Tor client over a SOCKS proxy, and Tor client running through another Tor Circuit

[Ringo Kamens]

Well, I'm fine with the network load personally but I know people get hate
mail for network load.
I guess I'm a little confused as to what exactly you're trying to do. Can
you possibly draw a diagram such as this:
my client-->tor-->tor loop 2 --> internet
I'm a little confused here.


As for increasing anonymity, the attacks that work against tor such as
end-to-end or timing attacks simply won't be slowed down by routing through
more tor nodes since each node can't really reveal where your connection
came from (to my knowledge). It does work on normal socks proxy chains
because they aren't blind and many keep logs.

Ringo



On 4/27/06, Tor User <toruser256 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  Thanks for the response.  Just to clarify, I wasn't refering to routing
> other users circuts through the Tor network again, just the requests from a
> single Tor client running on my computer, and what the security implications
> of that would be.  I don't really have any intention of routing all my Tor
> circuts through another Tor client that I'm also running - I'm just curious
> about the effects it would have...
>
> re: 1) Since we're talking about a single client used on a sporatic basis,
> I don't think that an extra 500KB per month would be a bandwidth issue...
>
> re:2) Assuming I used the ExcludeNodes directive to prevent that kind of
> looping, do you think this would still be a bad thing from a security
> standpoint?
>
> re:3) Also, why do you say it doesn't increase anonynimity?
>
> re:4) I had just that idea, and started a thread on this list about it a
> few hours ago: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Apr-2006/msg00156.html
>
> Thanks for your input :)
>
>
> *Ringo Kamens <2600denver at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> I don't think re-routing users through tor is good because:
> 1. It increases network load
> 2. They could end up in a very long loop with you as the exit point
> several times
> 3. It doesn't increase anonymity (perhaps generating cover traffic would
> be better)
> 4. Why don't you have your server fetch some SOCKS proxies from google and
> then route users through those instead?
>
>
> On 4/27/06, Tor User <toruser256 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm wondering what the anonynimity implications the following: 1)
> > Running Tor using Freecap:  By this I mean running a Tor client and
> > using FreeCap to transparently redirect all of Tor's network connections
> > through a SOCKS proxy.  This seems to work, and 'feels' just like using
> > Tor in the standard way, and is useful for getting around transparently
> > filtered network environments where running a Tor client doesn't work.
> > Is this any more or less secure and anonymous than running a Tor client
> > normally?
> > 2) Running Tor over Tor using Freecap:  This is the same as above, but
> > instead of using some arbitrary SOCKS server, another Tor client is used as
> > the SOCKS server.  This means that the Tor circuit is routed through
> > another Tor circuit.   I tried this and it (of course) increased
> > latency, but what are the anonynimity  and security effects?
> > NOTE: I understand that running a Tor circuit over an existing Tor
> > circuit will put additional load on the Tor network, but I doubt a few kb/s
> > of basic web surfing or instant messenger would hurt.
> >  __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman2/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http://voice.yahoo.com>using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20060427/ca3a92cc/attachment.htm>