[tor-dev] Configuring Single Onion Services
Tim Wilson-Brown - teor
teor2345 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 12 00:54:36 UTC 2016
> On 12 Apr 2016, at 10:49, Ivan Markin <twim at riseup.net> wrote:
> David Goulet:
>> It's a bit weird to have to enable two options for one feature (single onion)
>> BUT I like the double torrc option forcing the users to understand what's
>> going on (also adding semantic to the config file).
>> Bikesheding: the name though could be a bit misleading. What if that tor
>> process is also used as a client to "wget" stuff on the server for instance.
>> Won't I be confused if NonAnonymousMode is _set_ not knowing it applies to
>> what? Idea: "HiddenServiceNonAnonymousMode 1". Pretty explicit that it's for
>> the service.
> I don't think using doubled option will force people to understand
> what's happening. Most probable outcome is that two-option requirement
> will look just "strange". It's strange because it's vague.
> I agree with David, something like "NonAnonymousOnionServiceMode 1"
> should be enough. It looks pretty clear and simple.
> [NB: a service cannot be Hidden and NonAnonymous at the same time :) ]
We tried adding NonAnonymous to the name, and it was unwieldy.
And it also confuses the semantics: what if we have multiple types of SingleOnionMode?
Also, see my reply to David, where I explain that NonAnonymousMode applies to the entire tor instance, including things that are totally unrelated to Single Onion Services, like whether you can open a SOCKSPort or run Tor2Web.
We could add a compilation option --enable-single-onion-mode instead of NonAnonymousMode, but I think making Single Onion Service operators compile their own tor is unnecessary.
> Ivan Markin
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the tor-dev