Fwd: Re: The --use-tor option
twim at riseup.net
Tue Oct 20 15:41:33 CEST 2015
> 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 ? 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
> If GnuPG had Tor ControlPort integration, we could even generate Tor
> Hidden Services automatically and use them together in smart ways with
'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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-devel