cellar because of bad weather, and a neigbour closing the door, not knowing the cat, and the tracker gets no signal there. Then we are lost. So we need to focus the problem and find optimizations. Some might have an absolutely approach to have strong anonymity. So I guess the single-hop mode with just one intermediary respective in total a 3 hop circuit might be not or never be acceptable. Other might want strong encryption. For the Reflec.Tor concept I judge the needs and requests as very balanced and acceptable. As the Reflec.Tor accepts only encrypted packets, these packets are multi-encrypted, are transmitted over HTTP or HTTPS and do not contain any IP-Information, the hop from an Exit-Node to a Reflec-Tor and back to another Tor-Exit-Node is just considered as super-secure and just another hop as it would be within Tor - as one more circuit. So the approach of some projects, we MUST stay within Tor to provide anonymity is short thought. The opposite is the case, you have 3 hops to the Reflec.Tor which is the 4th Hop, and then again 3 hops back to the friend in Tor-Messaging. That are seven hops and you come with the idea of just ONE intermediary. Again, all is multiple strong encrypted and every exit node as a Reflec.tor would in total provide many Reflec.Tors as chat servers. Probably thouse voting against it do not want Tor-Messaging or encrypted Chat via Tor-Messaging for certain reasons, so the identity of Tor might decide on the idea on Tor-Messaging: Having a Free Internet for Surfing and Chat. Those who want absolutely anonymous chat, should be keen on the ReflecTors and implement it with priority. Not shortening the graph to one intermediary. But beeing very reliabyl and working with seven hops, even if the middle node as Reflec.Tor is the space between two Tor Circuit-Graphs. I have to ask for your IRC server to get that architecture right understood. I am and was not aware of an IRC server addressable by an Onion-Address? Which IRC-Client uses onion addresses as they are used by e.g. RicoChet-Refreshed, is it onion service v2 or onion service v3 your IRC server has implemented? So I guess with your server experience we speak from the same graph as a Reflec.Tor would have, IRC-Client bound over lokalhost => to Tor => Tor-Entryguard => Tor => Tor-Exit-Node => Internet => Your IRC Server => Internet => Tor-Exit-Node => Tor => Tor-Entry-Guard => Tor => localhost sends to your friends IRC-Client Now you can replace the IRC Server with the Echo-Server, on which the Reflec.Tor is based on. So pretty good results, fast and reliably, and that is why we speak of the same architecture. The bad results in messaging are comming over this architecture: Chat Client on Hidden Server => to Tor => Tor-Entryguard => Tor => .. some Tor Bridges and Relays => Tor => Tor => Tor-Entry-Guard => Tor => Hidden Server with Chat Client For sure, you can discuss any "Exit-Internet-Server-Internet-Exit"-Path - Server, it could be an IRC server, it could be a Matrix server and it could be an Echo-Server. The Echo-Server was chosen, as this server is very simple, probably also simply to implement, it sends every incomming packet out to every connected chat node, it handles only encrypted packets, plaintext is not handled. It has no IP-Address in the packets, it is strong encryption. Others do not offer this. So the desired path and architecture is: Tor-Messenger bound over lokalhost => to Tor => Tor-Entryguard => Tor => Tor-Exit-Node => Internet => Echo-Server that is an Reflec-Tor => Internet => Tor-Exit-Node => Tor => Tor-Entry-Guard => Tor => localhost sends to your friends Tor-Messenger As all the software is there, it has been tested and works fine and fast. If an Exit-Node would host it, the middle part "Tor-Internet-Reflec.Tor- Internet-Tor" would be shortend to "Tor--Reflec.Tor--Tor" which makes it even more secure next to the encypted extra hop. With the existing installation in a parallel run just another port for the Reflec.Tor needs to be addressed, and the idea is now simply to use the same port as the exit-node uses for http/s and browsing. If you look at the Tor-Metrics page there is a symbol for "Running", the infinite arrows in a circle, that could be a symbol for a Reflec.Tor too, I would not recomend a new extra symbol. Because: As far as I see the relays do not have a version information for the software used, if all update to a new Tor-Software in which each running exit node has a Reflec.Tor implemented, then the world gets 2500 Chat Servers all over the world. The Tor Metrics currently show the stable Top 250, but if you click on the symbol for running, you get all relays, also probably a security risk for those who want to block or observe all IP adresses of Exit nodes?! However, I dont see a risk in that, the problem is more the missing version number, to see in the end, which Exit-Node has then the new release with the Reflec.Tor Echo-Chat-Server updated or not. You need to inform all relay admins to use the update. In the other case you have a new extra symbol for those adding the chat feature, but this will be not successful. That's why a statement is needed from the board to integrate Tor Messaging. For the implementation you speak of the hope of "no extra code". I dont think this is a valid strategic option, to promise an effortless approach of No-Extra Code with Zero Work while at the same time several messengers evolve. As said, the echo server is there, run it parallel on your exit-node IP and you just need a different port. Instead of looking the port up in the shown exit node of the