[tor-dev] Is anyone using tor-fw-helper? (Was Re: BOINC-based Tor wrapper)

Yawning Angel yawning at schwanenlied.me
Thu Jul 23 17:09:38 UTC 2015

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:54:33 +0000
Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:

> On 7/21/15, Nick Mathewson <nickm at torproject.org> wrote:
> > Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
> > implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and
> > recommending Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead.  But before
> > I do this, I'd like to get some sense of whether folks are shipping
> > tor-fw-helper today, or using it in practice.
> Does the pure-Go implementation support NAT-PMP or just UPnP?

It supports both, though NAT-PMP is limited to Linux, Windows, and *BSD
(including Darwin), due to the need to query the routing table to
obtain the IP address of the default gateway.

It's easy-ish make the new code's NAT-PMP support other platforms
(implement one function), but since the existing support covers what's
needed I haven't gone and hunted down more obscure things.

> I still use tor-fw-helper when I hand compile Tor on obscure systems.
> Generally this means a Novena board when I need a newer version of Tor
> than is already packaged.
> Also - does this mean that after many many years... that this new
> version of tor-fw-helper be enabled by default at build time? Pretty
> please? :-)

Unlikely, AFAIK the general plan was to have it as a separate package.

Yawning Angel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20150723/84771e0e/attachment.sig>

More information about the tor-dev mailing list