Hello,
Nice, concise proposal! I’ve been meaning for a while to send some comments:
Overall:
1. This proposal doesn’t allow you to run a single-onion service if
your server is behind NAT. It might be useful to include an option for the SOS
to create persistent connections to some guards
As an aside, we chatted briefly about the naming options for single
onion services or whatever at CCC camp. Amongst those present, there
was no strong love for any existing naming proposal. An interesting
naming idea surfaced however :
We do not want people using these anyways unless they know
On 05 Sep (14:47:41), Mike Perry wrote:
> Yawning Angel:
> > On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:31:15 -0600
> > John Brooks wrote:
> >
> > > > Have you considered all the implications?
> > >
> > > Maybe we’ve missed some - what implications are you thinking of, that
> > > aren’t addressed in the proposal?
>
tordev...@safe-mail.net wrote:
>> The final circuit looks like:
>>
>> Client -> Guard -> Middle -> Middle -> Single Onion
>>
>> The client’s traffic is encrypted through to the single onion server as
>> well.
>
> IMO, the second Middle relay can be considered serving as an exit with
> regards t
Yawning Angel wrote:
> I have two objections to this, one political, one technical:
>
> * (The political objection) While this is "cool" and probably(?)
> "funded", it seems like a poor thing to work on in terms of
> developmental priority when there are other things Hidden Service
> relat
Yawning Angel:
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:31:15 -0600
> John Brooks wrote:
>
> > > Have you considered all the implications?
> >
> > Maybe we’ve missed some - what implications are you thinking of, that
> > aren’t addressed in the proposal?
>
> I have two objections to this, one political, one tec
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:31:15 -0600
John Brooks wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Have you considered all the implications?
>
> Maybe we’ve missed some - what implications are you thinking of, that
> aren’t addressed in the proposal?
I have two objections to this, one political, one technical:
* (The poli
Original Message
From: John Brooks
To: tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-dev] Proposal: Single onion services
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:31:15 -0600
> tordev...@safe-mail.net wrote:
>
> > Doesn't your proposal imply that you are turning all rel
tordev...@safe-mail.net wrote:
> Doesn't your proposal imply that you are turning all relays into
> exit-nodes lite? The last relay in the path will know what service you are
> connecting to (at least if that service is hosted with a unique relay),
> right?
A single onion service operates its own
Hi John!
This wonderful proposal has been given number 252 and now pushed in
torspec as a Draft!
--> 252-single-onion.txt
Thanks!
David
On 03 Sep (14:20:56), John Brooks wrote:
> Here’s a delayed shipment from the hidden services hackfest:
>
>Single onion services are a modified form o
Doesn't your proposal imply that you are turning all relays into exit-nodes
lite? The last relay in the path will know what service you are connecting to
(at least if that service is hosted with a unique relay), right?
Have you considered all the implications?
___
Here’s a delayed shipment from the hidden services hackfest:
Single onion services are a modified form of onion services, which
trade
service-side location privacy for improved performance, reliability,
and
scalability.
Single onion services have a .onion address identical to an
12 matches
Mail list logo
