Fwd: Re: The --use-tor option

Ivan Markin twim at riseup.net
Tue Oct 20 15:41:33 CEST 2015

Jacob Appelbaum:
> On 10/20/15, Werner Koch <wk at gnupg.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:32, twim at riseup.net said:
>>> Why not just use torsocks [1]? There are any cons that I'm missing?
>> Because it is hack for ELF based systems and does not work under
>> Windows.  Anyway it does not solve the real problem of leaking DNS.
>> Recall that we need more than just AAAA records.
> torsocks is great, needed and useful but it is a hack around native
> Tor integration as much as anything.

Sad. I had a guess about Windows. For me it looks like we need some
'reference' implementation of this, a library (like Stem) to not to
reimplement Tor support each time in each project, to be able to update
app-Tor interaction for all apps at once by updating this library. In
this way it should be torsocks-like.

As far as I know, one can call pythonic Stem code from C. For instance,
one can use C bindings to Stem to create HSes as well as run it in a
client mode.

> If GnuPG had Tor ControlPort integration, we could even generate Tor
> Hidden Services automatically and use them together in smart ways with
> GnuPG.

'Smart ways' sounds intriguing. What applications of 'client' Hidden
Services in GnuPG do you mean? Or it's just for simplifying keyserver
setup over Tor?

Ivan Markin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20151020/05d6073a/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list