#i2p-dev (irc2p) | 2.5.2-2

eyedeekay Wow that trip was brutal. On the ground in DE, back to work

dr|z3d lederhosen pics or it didn't happen, eyedeekay

eyedeekay Soon enough

zzz updated stats.i2p/docs/roadmap-2.5-zzz.html

dr|z3d so I've got a very green method modification here to check if the requested URL via the SSL outproxy returns a 200 response code.

dr|z3d the idea being we perform a head request on the requested url to verify that the selected proxy can see the requested host.

dr|z3d if not, (todo) perhaps we should check against a known functional host to identify if the host is down/blocked, or the outproxy is down.

dr|z3d the overarching idea is to attempt to minimize failed requests via outproxies. request failed? check known good host. known good host down? proxy is dead, cycle.

dr|z3d grren code -> cake.i2p/view/79Cgqt3E14_C4ZdWpSM30jvuBPis9cHdKnetkrmxJ_xvVqzINXHw/79Cgqt3E14.txt

zzz stats.i2p/cgi-bin/avg.cgi?a=tunnel.buildExploratorySuccess.10m&s=31&u=m

dr|z3d both client and server side outproxy handling could use some love.

dr|z3d yup, definitely some weird happening lately on the network. you seen all those X class Chinese routers?

dr|z3d if we can determine that the proxy is down or that the site is unavailable, we can potentially display more informative proxy error messages to the user.

zzz check the family on this one -aXAjMn70-Skoeb75UWbGzzYvxRxitJVUovQrv3VkpE=

dr|z3d you haz groupies.

zzz in china?

dr|z3d they all love you over there. you're a celebrity. obviously. :)

dr|z3d I see 2 routers in "your" family here.

dr|z3d oA4f0RFH78WbqoT0vT3OlmOrlrAUEAwi-r0lGZblp5A= being the other.

zzz seven MRs posted for consideration and cross-referenced on my roadmap page

zzz more to follow

dr|z3d did you have a look at my outproxy test code, zzz?

dr|z3d snark bandwidth changes look interesting.

zzz hate it :)

dr|z3d what, your snark stuff, or my outproxy tester? :)

eyedeekay Nice thanks zzz. I've never understood why publish a fake family key, especially ones that we ship a cert for?

dr|z3d eyedeekay: not sure zzz has his own family. I think his family is i2p-dev?

dr|z3d might be wrong.

eyedeekay Dunno for sure, mine is mibhq, was added publicly, but if we have a cert and can say "this guy's a liar" aren't they footgunning themselves?

dr|z3d sure, if there's a cert for a family and someone decides to spoof the family name, we can just mark the router as dubious (similar to how we do for validated) and add to the session blocklist.

eyedeekay I just wonder what about it makes sense from the attacker side

eyedeekay An ineffective disguise being worse than no disguise

dr|z3d /** Get via getInstance() */

dr|z3d private Analysis(RouterContext ctx, ClientAppManager mgr, String[] args) {

dr|z3d super(ctx);

dr|z3d _context = ctx;

dr|z3d _log = ctx.logManager().getLog(Analysis.class);

dr|z3d _cmgr = mgr;

dr|z3d _persister = new PersistSybil(ctx);

dr|z3d _familyExemptPoints24.add("SUNYSB");

dr|z3d _familyExemptPoints24.add("stormycloud");

dr|z3d }

dr|z3d we could all just be coming to the wrong conclusion, and zzz family name isn't hostile at all.

dr|z3d more a case of "maybe this will amuse someone".

eyedeekay In between the two conclusions, I suppose, are decoys

eyedeekay Maybe it's like the clone thing? Publish a real RI with a spoofed family key to get it banned?

dr|z3d why would you want to get your own router banned?

eyedeekay With the clone attack it was to get other routers banned

orignal do we know if it's an attack or some idiots started something?

dr|z3d we don't know anything, orignal :)

dr|z3d it's all supposition and wild speculation right now.

orignal well, what do you know so far?

orignal beside number of trasit tunnels and bandwidth?

dr|z3d we were talking about the zzz family in china, but regarding network performance.

dr|z3d we know there are a ton of new X class chinese routers.

orignal what's with it?

orignal e.g. what is "zzz family"?

dr|z3d we know the overall build success percentage has gone down in the last 24h or so.

dr|z3d zzz family is a group of routers using the "zzz" name for their family.

orignal my floodfill is banned by you guys as ususal

dr|z3d chinese routers.

orignal because too manu TBM comes from it

orignal does zzz family cert exist?

eyedeekay No it doesn't, I was mistaken abt that

orignal well guys I told you from the beginning

dr|z3d I think it's comedy more than anything else, the zzz family name.