TorBrowser, you can make an extra website or integrate it into the Relay Metrics page. As said, this will be not successful, as no one will install a piece or plug in parallel. It must be intergrated into the Tor-Exit-Port for all to be successful. However, the problem is, that the Clients for Tor-Messaging like RicoChat Refreshed and Quiet and Cwtch need to implement servers anyway, they need these for groupchat and they need it for chat to offline friends. The Tor Messenger Spot-On has that given with the use of a Reflec.Tor (Echo-Server). The Chat over OnionShare is a bit different as there only one hidden server as one common chat room seems to be given (correct me if wrong), and it makes the connections not better. So now the mentioned three main projects start to code each their own server? And that server is also in the Internet as your IRC server is to be functional? Why then not once coding in the Echo-Server - and all four Tor-Messaging Clients use the Echo-Server for Groupchat. That is based on AES and would also enable compatibility of the main clients to address a groupchat. In no case we want a competition of these three clients to have "proprietary" groupchats which means different own groupchat-servers. We can sum up the coding and forces to just implement the GroupChat of the Spot-on Client in RicoChat Refreshed and Quiet and Cwtch "with" or "and" ONE implementation of a Reflec.Tor at each Exit-Node with one update. That would save much individual hours of work. That is why a common discussion is needed and a statement of the board to support Tor-Messaging, otherwise every one makes an own soup and is struggling alone, but then we need not a board and no strategic discussions. Sure, supporting Tor-Messaging with Reflec.Tors by the board is a strong input. But, as all three Messengers have not coded yet a groupchat server, that is now possible to announce, or in case one individual developer provides a patch for Exits, then it is immediately there. At the same time, the three Messengers need not to feel offended, as they get a service by a common initiative. Maybe they make their own soup anway: Cwtch switchted to flutter and seems to be quite rigid in own developmend speed and style, Quiet is also a cooperable project and seeks for and provides a professional GUI, which probably under the hood creates also own coding styles. Ricochat Refresh seems to be tied very close to the Tor development in total and make successive steps to improve. As the oldest client it seems to be the most solid one, but also slow one in coding and as all three depending on motivation and fund. So for any three cases a common decision and adressing is helpful for the groupchat server - but overall for the better graph architecture for more reliabiliy and no packet loss. Even if not a development towards a Reflec.Tor is started, the board needs to define a standard for the Chat-Hash whether it is ricochet://39098203498 or Opion://1832761923 or Tor://9238798734 or Quiet://928397 and how they can be compatible. However, that Reflec-Tor could be an initial model for a groupchat implementation. BTW: That Spot-On Buzz Tab can also be used for 1:1 chat, so the three clients could start with the groupchat and make thier clients at the same time optional hybrid in 1:1 chats based on Buzz (sym, AES) **and** their traditional way (hidden to hidden). Or even implement the Chat-Key for the Echo and real (asym) 1:1 Messaging too. Also a codebase swich could be discussed for RicoChat Refreshed R3 (with Refec.Tor rather than Onion Service V3) as at the project discussed. Open Source code needs always to be revised. So the best is doing nothing and not deciding?, then we have all our own soup. The Reflec.Tor in Exit.Nodes makes immediately a strong code basis a Tor-Messenger - and everyone can overtake it or implement it in the own client. As a groupchat server is not coded yet in these three clients, there is no offence and in the opposite it is a gift to have a common sense how to implement groupchat and offline chat and also to have with a Reflec.Tor a Server already provided by Tor-Developers. As said, ieven f five or more exit-operators alreay provide/install an Echo Server on their Exit-IP, then we just have a different port, but in the same minute Tor-Messaging is working reliable with the Spot-On Tor-Messenger and the new standard for a better graph architecture is set. Why then not implementing it for all the exit-nodes and provide also the basis for groupchat for the three hidden-server based Messengers? So the model is less coding (and probably using less funding) by joined forces. Kind regards, Sam Am Mi., 14. Aug. 2024 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb George Hartley via tor-relays < tor-relays@lists.torproject.org>:
Hello,
Similar to Briar, even developers of such clients above tell the loss of messages and low reliability of the hidden to hidden path. Some of you might know, that there were use cases with missing messages in a range of 35-45 %.
Sorry, but this is just not the case from my experience - it may take a while to fetch the descriptor of the hidden service, but once a TCP connection is established, aka. the ACK packet has been received, there should be no problems with packet-loss, this is one of the core features of TCP:
Retransmission on various conditions.
I also hosted a hidden IRC server, as well as a Tor hidden service on my grandmothers laptop, to be able to SSH in through Tor and troubleshoot problems.
Experienced no packet loss, unless a relay in the circuit suddenly went offline.
If you want, I can measure packet loss from various locations (Northern Europe, East Europe, and New York, USA).
Also, to improve latency and throughput, you could make the server a one hop hidden server by enabling:
HiddenServiceSingleHopMode
This way the looking up the server is faster, but clients remain anonymous using a normal 3-hop circuit.
I don't think we need extra code for this, you could just build your app using the programming language of your desire and use the existing network.
That's what I was doing with my ~200 user IRC server, and it worked fine, even while being hosted at home at a limited uplink of 15 Mbps, which now got upgraded to 30 Mbps.
Unfortunately fiber is not an option, so we have to rely on 60+ years old copper wires maintained by Telecom, I have a quite fancy industrial router with modem software and capabilities, and we still use VDSL2 17a G.Vector (ITU G.993.5).
I do however own a virtual machine machine on my friends colocated server at DataWagon, they are very exit friendly, zero abuse so far, I believe they just redirect abuse mails to /dev/null or something.. lol.
Anyway, point is that I never encountered packet loss, and even if, the protocol would compensate for it.
This became kind of a rant while I'm at work, so if it's not that useful, Im sorry.
Regards, George
On Wednesday, August 14th, 2024 at 9:12 AM, Sam <alleestrasse100@gmail.com> wrote:
System wrote via Tor Project <noreply@forum.torproject.org>:Feedback: Please submit the proposal also to tor-dev: tor-dev Info PageIntroducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay | Tor & Echo | Adding Entry-Relays as Reflec-Tor to Exit-Nodes
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/1e4te8m/introducing_discussing_reflect...
==============================================================Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay | Tor & Echo | Adding Entry-Relays as Reflec-Tor to Exit-Nodes
*Tor-Messaging: Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay |*
Hello,
I think this belongs to this core, general, relay topic-forum, as it is also a development & community issue, request and efford, I post it here into the reddit forum for your core discussion:
The idea is to add next to Bridges, Relays and Exit-Nodes also "Entry-Nodes" as "Reflec-Tor"(s) to the point of Exit-Nodes. Hence: Exit-Nodes are developed futher to be also an Entry-Node.
Some may remember when gnutella got hybrid with edonkey and then also with torrent, Mike Stokes from Shareaza did that.
The idea today, 20 years later, is to add some Echo-capabilities to Tor in regard of the servers for Exit and Entry.
*Vision: Every (updated) Exit-Node is an Echo-Server - For a better Tor-Messaging.*
What does that mean?
An Echo-Server is a server for chat-messaging to send an incomming message packet again out to all connected clients at the moment. Ping-in and Ping-Out to all. That simple, that's why it is called the Echo. Like a shout in front of a forrest, all connected users can hear and get the (encrypted) shout or message or packet back from the tree wall.
There are 3 software applications for Echo-Servers:
-
https://github.com/textbrowser/spot-on (Desktop, sercer in the Listener Tab) -
https://github.com/textbrowser/smokestack (java for Android) -
https://github.com/textbrowser/spot-on-lite (headless deamon for Linux)
Now, the Listener function with ping in and ping out should be implemented within a Tor-Exit-Node.
When it comes to Tor-Messaging, there are some pathes possible:
A) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Tor - Internet - Echo-Server - Internet - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (Tor-proxied Chat-Server, which only accepts encrypted packets)
B) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Echo - Tor - Tor - Echo - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (Echo Tor-tunneled)
C) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Echo-Server - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (direct connection to Echo-Server with only encypted packets)
The request here is to build and develop option A.
That is just right now also possible, by an Exit-Node of Tor running the Echo-Server-Software on the same machine in parallel. Just the port is different.
This is an idea for some might be new, but thinking Tor Messaging a bit, it comes quickly to this ideas and better soluttion.
The way to connect
D) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Hidden Onion Server v3 - Tor - Tor - Hidden Onion Server v3 - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob
is the current given way for clientes like RicoChet Refresh, Quiet or Cwtch.
Similar to Briar, even developers of such clients above tell the loss of messages and low reliability of the hidden to hidden path. Some of you might know, that there were use cases with missing messages in a range of 35-45 %. Don't quote me on that, but as core developers and community members you might be in contact with those who experience this.
Furthermore the Messaging clients are not advanced in functionality, nor advanced in strong encryption.
It would be third a long development way to got that route.
It is cost effective and needs cappable developers.
Some project have stamped on and made a workable client, but does that unite all our power in the sense of Tor-Messaging?
Messaging needs a Vision and Statement from the Tor-Core-Developer team with a discussion in the community in that regard with honor to the individual projects and also with support for their chosen path (Model D). At the same time we have to state that it is as it is, a HTTP-Server in the middle like in Model A is faster than Model D.
In the graph-path the Echo-Server in the middle handles only encrypted traffic, so it is just like another Relay. We can call it "Reflec-Tor". The only sense it to multiply incomming encrypted packets from one node to all connected nodes.
With that Idea, the Messenger Spot-On could be used as a Tor-Messenger.
This Messenger has stong encryption and is full of feature for messaging and also cryptography.
it is like adding Firefox to Tor-Browsing, when Spot-On is added to Tor-Messaging.
Something to read at the community forum:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Spot_On_Encryption/
Also there is a Mobile Client for Android, which also connects to Reflec-Tors, find "Smoke" Messenger at F-Droid.org.
Please, get this right, it is not about a technical view on slow and failing chat-packets to hidden servers, and it is not about those start-up clients using this inside technology, some do a good project. It is about the idea, that an Reflec-Tor mirroring and pinging back packets on the Exit-Node this hop within the path of tor is not outside, it is always fully encryted for the messaging packets and should be seen as one Tor-Path, especially if the Listener-Ping-Back function (the Echo capabilities) is build in the Exit-Node-Tor Software.
Spot-On is already a Tor-Messenger - as it uses also HTTPs and it sends only encrypted packets.
*A test is easy to make:*
(1) Start the Tor-Browser, which has always the Port 9051 to Tor, Tor is running.
Next to Surfing with Tor-Browser Firefox the Chat with Tor-Messenger Spot-On can start.
(2) Start Spot-On on a webserver and create in the Listeners Tab a Listener on Port 4710.
(3) Start two Spot-On Instances Alice and Bob on two Laptops, in the Neighbors Tab you connect the Webserver via Tor: Add the IP and Port 4710 to the neighbor and choose Proxy: 127.0.0.1 Port 4710.
You get the the Path:
Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Tor - Internet - Echo-Server - Internet - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob
The idea is now to integrate this a bit more:
Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Alice - Tor - [Tor-Exit-Node also Reflec-Tor (Echo-Server)] - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Bob
You see, the way stays all within the Tor-Family.
For sure, in case Alice does not want to use Tor, she also can message to Bob, who is behind Tor.
Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Alice --> [Tor-Exit-Node as Entry-Node also Reflec-Tor (Echo-Server)] - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Bob
The IP of an Entry-Node is shown in the Tor-Browser and can get a port added. Then two user can simply cata over that node.
We need in times of surveillance, data retention, chat control and for sake of the needs of whistleblowser and people who want to chat privat and anonymously more decentral and open source chat server.
*The mission is: Every Tor-Exit Node is an Entry-Node for Chat.*
It should be not a lot of code to be added to the ports of an Exit-Node and displaying the Port of the Exit-Node in the Tor-Browser path icon.
This makes sense in several effects to be discussed and developed further:
-
Taking the next Development Step for Tor-Messaging: BTW, A Forum about Tor-Messaging could be made as a category here in the forum please. -
directly support Tor-based Messaging for the Spot-On Messaging client
To be developed and discussed is, if this infra-structure could help to
-
support bootstrapping of Tor -
support Censorship circumvention of Tor Reflec-Tors as SnowFlakes over the Messenger with EPKS -
Accept, that some routing to an HTTPS internet server at the Tor-Node is faster than to an hidden onion server at the Tor Node.
Well, to add some "ping-in-and-out" for an packet is what every netcat and socat under linux can do. It is a small development step to make each Tor-Exit node a free chat server for messaging, which is a big step for mankind to have a network of free messaging chat servers.
Lets also see, how users and community will test and develop this messaging. So it is not only a discussion for developers, it is also a step forward the needs of the communities *for a free internet:*
-
*for chat and their discussions.*
A few code lines to exit nodes make them a Reflec-Tor and messaging over Tor can start really decentral and open source and free.
*What do you think?* does this privacy-concept bring more privacy and reliability in packet delivery to messaging with Tor?
Regards
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
I just typed up a huge reply and it did not get saved for some reason. Okay, let's do it this way then: 1.) I don't think we need to re-invent the wheel, (q)Tox can be used over Tor, that is likely one of the messengers you mentioned. 2.) I am currently not receiving the medication I really need for adult ADD (Lisdexamphetamine), so my attention span is very short. 3.) I'd rather be honest and tell you now that I am not particularly interested in your project, and move on, than coming up with not so helpful replies. I have one good doctor specialized on ADD near me, but I keep forgetting to make an appointment, but not until after my mental illness problems are solved, I won't be able to fully commit to any task long term. So, if you want to ask me questions about Tor operations, especially regarding Guard/Exit nodes, and hidden services, I will help to my best extent. If you want to get into the nitty gritty side of things, the source code repository and this site: https://spec.torproject.org are probably your best bet. Greetings, George P.S: I have accidentally replied to the wrong message, making you probably unaware that I replied at all. I am now replying to your e-mail directly, having your e-mail and the mailing lists as recipients. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. And since you seem to be German: Alles gute mein Freund :) On Wednesday, August 14th, 2024 at 9:05 PM, Sam <alleestrasse100@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, many thanks, George, for your response, feedback and sharing experience with servers within Tor. Sharing experiences and measuring might be individual cases and conditions. After it has been reported, we all need to make up our mind to find solutions. So one result as a contribution is the Reflec.Tor concept. I tried to test all the Tor-Messaging apps and yes, some had packet-loss and latency problems and others were quite workable for a 1:1 chat, all probably depending on the circumstances. Though, it is like with your GSM cat-tracker, it must work, if it is needed, that is when the cat was jumping in a foreign cellar because of bad weather, and a neigbour closing the door, not knowing the cat, and the tracker gets no signal there. Then we are lost.
