|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Part one: Overview and explanation
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Because tor is an application-level proxy, it needs client-side support
|
|
|
+from every client program that wants to use it. (This is different from
|
|
|
+systems like Freedom, which used a single client-side program to capture
|
|
|
+all packets and redirect them to the Freedom network.) Client applications
|
|
|
+need two general classes of modifications to be compatible with tor:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+1) Whenever they call connect(), they instead should connect() to the
|
|
|
+local onion proxy and tell it "address and port". The onion proxy will
|
|
|
+itself make a connection to "address and port", and then the client
|
|
|
+application can talk through that socket as if it's directly connected. To
|
|
|
+support as many applications as possible, tor uses the common "socks"
|
|
|
+protocol which does exactly the above. So applications with socks support
|
|
|
+will support tor without needing any modifications.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+2) Applications must not call gethostbyname() to resolve an address
|
|
|
+they intend to later connect() to via onion routing. gethostbyname()
|
|
|
+contacts the dns server of the target machine -- thus giving away the
|
|
|
+fact that you intend to make an anonymous connection to it.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+To clarify, I need to explain more about the socks protocol. Socks
|
|
|
+comes in three flavors: 4, 4a, and 5. The socks4 protocol basically
|
|
|
+uses IP and port -- so it is unsuitable because of the gethostbyname()
|
|
|
+issue above. Socks4a is a slight modification to the socks4 protocol,
|
|
|
+whereby you can specify an IP of 0.0.0.x to signal the socks server
|
|
|
+that you will instead be sending a hostname (fqdn). So applications with
|
|
|
+socks4a support are all set. Socks5, on the other hand, allows the client
|
|
|
+to specify "address type" and then an address -- so some applications
|
|
|
+choose to supply an IP and others choose to supply a hostname. If the
|
|
|
+application uses socks5 you must investigate further to decide whether
|
|
|
+it's leaking anonymity.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Part two: using tsocks to transparently replace library calls
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+tsocks (available from http://tsocks.sourceforge.net/ or from your
|
|
|
+favorite apt-get equivalent) allows you to run a program as normal,
|
|
|
+but it replaces the system calls for connect() to connect to the socks
|
|
|
+server first and then pass it your destination info. In our case the
|
|
|
+socks server is a tor process (running either locally or elsewhere).
|
|
|
+In general this works quite well for command-line processes like finger,
|
|
|
+ssh, etc. But there are a couple of catches: A) tsocks doesn't intercept
|
|
|
+calls to gethostbyname. So unless you specify an IP rather than hostname,
|
|
|
+you'll be giving yourself away. B) Programs which are suid root (or
|
|
|
+anybody else) don't let you intercept the system calls -- ssh falls into
|
|
|
+this category. But you can make a local copy of ssh and use that. C)
|
|
|
+Probably tsocks doesn't behave well for behemoths like Mozilla.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Part three: applications which support tor correctly
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
Roger Dingledine