Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports and DPI

2016-05-20 Thread David Fifield
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:40:17PM -0700, David Fifield wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:37:47PM -0700, David Fifield wrote: > > With the meek blocking, it might be that they are doing some kind of > > timing analysis, or it might be that we screwed up something simple like > > the TLS signature

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports and DPI

2016-05-14 Thread David Fifield
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:19:29AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Do we know anything about how they decided to detect obfs4 (and what > collateral damage they decided was acceptable there)? No, we didn't find out how they were blocking obfs4. Justin suspects it's not an IP blacklist because nei

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports and DPI

2016-05-14 Thread David Fifield
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:16:28PM -0400, Blake Hadley wrote: > On 5/11/16 10:40 PM, David Fifield wrote: > > > Another solution is to change the front domain to something else, for > > exmaple using google.com instead of www.google.com. > Would it be feasible for a future release of meek to do th

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports and DPI

2016-05-11 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:40:17PM -0700, David Fifield wrote: > Justin helped me by running some tests and we think we know how this > Cyberoam device is blocking meek connections. It blocks TLS connections > that have the Firefox 38's TLS signature and that have an SNI field that > is one of our

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports and DPI

2016-05-11 Thread Blake Hadley
On 5/11/16 10:40 PM, David Fifield wrote: > Another solution is to change the front domain to something else, for > exmaple using google.com instead of www.google.com. Would it be feasible for a future release of meek to do this automatically? Just cycle through subdomains till one works? Google

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports and DPI

2016-05-11 Thread David Fifield
On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 01:37:47PM -0700, David Fifield wrote: > With the meek blocking, it might be that they are doing some kind of > timing analysis, or it might be that we screwed up something simple like > the TLS signature. Could you try it in these configurations? > Tor Browser 5.5.5

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports and DPI

2016-05-08 Thread David Fifield
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:47:10PM -0500, Justin wrote: > Hi, > I have a DPI box that I use to test pluggable transports with. I also > test other circumvention tools against it just to see how good it is. > Manufacturer is Cyberoam. About 6 or 8 weeks ago, Cyberoam released a > DPI engine update

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable transports

2014-02-07 Thread TheMindwareGroup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hmmm... I've been thinking about all this stuff, and reading up on the PDFs. I think "the parrot is dead" is a little over strict in his analysis, I highly doubt they have technology as good as this yet and probably wont have any time soon, so yes i

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable transports.

2014-02-01 Thread TheMindwareGroup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Wow... I wasn't aware the PT system was so complicated and chaotic under the hood. I assumed it was just a steg tunnel, simply give it address(s), poke data in one end and it pops out the other end, rate is limited by how much data you pull out of th

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable transports for other projects...

2014-01-30 Thread George Kadianakis
TheMindwareGroup writes: > Bypassing DPI filters is a constantly evolving art form and entire > field of research all on its own, and just like encryption extremely > difficult to do well (check out bit torrent and emule obfuscation for > example, a nice effort but when scrutinized not particular

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable transports for other projects...

2014-01-30 Thread TheMindwareGroup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Bypassing DPI filters is a constantly evolving art form and entire field of research all on its own, and just like encryption extremely difficult to do well (check out bit torrent and emule obfuscation for example, a nice effort but when scrutinized

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports metrics?

2013-01-03 Thread David Fifield
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:43:02PM -0800, David Fifield wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 08:11:08PM +0100, Sebastian G. wrote: > > For Flashproxy could there be a metric how many flash proxies > > (JavaScript Web socket proxies running on volunteer machines) have been > > available at a given time

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports metrics?

2012-12-18 Thread David Fifield
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 08:11:08PM +0100, Sebastian G. wrote: > For Flashproxy could there be a metric how many flash proxies > (JavaScript Web socket proxies running on volunteer machines) have been > available at a given time? (Maybe a graph over time.) > > The last can be probably provided by

Re: [tor-talk] Pluggable Transports metrics?

2012-12-17 Thread George Kadianakis
> Hi, > > would it be possible to have metrics for pluggable transports? > Sure. However, much of the work in pluggable transport metrics is currently under development and not ready for end-users. I will answer the general pluggable transport questions and leave the flashproxy stuff for David.