PrivacyNow is a BadExit (was Re: PrivacyNow node has misconfigured OpenDNS account)

[Scott Bennett]

     On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:25:07 +0200 Sebastian Hahn <mail at sebastianhahn.net>
wrote:
>On Apr 15, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>> Unfortunate (IMO), the latest versions have the support for .exit
>> either disabled or deleted, apparently leaving us no easy way to  
>> perform
>> such tests.  I've asked recently on this list whether some other  
>> easy way
>> were available, but have been met with silence, so I assume that there
>> still is none.
>
>If you want the functionality, feel free to set the AllowDotExit  
>config option
>to 1. Note that this can't be recommended, because it opens you up for

     That is what I have been doing in order to be able to test for exit
misbehavior.  However, the ChangeLog notes under "Minor bugfixes" for
0.2.2.9-alpha the following:

	- Resume handling .exit hostnames in a special way: originally we
	stripped the .exit part and used the requested exit relay. In
	0.2.2.1-alpha we stopped treating them in any special way, meaning
	if you use a .exit address then Tor will pass it on to the exit
	relay. Now we reject the .exit stream outright, since that behavior
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	might be more expected by the user. Found and diagnosed by Scott
	??????????????????????????????????
	Bennett and Downie on or-talk.

I understood the "Now we reject" part as meaning that the .exit support had
been completely removed.  I do not understand why that behavior "might be
more expected by the user."  In any case, the above note is why I've paused
at 0.2.2.7-alpha while waiting to discover some fairly easy-to-use alternative
method of testing exit behavior.

>attacks where the exit node can choose who your exit is going to be,
>unless you use encrypted protocols when webbrowsing only.
>
     Regarding the attack route you mention, I have some firefox plug-ins
like NoRedirect and RefreshBlocker installed in addition to the recommended
plug-ins (including QuickJava, NoScript, and Torbutton especially) that should
help with automated stuff, and I'm in the habit of checking the actual URLs
in links before using the links manually.  In many cases, I don't even use
firefox to get stuff from the links, but rather do a copy-and-paste to a
wget(1) or some other downloader command in an xterm(1), so I have plenty of
opportunity to notice that sort of interference.  If those strategies still
miss something, please do let me know.

>>> # This file was generated by Tor; if youedit it, comments will not  
>>> be pres=
>>
>>     I think the comment may be a lie.  It's most likely a torrc  
>> produced by
>> vidalia, not tor.  (Someone please correct me if I've forgotten some  
>> special
>> case in which tor does rewrite a torrc.)
>
>I think it is more likely that the file was written by Tor, via the  
>SAFECONF
>torctl command.
>
     Okay, I guess I had forgotten tor implemented such a command, but who
is issuing the command?  Vidalia?
     Thanks for the information, Sebastian.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo at torproject.org with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/