Re: Freenet in Whonix

On 2016-12-19 23:36, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
> 
>> On 2016-12-18 23:32, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>>> [email protected] writes:
>>> 
>>>> In principle the F2F way seems closest to what we need. Though it 
>>>> has
>>>> the downsides of limited performance and probably complicated to
>>>> automate since a noderef needs to be exchanged out of band first.
>>> 
>>> If that’s what you want to go for and you want to increase 
>>> performance
>>> with the currently available tools (no changes needed, so nothing
>>> blocks
>>> doing this today), you could run multiple low-bandwidth nodes on the
>>> gateway and configure them to connect to the node on the client. At 5
>>> friend-to-friend connections Freenet pure friend-to-friend 
>>> performance
>>> starts to get pretty good.
>> 
>> I dunno. While I can understand the less than optimal performance of
>> this workaround, first-time users might be put off. So I want to do 
>> this
>> when I am confident that users will have the best experience possible.
> 
> With multiple nodes running on the gateway, the performance should be
> good enough for tasks which are similar in their requirements to 
> regular
> browsing.

How would that fare for resource use? Gateway VM is set with 512MB RAM 
to allow for DE to load but it can run with as little as 128MB which is 
really useful when running mutliple anonymity clients in parallel for 
different activities.

> 
>>> The configuration can be done via pyFreenet. See our update over
>>> mandatory test script for an example of connecting two nodes:
>>> https://github.com/freenet/scripts/blob/b56225bedcc646a8ba88f04862e89f15e246d4b8/test-autoupgrade#L150
>>> 
>>> I’m running such a setup myself to have a pure darknet node (to 
>>> dogfod
>>> with how Freenet works for users who disable opennet for security
>>> reasons) which still gets pretty good performance if most friends are
>>> offline.
>>> 
>>>> I'm thinking some of Freenet supporting an explicit 'proxy mode' 
>>>> where
>>>> it would provide a SOCKS interface for Freenet on the workstation to
>>>> use for outbound connections.
>>> 
>>> Isn’t that what happens with SSH port-forwarding? What am I missing?
>> 
>> Also we can't have SSH or any other helper daemons running on the
>> Gateway by any means. We don't even have DHCP servers or clients on
>> there and rightly so - made us immune to some RCEs.
> 
> What I mean is: Would a SOCKS interface not just provide the same as 
> SSH
> forwarding?

Yes technically you can turn SSH into a SOCKS proxy server when you run 
it dynamically.

> 
> Best wishes,
> Arne
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl