[tor-relays] No port IPv4 80 so not an called exit even when 443 open wide.

[Dr Gerard Bulger]

No response! 

 

It seems  I am alone in feeling it is an anachronism to require IPv4 open to
Class A at least for a relay to be called an exit.    Is it not an issue for
anyone else?

I got bad exit badge, to my shame, because of a narrow port 80 exit, despite
443 being wide open  on IPv4 and IPv6 and port 80 wide open on IPv6.

 

443 should be the marker as an exit these days.

 

Gerry

 

 

From: tor-relays <tor-relays-bounces at lists.torproject.org> On Behalf Of Dr
Gerard Bulger
Sent: 11 December 2020 17:14
To: tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
Subject: [tor-relays] No port IPv4 80 so not an called exit even when 443
open wide.

 

It is now out of date that Tor servers are required to have port 80 IPv4
open, even if limited to a single Class A network in order that the relay
can be labelled as an exit.  Port 443 should be enough.  

 

For reasons I do not understand, if I open port IPv4 80 to a wider range I
get abuse notices within a day, usually DMCA, as if some man in the middle
is scanning the html!  So far, wide open IPv6 port 80 attracts zero
attention from those alleging abuse.  

 

http://example.com  called as an IPv4 address cannot be reached by my tor
exits as port 80 IPv4 too limited.  Port 443 IPv4 and IPv6 on my exits are
wide open to all, and we should all be on https anyway.
https://example.com can be reached from my exits.   Example.com does have an
IPv6 address so in theory can be reached from my exits on port 80 as IPv6
port 80 is wide open    I assume not used as the DNS requested for
example.com gives IPv4 address.

 

Can an Exits now be defined as an exit with port 443 open IPv4?   And then
tested that is an exit with https requests not http.

 

Gerry Bulger

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20201213/ed52ac79/attachment.htm>