[tor-bugs] #2355 [Tor Bridge]: change the meaning of UseBridges

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#2355: change the meaning of UseBridges
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
    Reporter:  anonym            |        Type:  enhancement
      Status:  needs_review      |    Priority:  minor      
   Milestone:  Tor: unspecified  |   Component:  Tor Bridge 
     Version:                    |    Keywords:             
      Parent:                    |      Points:             
Actualpoints:                    |  
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Changes (by arma):

  * component:  Tor Client => Tor Bridge


Old description:

> In T(A)ILS (https://amnesia.boum.org) we want to enable a bridge-only
> mode (chosen at the boot menu, or at least before Tor starts) which
> ensures that the Tor network is never directly connected to. We figure
> some people don't want to disclose that they are using Tor for various
> reasons.
>
> Hence we'd like to have an option that can be set in torrc that makes Tor
> only use bridges, but without it being neccessary to specify a bridge in
> torrc -- the user should be able to do that through Vidalia at a later
> point, and then have Tor bootstrap as soon as a bridge has been set
> through the control port.
>
> Here follows the discussion on #tor-dev which suggests that a change of
> the meaning of UseBridges might be the way:
>
> (17:52:11) nickm: It seems like you may also want a "I am using bridges,
> even though I haven't configured any bridges yet" option
> (17:52:36) nickm: That seems much closer to what you are trying to
> achieve than "ReachableAddresses reject *:*"
> (17:53:14) nickm: You could even fake it, I bet, with something like
> Bridge 127.0.0.1:x, where x is an unused port.
> (17:53:17) anonym: yes, exactly
> (17:53:31) nickm: that's not a great solution, of course
> (17:56:30) anonym: a proper "EnforceBridges" or whatever would be best,
> yes. is that likely to get implemented if I file a feature request?
> (17:56:43) nickm: EnforceBridges is not really what you mean
> (17:56:57) nickm: Because Bridge settings _are_ and _should be_ enforced,
> always
> (17:57:10) nickm: You want "EnforceTheBridgesIHaventEvenToldYouAboutYet"
> (17:57:13) nickm: or something
> (17:57:18) anonym: hence my "or whatever"
> (17:58:10) nickm: hang on.
> (17:58:13) nickm: what about UseBridges 1
> (17:58:32) nickm: ah.
> (17:58:53) nickm: if usebridges 1 is set, and you list no bridges, we
> reject the torrc
> (17:59:20) Sebastian: The value of the UseBridges config option is kind
> of debatable
> (17:59:44) nickm: Sebastian: you mean, if they specify a bridge,
> UseBridges should automatically turn on?
> (17:59:56) Sebastian: yes
> (17:59:56) nickm: or something else?
> (18:00:15) nickm: if we agreed on that, then this sounds like a fine
> value for a tristate, with "auto" being the default.
> (18:00:40) nickm: I don't know if our existing code does the right thing
> with UseBridges set but Bridges empty; changing this shouldn't be _too_
> hard though
> (18:00:42) anonym: and 1 being what was intended with
> "EnforceTheBridgesIHaventEvenToldYouAboutYet"
> (18:00:42) anonym: ?
> (18:00:52) nickm: anonym: hypothetically yes

New description:

 In T(A)ILS (https://amnesia.boum.org) we want to enable a bridge-only mode
 (chosen at the boot menu, or at least before Tor starts) which ensures
 that the Tor network is never directly connected to. We figure some people
 don't want to disclose that they are using Tor for various reasons.

 Hence we'd like to have an option that can be set in torrc that makes Tor
 only use bridges, but without it being necessary to specify a bridge in
 torrc -- the user should be able to do that through Vidalia at a later
 point, and then have Tor bootstrap as soon as a bridge has been set
 through the control port.

 Here follows the discussion on #tor-dev which suggests that a change of
 the meaning of UseBridges might be the way:

 (17:52:11) nickm: It seems like you may also want a "I am using bridges,
 even though I haven't configured any bridges yet" option
 (17:52:36) nickm: That seems much closer to what you are trying to achieve
 than "!ReachableAddresses reject *:*"
 (17:53:14) nickm: You could even fake it, I bet, with something like
 Bridge 127.0.0.1:x, where x is an unused port.
 (17:53:17) anonym: yes, exactly
 (17:53:31) nickm: that's not a great solution, of course
 (17:56:30) anonym: a proper "!EnforceBridges" or whatever would be best,
 yes. is that likely to get implemented if I file a feature request?
 (17:56:43) nickm: !EnforceBridges is not really what you mean
 (17:56:57) nickm: Because Bridge settings _are_ and _should be_ enforced,
 always
 (17:57:10) nickm: You want "!EnforceTheBridgesIHaventEvenToldYouAboutYet"
 (17:57:13) nickm: or something
 (17:57:18) anonym: hence my "or whatever"
 (17:58:10) nickm: hang on.
 (17:58:13) nickm: what about !UseBridges 1
 (17:58:32) nickm: ah.
 (17:58:53) nickm: if usebridges 1 is set, and you list no bridges, we
 reject the torrc
 (17:59:20) Sebastian: The value of the !UseBridges config option is kind
 of debatable
 (17:59:44) nickm: Sebastian: you mean, if they specify a bridge,
 UseBridges should automatically turn on?
 (17:59:56) Sebastian: yes
 (17:59:56) nickm: or something else?
 (18:00:15) nickm: if we agreed on that, then this sounds like a fine value
 for a tristate, with "auto" being the default.
 (18:00:40) nickm: I don't know if our existing code does the right thing
 with !UseBridges set but Bridges empty; changing this shouldn't be _too_
 hard though
 (18:00:42) anonym: and 1 being what was intended with
 "!EnforceTheBridgesIHaventEvenToldYouAboutYet"
 (18:00:42) anonym: ?
 (18:00:52) nickm: anonym: hypothetically yes

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/2355#comment:10>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online