From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1X42Vy-00037D-GK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 06:35:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net; Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1X42Vv-0000Q0-PU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 06:35:01 +0000 Received: from fruiteater.riseup.net (fruiteater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 971CC4F0CD; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 23:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla@fruiteater.riseup.net) with ESMTPSA id 2987AE64 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user odinn.cyberguerrilla) by fruiteater.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jul 2014 23:34:53 -0700 Message-ID: <4f55608991d5377117ecf1728cd8db0c.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 23:34:53 -0700 From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" To: "Wladimir" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Headers-End: 1X42Vv-0000Q0-PU Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Anyone still using SOCKS4? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 06:35:02 -0000 Wait, I thought SOCKS4 was supposed to help somehow in terms of preventio= n of leaking of information? Or maybe I am misremembering. Here's what I'm thinking of... 1) https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/Preventing_Tor_DNS_L= eaks 2) More regarding TOR, " I keep seeing these warnings about SOCKS and DNS information leaks. Shoul= d I worry? The warning is: Your application (using socks5 on port %d) is giving Tor only an IP address. Applications that do DNS resolves themselves may leak information. Consider using Socks4A (e.g. via Polipo or socat) instead. https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#WarningsAboutSOCKSandDNSInformationLe= aks I'm not sure that means I'm screaming fire or anything, but isn't there some good reason for SOCKS4 and SOCKS4A? Or maybe another way to ask this is: Looking at an example in which someone is running Tor, Privoxy, I2P, and FoxyProxy together while runnin= g Bitcoin Core, would there be a problem with having a setting for SOCKS4A for traffic in such a setup given the changes proposed to remove SOCKS4 a= s suggested in bitcoin-development? Probably there is just a simple answer to that last question, like "no." But I thought I'd ask. > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Wladimir wrote: > >> If no one screams fire, we plan on removing support for it in the next >> major release, for two reasons: >> >> - It would remove some crufty, hardly tested code paths >> >> - SOCKS5 offers better privacy as it allows DNS redirection > > Another one: > > - SOCKS5 supports IPv6 > > Last call... > > Wladimir > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse > Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community > Edition > Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows > Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >