3 ms·
It might be irrational, but I have this vague notion that it's somehow less secure than Tor on a router. Breaking out of virtualization is certainly not easy, b
by 3pt14159 9y ago
It might be irrational, but I have this vague notion that it's somehow less secure than Tor on a router. Breaking out of virtualization is certainly not easy, but it seems easier than hacking a locked down router.
- mirimir 9y agoYes, it's almost certainly less secure than running Tor on a router. But I sometimes use multiple Whonix instances, for different personas, and they hit Tor through different nested VPN chains. And using hardware for that would be too tedious.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y agoI agree that a physically separate router (fully secured and patched itself!) forcing traffic through TOR is better still, but I see virtualization as a superior alternate to plain binaries with no extra layers, which is what's used today. It's also easier to use for the end user.
- rbanffy 9y agoYou can always start two VMs with very thin OSs on them. The Tor proxy could even be a unikernel with no functionality beyond being a Tor proxy.
- mirimir 9y agoI've played some with that. Whonix uses a full Debian install for the gateway, and that uses lots of disk. I used OpenWRT VMs for a while, but Tor releases in their repo got way out of data, and I never managed a build. If someone can point to a distro that works for this, many of us would be very happy.
- rbanffy 9y agoI have some nice experiences running Alpine within VMs. Very small too, but I did so in order to test things for deployment in containers, not Tor services.