So we need to focus the problem and find optimizations. Some might have an absolutely approach to have strong anonymity. So I guess the single-hop mode with just one intermediary respective in total a 3 hop circuit might be not or never be acceptable. Other might want strong encryption.
For the Reflec.Tor concept I judge the needs and requests as very balanced and acceptable. As the Reflec.Tor accepts only encrypted packets, these packets are multi-encrypted, are transmitted over HTTP or HTTPS and do not contain any IP-Information, the hop from an Exit-Node to a Reflec-Tor and back to another Tor-Exit-Node is just considered as super-secure and just another hop as it would be within Tor - as one more circuit. So the approach of some projects, we MUST stay within Tor to provide anonymity is short thought. The opposite is the case, you have 3 hops to the Reflec.Tor which is the 4th Hop, and then again 3 hops back to the friend in Tor-Messaging. That are seven hops and you come with the idea of just ONE intermediary. Again, all is multiple strong encrypted and every exit node as a Reflec.tor would in total provide many Reflec.Tors as chat servers. Probably thouse voting against it do not want Tor-Messaging or encrypted Chat via Tor-Messaging for certain reasons, so the identity of Tor might decide on the idea on Tor-Messaging: Having a Free Internet for Surfing and Chat.
Those who want absolutely anonymous chat, should be keen on the ReflecTors and implement it with priority. Not shortening the graph to one intermediary. But beeing very reliabyl and working with seven hops, even if the middle node as Reflec.Tor is the space between two Tor Circuit-Graphs.
I have to ask for your IRC server to get that architecture right understood. I am and was not aware of an IRC server addressable by an Onion-Address? Which IRC-Client uses onion addresses as they are used by e.g. RicoChet-Refreshed, is it onion service v2 or onion service v3 your IRC server has implemented?
So I guess with your server experience we speak from the same graph as a Reflec.Tor would have,
IRC-Client bound over lokalhost => to Tor => Tor-Entryguard => Tor => Tor-Exit-Node => Internet => Your IRC Server => Internet => Tor-Exit-Node => Tor => Tor-Entry-Guard => Tor => localhost sends to your friends IRC-Client
Now you can replace the IRC Server with the Echo-Server, on which the Reflec.Tor is based on. So pretty good results, fast and reliably, and that is why we speak of the same architecture.
The bad results in messaging are comming over this architecture:
Chat Client on Hidden Server => to Tor => Tor-Entryguard => Tor => .. some Tor Bridges and Relays => Tor => Tor => Tor-Entry-Guard => Tor => Hidden Server with Chat Client
For sure, you can discuss any "Exit-Internet-Server-Internet-Exit"-Path - Server, it could be an IRC server, it could be a Matrix server and it could be an Echo-Server.
The Echo-Server was chosen, as this server is very simple, probably also simply to implement, it sends every incomming packet out to every connected chat node, it handles only encrypted packets, plaintext is not handled. It has no IP-Address in the packets, it is strong encryption. Others do not offer this.
So the desired path and architecture is:
Tor-Messenger bound over lokalhost => to Tor => Tor-Entryguard => Tor => Tor-Exit-Node => Internet => Echo-Server that is an Reflec-Tor => Internet => Tor-Exit-Node => Tor => Tor-Entry-Guard => Tor => localhost sends to your friends Tor-Messenger
As all the software is there, it has been tested and works fine and fast. If an Exit-Node would host it, the middle part "Tor-Internet-Reflec.Tor- Internet-Tor" would be shortend to "Tor--Reflec.Tor--Tor" which makes it even more secure next to the encypted extra hop. With the existing installation in a parallel run just another port for the Reflec.Tor needs to be addressed, and the idea is now simply to use the same port as the exit-node uses for http/s and browsing.
