I2P Integration

Development
327

Still same issue.

328

In the latest update to I2P wiki, Where do you see Privoxy useful?

Privoxy now is just an extra package useless for the end user.

If privoxy can be removed then it should be removed from the wiki, And only optional choice for the end user he can install it if he want to as any other package.

1 Like
329

NOT useless. It allows for auto-redirection of special domains like.i2p and freesites to their respective daemons. Without it the UX of these alternative networks is degraded severely. Reverse any edits removing it please (if they’ve been committed).

330

Currently as of the latest revision privoxy does nothing with the instructions as is. So with the instructions as is, privoxy is doing nothing.

In https://www.whonix.org/w/index.php?title=I2P&type=revision&diff=77944&oldid=77939 @nurmagoz removed configuring Tor Browser for using privoxy with its default port 8118. Why was it removed? I guess it was removed because the instructions where dysfunctional and unmaintained at that time if I remember right? I think I tried and failed. It was probably due to Tor Browser changes.

This is the last old revision which still uses privoxy / port 8118:
https://www.whonix.org/w/index.php?title=I2P&oldid=77939

I expect re-adding privoxy to be complicated and require several hours of tinkering if it’s possible at all.

In case I am wrong… Can you currently use i2p with Tor Browser and privoxy? @HulaHoop

331

Yes those instructions were added by me recently (and were functional) when I went ahead and retested it with I2P and Tor Browser to browse eepsites seamlessly.

2 Likes
332
333

Its easy to do that, But now i just tested privoxy instructions the clearnet in TB doesnt work, But .i2p and .onion does work.

The current instructions which is without privoxy, .i2p work, and clearnet work, .onion not.

What we have common is .i2p in both working, So i dunno do you have a solution for clearnet issue + privoxy?

Otherwise .i2p working properly with current instructions, But if privoxy can solve all connections (clearnet, .i2p, .onion) then i dunno how to do that, Please test and see how to do that properly.

Note: In TB network.proxy.socks_remote_dns is now hardcoded and its reversible to always to the same state.

Asked @eyedeekay and replied:

  • eyedeekay: There are several ways to do it, one is a proxy.pac, one is to use privoxy to route everything, the last is to use containers-specific proxies in multi-account containers
  • eyedeekay: My preference is for the last because you can use the containers to enforce network boundaries, dropping I2P requests from the Tor container and Tor requests from the I2P container
  • eyedeekay: But which way is best remains to be seen
1 Like
334

So in summary…

old, last revision really using using privoxy:

  • i2p webinterface functional
  • i2p eepsites functional
  • clearnet broken
  • onion functional

current revision without privoxy [1]:
(this at time of writing)

  • i2p webinterface functional
  • i2p eepsites functional
  • clearnet functional
  • onion broken

Correct?

[1] privoxy get installed but not configured so effectively doing nothing.

Confirmed. This is true. That is also what I described here:
Tor Browser Customization using user.js (for example for i2pbrowser)

The same in other words:
network.proxy.socks_remote_dns set to true is now hardcoded directly by Tor Browser and it always reverts to Tor Browser default after Tor Browser restart.

i2p inside Whonix-Workstation instructions - both old and new - require network.proxy.socks_remote_dns set to false.

Unless the user re-applies these Tor Browser settings all the time which is very bad usability, I don’t think we currently have a good solution with or without privoxy.

1 Like
335

Yes

1 Like
336
1 Like
337

So many posts to drill through, I just wanted to say that if this is possible, it should be a detached project from Whonix

338

What did you have concluded from the posts before? why do you see it bad idea for i2p to be in whonix?

339

One way to see it that a lot of time was spent on this with meager results (?) that should be spend on more worthwhile things.

A different way to see this would be interpreting the number of users ever active in this forum thread (or generally on I2P) as a high user interest in I2P.

Long time no polls.
(polls collections (surveys))

Therefore I’ve started with a very basic question to get a bit of a baseline before asking more specific questions in follow-up polls later.

https://twitter.com/Whonix/status/1542064351015747586

Suggestions for future polls and their wording are welcome.

  • Twitter limits to maximum 4 choices.
  • 25 characters per choice maximum.

Related, for comparison, planned future poll:

Do you use ZeroNet?

  • Yes
  • No

To be posted in a few days?

Instead of only doing this on Twitter which could skew results, a poll or polls could be repeated in Whonix forums similar to a previous poll: User Poll - XFCE vs KDE - KDE Deprecation Considered!

Draft Twitter polls:

Whonix I2P Connection Scheme Wishlist

  • None. Keep as is.
  • Parallel to Tor.
  • user → Tor → I2P → dest

Whonix I2P Integration Wishlist

  • Keep as-is.
  • Easier installation.
  • Installed by default.
1 Like
340

It’d just make things a lot more harder to maintain and would add more attack surface and decrease development time on other components of Whonix

1 Like
341

well if there is no easy way to have it maintained then it wont make it as default thats for sure, mostly as well @eyedeekay gonna help with that otherwise also no future for i2p by default (left to users to install it).

Though at the moment in whonix-workstation there is already script automatically configure i2p once installed to be compatible with Tor connections (like disabling upnp, ntp time check, inbound connection…etc)

342
343

Disabled ntp time check by i2p.

1 Like
344

Thanks, merged.

1 Like
345
1 Like
346

Thanks, merged!

1 Like