orignal about unregistered families

zzz no I've never created a zzz family cert

orignal i2pd doesn't honir unregistred families at all

orignal like they don't exist

orignal then implement it the same way as i2pd

dr|z3d you were talking about hating it, zzz.. my outproxy testing code, or your snark b/w code?

orignal if no family cert just ignore it

zzz your testing code

orignal if family signature mistmach with cert drop it

orignal whole RI

orignal that's how I do

zzz wrong place, unnecessary, borked

orignal hold on

zzz eyedeekay, how goes the bundle?

orignal so you are saying that zzz cert comes from I2P+ test code?

dr|z3d maybe 1 and 3 you're right about, 2, I disagree, if we want a more robust outproxy solution.

zzz no sorry orignal two conversations at once

dr|z3d orignal: I never said that.

zzz dr|z3d, how does it improve on the existing failure-tracking code?

orignal just confused

dr|z3d zzz: the intention is to check the url, and then check a known url, so you can determine if the outproxy is down or the requested URL is wrong or being blocked.

eyedeekay Travel and holidays ended up crapping up my schedule pretty hard, finally got back to it this morning, Mozilla has my plugins, that usually only takes a few hours, arkenfox is updated in i2p.plugins.firefox, so once I get my emails from Mozilla I can push the button and have my build artifacts, after that it's a news update away

zzz ok great eyedeekay

zzz eyedeekay, if you want me to tweet this week about 'come meet us here' or 'we're wearing this hideous shirt, look for us' holler

zzz eyedeekay, why does mozilla need a plugin before you release the bundle? doesn't the bundle have everything in it?

eyedeekay Yeah sounds good, I've got my IPFS shirt, my Crypto-Privacy Village shirt, and a black t-shirt with 2 skeletons on it, one of which is holding the other's spine and telling his homie "I've got your back"

eyedeekay I need to have Mozilla sign the plugin because the plugin signing cert for all Firefox plugins is under the control of Mozilla unless we want to fork Firefox

zzz eyedeekay, yeah but I would need what's on your back at the time, not an inventory of your luggage :)

eyedeekay Since we(especially me) don't want to fork Firefox I have to ask Mozilla to sign the plugins before I can include them

zzz ok got it, didn't know

eyedeekay Yeah that's the trade-off, it's why we can use vanilla Firefox instead of having to do a TBB-alike

zzz sounds right

dr|z3d y'all need silly hats.

dr|z3d "we're wearing 3 ft tall wizard hats with attached bells"

eyedeekay That would work lol

zzz dr|z3d, but we have tracking if the outproxy is down now

zzz and your code does not do any test of the 'requested URL'

dr|z3d sure, like I said, the known good url code is to come, that was a first stab at getting the eephead stuff in there.

dr|z3d it's more "here's the basic concept" that "here's the finished article".

dr|z3d *than

dr|z3d the other part of the handling that isn't there yet is an optional prioritization of outproxies, so first choice gets used first unless it's down, etc..

zzz there's ancient problems with the way we do CONNECT but I'm not sure it's fixable.

zzz and I'm not sure we can do anything to get better errors to the browser anyway, I don't think they care

zzz but I do have a line item on my roadmap to investigate

dr|z3d if we're doing a head request first, we can handle errors instead of the browser, that's the basic thinking.

dr|z3d and at the same time inform the user that we're trying the next outproxy (if configured).

zzz but you can't get errors to the browser

dr|z3d we can, and we do.. proxy errors via proxy.i2p

zzz doesn't work for CONNECT because it's TLS

zzz all you have is the '200 Connection Established' line

zzz which we send unconditionally from the client side, that's the ancient problem

zzz but I don't know if we got more creative if the browser would do anything with it

zzz on the server side we need to just reset the socket instead of sending errors

zzz which will prevent the 'record too long' browser errors when we send non-TLS responses

zzz thats whats on my list

dr|z3d if we don't get a 200 response code via the head request, then we can handle that with a proxy error, no? that's part of the thinking behind using a head check.

zzz no, the browser is looking for a TLS handshake, not a plaintext error page

zzz and it won't display it, it just pukes out record too long

zzz if you can make it do it, lmk, but I don't think so

dr|z3d ok, something to look into further. I was assuming we either get a 200 back from a head check, or we don't. if we don't, then we can handle that appropriately.

zzz this is all independent of any additional checks, this is the status quo

dr|z3d ok, so you're talking about how we currently do things? I'm proposing a head pre-check that gives us extra options.

zzz I'm saying that there's no facility to get error pages to the browser for CONNECT

zzz adding "pre checks" doesn't solve that

dr|z3d ok, more work/research to do.