If you look at the Tor-Metrics page there is a symbol for "Running", the infinite arrows in a circle, that could be a symbol for a Reflec.Tor too, I would not recomend a new extra symbol. Because: As far as I see the relays do not have a version information for the software used, if all update to a new Tor-Software in which each running exit node has a Reflec.Tor implemented, then the world gets 2500 Chat Servers all over the world. The Tor Metrics currently show the stable Top 250, but if you click on the symbol for running, you get all relays, also probably a security risk for those who want to block or observe all IP adresses of Exit nodes?! However, I dont see a risk in that, the problem is more the missing version number, to see in the end, which Exit-Node has then the new release with the Reflec.Tor Echo-Chat-Server updated or not. You need to inform all relay admins to use the update. In the other case you have a new extra symbol for those adding the chat feature, but this will be not successful. That's why a statement is needed from the board to integrate Tor Messaging.
For the implementation you speak of the hope of "no extra code". I dont think this is a valid strategic option, to promise an effortless approach of No-Extra Code with Zero Work while at the same time several messengers evolve. As said, the echo server is there, run it parallel on your exit-node IP and you just need a different port. Instead of looking the port up in the shown exit node of the TorBrowser, you can make an extra website or integrate it into the Relay Metrics page. As said, this will be not successful, as no one will install a piece or plug in parallel. It must be intergrated into the Tor-Exit-Port for all to be successful.
However, the problem is, that the Clients for Tor-Messaging like RicoChat Refreshed and Quiet and Cwtch need to implement servers anyway, they need these for groupchat and they need it for chat to offline friends. The Tor Messenger Spot-On has that given with the use of a Reflec.Tor (Echo-Server). The Chat over OnionShare is a bit different as there only one hidden server as one common chat room seems to be given (correct me if wrong), and it makes the connections not better.
So now the mentioned three main projects start to code each their own server?
And that server is also in the Internet as your IRC server is to be functional?
Why then not once coding in the Echo-Server - and all four Tor-Messaging Clients use the Echo-Server for Groupchat. That is based on AES and would also enable compatibility of the main clients to address a groupchat. In no case we want a competition of these three clients to have "proprietary" groupchats which means different own groupchat-servers. We can sum up the coding and forces to just implement the GroupChat of the Spot-on Client in RicoChat Refreshed and Quiet and Cwtch "with" or "and" ONE implementation of a Reflec.Tor at each Exit-Node with one update. That would save much individual hours of work.
That is why a common discussion is needed and a statement of the board to support Tor-Messaging, otherwise every one makes an own soup and is struggling alone, but then we need not a board and no strategic discussions.
Sure, supporting Tor-Messaging with Reflec.Tors by the board is a strong input.
But, as all three Messengers have not coded yet a groupchat server, that is now possible to announce, or in case one individual developer provides a patch for Exits, then it is immediately there.
At the same time, the three Messengers need not to feel offended, as they get a service by a common initiative. Maybe they make their own soup anway: Cwtch switchted to flutter and seems to be quite rigid in own developmend speed and style, Quiet is also a cooperable project and seeks for and provides a professional GUI, which probably under the hood creates also own coding styles. Ricochat Refresh seems to be tied very close to the Tor development in total and make successive steps to improve. As the oldest client it seems to be the most solid one, but also slow one in coding and as all three depending on motivation and fund. So for any three cases a common decision and adressing is helpful for the groupchat server - but overall for the better graph architecture for more reliabiliy and no packet loss. Even if not a development towards a Reflec.Tor is started, the board needs to define a standard for the Chat-Hash whether it is ricochet://39098203498 or Opion://1832761923 or Tor://9238798734 or Quiet://928397 and how they can be compatible.
However, that Reflec-Tor could be an initial model for a groupchat implementation. BTW: That Spot-On Buzz Tab can also be used for 1:1 chat, so the three clients could start with the groupchat and make thier clients at the same time optional hybrid in 1:1 chats based on Buzz (sym, AES) **and** their traditional way (hidden to hidden). Or even implement the Chat-Key for the Echo and real (asym) 1:1 Messaging too. Also a codebase swich could be discussed for RicoChat Refreshed R3 (with Refec.Tor rather than Onion Service V3) as at the project discussed. Open Source code needs always to be revised.
So the best is doing nothing and not deciding?, then we have all our own soup. The Reflec.Tor in Exit.Nodes makes immediately a strong code basis a Tor-Messenger - and everyone can overtake it or implement it in the own client.
As a groupchat server is not coded yet in these three clients, there is no offence and in the opposite it is a gift to have a common sense how to implement groupchat and offline chat and also to have with a Reflec.Tor a Server already provided by Tor-Developers. As said, ieven f five or more exit-operators alreay provide/install an Echo Server on their Exit-IP, then we just have a different port, but in the same minute Tor-Messaging is working reliable with the Spot-On Tor-Messenger and the new standard for a better graph architecture is set.
Why then not implementing it for all the exit-nodes and provide also the basis for groupchat for the three hidden-server based Messengers?
So the model is less coding (and probably using less funding) by joined forces. Kind regards, Sam
Am Mi., 14. Aug. 2024 um 16:04 Uhr schrieb George Hartley via tor-relays <tor-relays@lists.torproject.org>:
Hello,
Similar to Briar, even developers of such clients above tell the loss of messages and low reliability of the hidden to hidden path. Some of you might know, that there were use cases with missing messages in a range of 35-45 %.
Sorry, but this is just not the case from my experience - it may take a while to fetch the descriptor of the hidden service, but once a TCP connection is established, aka. the ACK packet has been received, there should be no problems with packet-loss, this is one of the core features of TCP:
Retransmission on various conditions.
I also hosted a hidden IRC server, as well as a Tor hidden service on my grandmothers laptop, to be able to SSH in through Tor and troubleshoot problems.
Experienced no packet loss, unless a relay in the circuit suddenly went offline.
If you want, I can measure packet loss from various locations (Northern Europe, East Europe, and New York, USA).
Also, to improve latency and throughput, you could make the server a one hop hidden server by enabling:
HiddenServiceSingleHopMode
This way the looking up the server is faster, but clients remain anonymous using a normal 3-hop circuit.
I don't think we need extra code for this, you could just build your app using the programming language of your desire and use the existing network.
That's what I was doing with my ~200 user IRC server, and it worked fine, even while being hosted at home at a limited uplink of 15 Mbps, which now got upgraded to 30 Mbps.
Unfortunately fiber is not an option, so we have to rely on 60+ years old copper wires maintained by Telecom, I have a quite fancy industrial router with modem software and capabilities, and we still use VDSL2 17a G.Vector (ITU G.993.5).
I do however own a virtual machine machine on my friends colocated server at DataWagon, they are very exit friendly, zero abuse so far, I believe they just redirect abuse mails to /dev/null or something.. lol.
Anyway, point is that I never encountered packet loss, and even if, the protocol would compensate for it.
This became kind of a rant while I'm at work, so if it's not that useful, Im sorry.
Regards, George
On Wednesday, August 14th, 2024 at 9:12 AM, Sam <alleestrasse100@gmail.com> wrote:
System wrote via Tor Project <noreply@forum.torproject.org>: ============================================================
Feedback: Please submit the proposal also to tor-dev: tor-dev Info Page =======================================================================
Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay | Tor & Echo | Adding Entry-Relays as Reflec-Tor to Exit-Nodes
=============================================================================================================================================
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/comments/1e4te8m/introducing_discussing_reflect...
============================================================================================
========================
============================================================== ==============================================================
Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay | Tor & Echo | Adding Entry-Relays as Reflec-Tor to Exit-Nodes ============================================================================================================================================
Tor-Messaging: Introducing & Discussing "Reflec-Tor"s as concept | Exit-Relay as Entry-Relay |
Hello,
I think this belongs to this core, general, relay topic-forum, as it is also a development & community issue, request and efford, I post it here into the reddit forum for your core discussion:
The idea is to add next to Bridges, Relays and Exit-Nodes also "Entry-Nodes" as "Reflec-Tor"(s) to the point of Exit-Nodes. Hence: Exit-Nodes are developed futher to be also an Entry-Node.
Some may remember when gnutella got hybrid with edonkey and then also with torrent, Mike Stokes from Shareaza did that.
The idea today, 20 years later, is to add some Echo-capabilities to Tor in regard of the servers for Exit and Entry.
Vision: Every (updated) Exit-Node is an Echo-Server - For a better Tor-Messaging.
What does that mean?
An Echo-Server is a server for chat-messaging to send an incomming message packet again out to all connected clients at the moment. Ping-in and Ping-Out to all. That simple, that's why it is called the Echo. Like a shout in front of a forrest, all connected users can hear and get the (encrypted) shout or message or packet back from the tree wall.
There are 3 software applications for Echo-Servers:
- https://github.com/textbrowser/spot-on (Desktop, sercer in the Listener Tab)
- https://github.com/textbrowser/smokestack (java for Android)
- https://github.com/textbrowser/spot-on-lite (headless deamon for Linux)
Now, the Listener function with ping in and ping out should be implemented within a Tor-Exit-Node.
When it comes to Tor-Messaging, there are some pathes possible:
`A) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Tor - Internet - Echo-Server - Internet - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (Tor-proxied Chat-Server, which only accepts encrypted packets)`
`B) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Echo - Tor - Tor - Echo - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (Echo Tor-tunneled)`
`C) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Echo-Server - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob (direct connection to Echo-Server with only encypted packets)`
The request here is to build and develop option A.
That is just right now also possible, by an Exit-Node of Tor running the Echo-Server-Software on the same machine in parallel. Just the port is different.
This is an idea for some might be new, but thinking Tor Messaging a bit, it comes quickly to this ideas and better soluttion.
The way to connect
`D) Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Hidden Onion Server v3 - Tor - Tor - Hidden Onion Server v3 - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob`
is the current given way for clientes like RicoChet Refresh, Quiet or Cwtch.
