[tor-dev] GSoC 2013: Enable flashproxy to use WebRTC
david at bamsoftware.com
Tue Apr 30 07:28:27 UTC 2013
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:02:19AM -0300, Danilo Carvalho wrote:
> My name is Danilo Carvalho, I am from ITA, Brazil, and I'm thinking about
> enabling flash proxy to use WebRTC, specially Data Channels, to connect between
> the client and the flash proxy. Some of the benefits involved would be:
> 1 - Flash proxies now would be able to receive incoming connections, this would
> remove the current need for the flash proxy to connect to the client. With the
> client being able to connect to the flash proxy, ticket( https://
> trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5426) would be solved. If the client is
> the one controlling the connection, it wouldn't be needed for the flash proxy
> to guess his usage time.
What you say about incoming connections is likely true, but let's forget
about it for now. The WebRTC project is about built-in NAT traversal,
nothing more. Changing the connection model is an architectural change
that may be worthwhile but I don't think it should be part of this
> 2 - We could use the built in resources of the WebRTC to do nat traversal,
> through ICE and STUN servers. Although it isn't quite right to use public,
> company-owned ICE and STUN servers for that, we could build that functionality
> into the flash proxy, allowing the ones that are not behind nat to work as STUN
> and ICE servers for the others. Also, with the WebRTC already in use, it would
> be easy to port to NAT-PMP or UPnP, with I believe will be integrated into it
> in the future.
I think you will have to elaborate on this idea. I don't see any
problems with using public ICE and STUN servers (except that it's one
more party we disclose usage of flash proxy to). I don't think we can
run our own ICE or STUN server just for flash proxy because a censor can
block it with no cost.
an ICE or STUN server? I don't really know those protocols, but don't
they involve sending UDP packets? There's no way to do that from a
browser, as far as I know.
NAT-PMP and UPnP don't depend on WebRTC, do they? Couldn't we implement
NAT-PMP and UPnP in flashproxy-client even using WebSocket?
> On how much work it would demand: Some work would be required to enable the use
> will require rewriting, since the flash proxy will not operate in the same way
> anymore. The client plugin will need big changes, since it will need to connect
> via Data Channels, that is not trivial(https://tools.ietf.org/html/
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-04#section-1), and most of the controlling would
> be done there. On the facilitator part, I believe only minor parts will require
> change, mostly to handle the flash proxy address giveaway(It should be
> controlled in some way, else an attacker could keep polling enough address to
> know the majority of them).
Have you seen https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5578? Much
of this research has been done already, and we made a plan for a
prototype implementation. A full implementation looks to be nontrivial
and will probably take at least the summer.
More information about the tor-dev