[tor-bugs] #6060 [Tor Client]: add http proxy support to Tor
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki
torproject-admin at torproject.org
Tue Sep 25 20:54:01 UTC 2012
#6060: add http proxy support to Tor
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: proper | Owner: arma
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: very long term
Component: Tor Client | Version:
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment(by nickm):
Replying to [comment:16 ioerror]:
> Replying to [comment:15 nickm]:
> > "Audit shim and bring it up-to-date" is a reasonable thing to do.
>
> I'm not sure what it needs - it compiles without warnings (yay) and it
seems to function just as it should. It looks "finished" in as much as any
C program. :)
>
> It does need compiler hardening and all that stuff added, of course.
What it needs IMO is auditing for security and standards compliance.
> > Somebody would need to take on the responsibility of being shim
maintainer. I don't know that shipping shim by default would make senese.
>
> The open question for me is - "what would it take to make an HTTP proxy
port a Tor configuration line as we have with SOCKSPort?"
For me, that's not a goal. Tor is not an all-singing all-dancing all-
purpose application launcher, nor do I want to push '''more''' code into
the main Tor process. I'd like us to move in the direction of moving
functionality ''out'' of Tor.
> It seems to me that the _easy_ way is to have a shim binary component
and just run it. That isn't the cleanest way, I guess. A feature for
0.2.4.x, perhaps?
>
> It seems to me that the _best_ way is to have Tor do the entire thing in
a thread or internally in some other way. A feature for 0.2.4.x or
0.2.5.x, I guess.
>
> nickm - Which way seems reasonable? If the proxy code was inside of Tor
- would that be reasonable? Or do you outright reject the idea? :)
Strongly reject. Tor is not inetd; Tor is not systemd. "It could be in
tor" and "applications could use it" are not a justification for putting
it in Tor.
We *do* need a better way to handle the multiple pieces of the Tor
experience, but "do everything in Tor" is exactly the wrong answer.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6060#comment:23>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
More information about the tor-bugs
mailing list