[HOME] [DOWNLOAD] [DOCS] [BLOG] [SUPPORT] [TIPS] [ISSUES] [Priority Support]

different access methods for the same network on the same wiki page good?


#1

Two examples:

  • inproxies in the workstation vs
  • client inside the workstation vs
  • (some day) i2p on the gateway

  • inproxies in the workstation vs
  • client inside the workstation vs
  • running the client on an anonymous server

Is it useful to have all methods on the same page or should these be split on multiple pages?


#2

Having everything in the same place makes more sense to me but I think we should indicate the preferred method - maybe in the section title?


#3

Which is the preferred method? In case of I2P it’s various sorts of usability vs various sorts of security.

  • inproxies: no extra code involved (same attack surface) but the inproxy could deliver incomplete, false or even malicious content [we have to assume malicious content anyhow - the I2P site could be malicious]; more usable when just web browsing since very quickly to set up
  • client inside the workstation: same connection security as I2P (better than inproxies) but more code (I2P client) in use, higher attack surface; more features, not just web browsing

#4

Which is the preferred method? In case of I2P it’s various sorts of usability vs various sorts of security.

WS Client.

Ignoring the attack surface argument since:

  • The attack surface of I2P is decidedly much smaller than TBB being exposed to a payload by a malicious inproxy or anything else in between (they are all http only)

  • The benefit of running anything that has known security holes will never set off its harm. I2P is written in a memory safe language and I am not aware of it having any security problems so far.

Another problem with inproxies besides mitming an otherwise secure connection, is a degraded browsng experience since many eepsites simply block access if its not E2E encrypted.


#5

Unless one would use I2P client for web browsing. :slight_smile:

But it’s not getting any less trustworthy to begin with - unless the user has a reason to trust the host of the i2p site.

I didn’t know that’s possible since from the perspective of the eepsites such a an inproxy is E2E encrypted. The only difference with inproxy is that it forwards whatever it fetched to someone else, the inproxy user.


I have no strong opinion about which should be the preferred method. For me it’s like picking from two flavors I both like. Please go for it.


#6

Yeah its a constant problem I kept seeing when using them.

I have no strong opinion about which should be the preferred method. For
me it’s like picking from two flavors I both like. Please go for it.

Will do thanks.