Similar to Briar, even developers of such clients above tell the loss of messages and low reliability of the hidden to hidden path. Some of you might know, that there were use cases with missing messages in a range of 35-45 %. Don't quote me on that, but as core developers and community members you might be in contact with those who experience this.
Furthermore the Messaging clients are not advanced in functionality, nor advanced in strong encryption.
It would be third a long development way to got that route.
It is cost effective and needs cappable developers.
Some project have stamped on and made a workable client, but does that unite all our power in the sense of Tor-Messaging?
Messaging needs a Vision and Statement from the Tor-Core-Developer team with a discussion in the community in that regard with honor to the individual projects and also with support for their chosen path (Model D). At the same time we have to state that it is as it is, a HTTP-Server in the middle like in Model A is faster than Model D.
In the graph-path the Echo-Server in the middle handles only encrypted traffic, so it is just like another Relay. We can call it "Reflec-Tor". The only sense it to multiply incomming encrypted packets from one node to all connected nodes.
With that Idea, the Messenger Spot-On could be used as a Tor-Messenger.
This Messenger has stong encryption and is full of feature for messaging and also cryptography.
it is like adding Firefox to Tor-Browsing, when Spot-On is added to Tor-Messaging.
Something to read at the community forum:
Also there is a Mobile Client for Android, which also connects to Reflec-Tors, find "Smoke" Messenger at F-Droid.org.
Please, get this right, it is not about a technical view on slow and failing chat-packets to hidden servers, and it is not about those start-up clients using this inside technology, some do a good project. It is about the idea, that an Reflec-Tor mirroring and pinging back packets on the Exit-Node this hop within the path of tor is not outside, it is always fully encryted for the messaging packets and should be seen as one Tor-Path, especially if the Listener-Ping-Back function (the Echo capabilities) is build in the Exit-Node-Tor Software.
Spot-On is already a Tor-Messenger - as it uses also HTTPs and it sends only encrypted packets.
A test is easy to make:
`(1) Start the Tor-Browser, which has always the Port 9051 to Tor, Tor is running.`
`Next to Surfing with Tor-Browser Firefox the Chat with Tor-Messenger Spot-On can start.`
`(2) Start Spot-On on a webserver and create in the Listeners Tab a Listener on Port 4710.`
`(3) Start two Spot-On Instances Alice and Bob on two Laptops, in the Neighbors Tab you connect the Webserver via Tor: Add the IP and Port 4710 to the neighbor and choose Proxy:` 127.0.0.1 `Port 4710.`
You get the the Path:
`Tor-Chat-Client-Alice - Tor - Internet - Echo-Server - Internet - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Bob`
The idea is now to integrate this a bit more:
`Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Alice - Tor - [Tor-Exit-Node also Reflec-Tor (Echo-Server)] - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Bob`
You see, the way stays all within the Tor-Family.
For sure, in case Alice does not want to use Tor, she also can message to Bob, who is behind Tor.
`Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Alice --> [Tor-Exit-Node as Entry-Node also Reflec-Tor (Echo-Server)] - Tor - Tor-Chat-Client-Spot-On-Bob`
The IP of an Entry-Node is shown in the Tor-Browser and can get a port added. Then two user can simply cata over that node.
We need in times of surveillance, data retention, chat control and for sake of the needs of whistleblowser and people who want to chat privat and anonymously more decentral and open source chat server.
The mission is: Every Tor-Exit Node is an Entry-Node for Chat.
It should be not a lot of code to be added to the ports of an Exit-Node and displaying the Port of the Exit-Node in the Tor-Browser path icon.
This makes sense in several effects to be discussed and developed further:
- Taking the next Development Step for Tor-Messaging: BTW, A Forum about Tor-Messaging could be made as a category here in the forum please.
- directly support Tor-based Messaging for the Spot-On Messaging client
To be developed and discussed is, if this infra-structure could help to
- support bootstrapping of Tor
- support Censorship circumvention of Tor Reflec-Tors as SnowFlakes over the Messenger with EPKS
- Accept, that some routing to an HTTPS internet server at the Tor-Node is faster than to an hidden onion server at the Tor Node.
Well, to add some "ping-in-and-out" for an packet is what every netcat and socat under linux can do. It is a small development step to make each Tor-Exit node a free chat server for messaging, which is a big step for mankind to have a network of free messaging chat servers.
Lets also see, how users and community will test and develop this messaging. So it is not only a discussion for developers, it is also a step forward the needs of the communities for a free internet:
- for chat and their discussions.
A few code lines to exit nodes make them a Reflec-Tor and messaging over Tor can start really decentral and open source and free.
What do you think? does this privacy-concept bring more privacy and reliability in packet delivery to messaging with Tor?
Regards
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
participants (2)
-
George Hartley -
Sam