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

[Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki]

#2355: change the meaning of UseBridges
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  anonym  |        Type:  enhancement
   Status:  new     |    Priority:  normal     
Milestone:          |   Component:  Tor Client 
  Version:          |    Keywords:             
   Parent:          |  
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 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

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