There is a LOT of interest in using VPN with Tor. You can see it in many forums. People are doing it left and right, whether it’s done for good reasons or with a fail safe mechanism is another question. Plus there are sites blocking Tor exit nodes, where you have to use something, We discussed it in a recent thread. And in some cases you better use the same IP from one login to another or the site gets crazy.
Another use is when you need UDP. In one word (this is my 2 seconds explanation, not 2 minutes), Whonix doc’s solution for that is “VPN”.
By the way, that page is also awful (thankfully it’s very short), the introduction section is just absurd. It refers to itself as if it’s a remote page, and then tries to clarify it with “this page below”. Just to make sure. Monthy Python kinda humor? I actually tried to edit it but it told me my IP will be logged (no) or I have to log in (to yet another account? different account for this forum and for editing wiki?), plus I couldn’t figure out how to edit the intro box. It’s elsewhere.
The first section should be:
The Tor software does not yet support UDP, [1] although Tor provides a DnsPort. This page details possible workarounds.
instead of:
The Tor software does not yet support UDP, [1] although Tor provides a DnsPort. If UDP is urgently required in Whonix, a limited workaround is provided. For the most secure method, see Tunnel UDP over Tor.
(This page below.)
There are other things that could be changed a the other sections.
Your actual IP is not logged. It s referring to logging address 127.0.0.1(every user has that same IP)
Anonymous edits are welcome so no login is necessary. You can create a seperate Wiki account if you’d like.
You will find some of the content has its own template. This is done when its used in more than one place. Its more efficient when edits are needed. The only problem with this is it limits how it can be used. Yes, its a PITA.
To find this template:
After the edit button is hit you will see this at the very bottom of the page.
Templates used on this page: ← Click on this
(You will see a listing of all templates used on the page.)
This is the one you want) Template:Tor UDP (view source) (protected)
There is a problem. You don’t have permissions to edit that template. Thats one of the reasons to copy the wiki page to a text editor. When you are done let torjunkie know so the template can be unlock. Then you can push the edits for review. BTW the templates are locked due to idiots using them for spamming the wiki.
If I edit this template as I intended to, it will probably make no sense whatsoever when used in other pages. And it doesn’t make much sense in the way it is currently used here.
So, this template needs to be removed from this page altogether.
Yes, I appreciate the potential reusability of templates. But in many cases you need to be specific to be clear.
Now I also start to understand why the whole wiki is so cluttered and why it looks like something one submits to a compiler (the blocks inside blocks inside blocks) - using too many templates is probably part of the reason.
Again, nice principle, but when you force a structure over something that needs to be dynamic, problem.
I agree with you. In many cases the templates actually prevent wiki editors from making contributions because the edits would not make sense for all the pages concerned.
If the template needs to be removed from the chapter then you can do so.
After further consideration.
If you’re accessing Whonix.org you should assume the following (mass data collection by advanced adversaries).
You access Whonix by:
Whonix .onion hidden service ( no exit node IP is logged since users stay inside the Tor network. Your external real IP could not be logged)
Whonix.org using Tor ( the exit node IP from which the user logged in from could be logged)
Whonix.org over clearnet (your actual IP could be logged)
@Patrick I can appreciate the sentiments expressed by the main developer. If it’s not mature it just isn’t. But I still think the reasons for Whonix having experimental status need to be more clearly presented to (potential) users. What goals have not been met? Get rid of the many nonsense overambitious goals. Define the goals more clearly and not too many.
As I understand this is the main goal and Whonix does this well and reliably. Emphasize the strengths of Whonix as well as its weaknesses. Probably a sensible goal in the midterm would be to just make using Tor browser more secure and private in Whonix than doing so on the host. This is probably what most users do most in Whonix. Looks like it has already been met.
With many warnings and without an adequate explanation of what Whonix does, doesn’t and should do an impression may be created that it is barely working or not at all. That doesn’t look like the case to me. If using Whonix gives you more security, privacy and anonymity than just using Tor browser (or other Tor software), then users should be made to understand this. Even if Whonix is not prefect. A condition of course also being a sufficient study and understanding of the documentation. Then users will have no doubt about whether switching to Whonix today is recommended and a good idea. Can this question be answered at this time?
@Pano It’s great to see the community has enthusiasm and to hear from you. But I disagree with a lot of what you say about the documentation. There are so many things to consider it’s impossible to make it short and simple. I appreciate every word of it, even if some of it isn’t applicable to my Whonix. Privacy is hard.
Other
I think the Whonix documentation is so rich that it should be of great interest to anyone curious about privacy. They don’t have to be a Whonix user or an aspiring one. Maybe start considering or promoting the wiki also as a standalone knowledge resource. The same may be said of the forum actually, it’s a bit more like a news resource.
It’s not mine, what gives a thread its meaning is that everyone shares I didn’t mean extra discussion is bad, better messy than empty.
The below would better fit in the closed Whonix and Tails Discussion
I don’t believe in Tails. The only thing it can do better than Whonix is forget everything locally. But when is that useful? If you’re using your own computer and want control over it, you use full disk encryption. Period. So Tails on your own computer brings nothing of benefit. Using someone else’s computer is firstly a security compromise and secondly a dying habit. Wireless networks are everywhere and most people have a network-capable device with them all the time. They’re getting cheaper, better, more common. Device sharing should therefore decline ever more. It may even become socially unacceptable, not fully without reason, mind my first point. Public computers for general use with unrestricted access are disappearing and the authorities certainly aren’t sorry about everyone being more traceable. They are also out of fashion which matters to the common user and there’s a hygiene problem. So why and when would you use Tails?
Thank you for your feedback. That’s OK you disagree.
I find it very useful to have things explained in a concise way and for the specific cases I require (for example, one hypervisor, one Whonix version), and I write such summaries for myself (you can see one I did in the “Tor Bridges Documentation” thread).
I do that because privacy is hard, not despite it being hard.
Actually, being able to explain something in a clear and easy-to-follow way is an indication for me, that I reached a good grasp of the subject.
Such summaries perhaps are too subjective, or tailored for my needs - everyone has different backgrounds. They probably will not benefit others to the same degree. I, for example, don’t need an explanation how to save a file or about the different ways it can be edited, but I do require more background and remarks in linux networking issues. Someone else will have other priorities.
Be wary of those confidently calling themselves all-knowing, all-perfect. Whonix is an actively maintained research project making constant improvements – no shortcomings are ever hidden from users.
I didn’t mean extra discussion is bad, better messy than empty.