Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use a local socket for tor socks proxy and control channel where available #650

Open
riastradh-brave opened this issue Jul 26, 2018 · 0 comments
Labels
feature/tor priority/P5 Not scheduled. Don't anticipate work on this any time soon. sec-low security

Comments

@riastradh-brave
Copy link
Contributor

riastradh-brave commented Jul 26, 2018

Currently, in browser-laptop, we use a TCP/IP socket on the local interface, say 127.0.0.1:9250, for the tor socks proxy and control channel. Anyone with access to the local TCP/IP interface can connect to the tor socks proxy. To reduce the attack surface, we should use a local socket under ~/.config/brave that requires file system permissions to get at, not just TCP/IP.

This would require teaching Chromium's socks 'URL' abstraction to handle pathnames, not just host:port pairs, as in socks5:///home/riastradh/.config/brave/tor/socks or something where we currently use socks5://127.0.0.1:9050.

Caveat: I'm not sure this is doable on Windows. If not, we would have to maintain two code paths, including the slightly more complex one in #649, and it may not be worthwhile to do this in addition to #649.

@riastradh-brave riastradh-brave self-assigned this Jul 26, 2018
@bbondy bbondy added this to the Backlog milestone Jul 30, 2018
@tildelowengrimm tildelowengrimm added the priority/P5 Not scheduled. Don't anticipate work on this any time soon. label Oct 30, 2018
@rebron rebron modified the milestone: 1.x Backlog Feb 7, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature/tor priority/P5 Not scheduled. Don't anticipate work on this any time soon. sec-low security
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants