How is Phantom coming along?

[grarpamp]

Hey everybody :) The list and blog has been really quiet since about
May so I wanted to send out a poke. How is Phantom coming along?
Last I heard there was some running development code and a thesis
was being wrapped up. Were there any thoughts/questions on my
proposal of making Phantom generically IPv6 addressable as opposed
to an overlaid library kludge? Anyways, I just didn't want the project
to be lost as it looks promising and I'd love to see it published :)
Even if it is only for others to pick up later, that is always a good thing.
Happy Holidays.

[Magnus Bråding]

Hello,

A working PoC-implementation has been completed by Johannes, and only
packaging and licensing is delaying the release of the code. I will try
to get it done soon.

The code includes automatic capture of traffic from a custom network
interface too (on Linux), yes.

Regards,
Magnus

[grarpamp]

> A working PoC-implementation has been completed by Johannes, and only
> packaging and licensing is delaying the release of the code. I will try
> to get it done soon.

Awesome! Withspeed my Dear Watson, heh :)

> The code includes automatic capture of traffic from a custom network
> interface too (on Linux), yes.

So you're saying that users of Phantom will be able to communicate
with other Phantom hidden services in a bidirectional, real networking
fashion, perhaps in conjunction with OnionCat, and without the need
for LD_PRELOAD style system call library overlay kludges? And to
therefore be able to build real communities and services within
Phantom, using all the standard internet tools, daemons, and
applications they are used to? (See below for an example, and as
an example of what is working today with Tor.)

If not, I would sincerely hope the Phantom project would review the
Tor/I2P+OnionCat implementations so this functionality could be
included early on in the design. Having the ability to use any common
IPv6 aware application or daemon to build things and communicate
agnostically of, and entirely within, the Phantom transport will be, in my
opinion, very key to its adoption, and in addition to its anonymity, a
great selling point.

If so, and it is set up like this... which I think (but I am not sure) you
may mean by your second statement, then that would be even more
awesome(!) than my first declaration of same :-) And hopefully we'll
get a great present for the New Year :) Thanks!

===== Example ==========================
ps uaxw | egrep tor
[yes, running as a hidden service at: sb2rslak7crk6j6z.onion,
HiddenServicePort forwarded to ocat, etc.]

ps uaxw | egrep ocat
ocat 41906 ocat_r549 -t 192.168.0.1:9050 -a -u ocat sb2rslak7crk6j6z.onion

ifconfig tun0
tun0: flags=51<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING> metric 0 mtu 1500
options=80000<LINKSTATE>
inet6 fd87:d87e:eb43:9075:192c:af8:a2af:27d9 prefixlen 48
nd6 options=3<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV>
Opened by PID 41906

netstat -rnf inet6 | egrep fd87
fd87:d87e:eb43::/48 link#4 U tun0
fd87:d87e:eb43:9075:192c:af8:a2af:27d9 link#4 UHS lo0

ping6 -q -c 10 fd87:d87e:eb43:744:208d:5408:63a4:ac4f
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) fd87:d87e:eb43:9075:192c:af8:a2af:27d9 -->
fd87:d87e:eb43:744:208d:5408:63a4:ac4f
10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 556.622/758.114/1011.586/129.286 ms

telnet fd87:d87e:eb43:d78a:111c:dd32:782d:4cfd 22
Trying fd87:d87e:eb43:d78a:111c:dd32:782d:4cfd...
Connected to fd87:d87e:eb43:d78a:111c:dd32:782d:4cfd.
Escape character is '^]'.
SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_5.4
^]
telnet> Connection closed.

telnet fd87:d87e:eb43:9825:6206:0b91:2ce8:d0e2 80
Trying fd87:d87e:eb43:9825:6206:b91:2ce8:d0e2...
Connected to fd87:d87e:eb43:9825:6206:0b91:2ce8:d0e2.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:46:45 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:33:35 GMT
ETag: "7a382318375a314150eff158343634c8d1c21ba3"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 3745
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Connection closed by foreign host.

Note that while not demonstrated here, meshed/any2any P2P apps,
IRC, etc also work fine. Same with I2P. You'd need to generate your
own private IPv6 prefix (per RFC) for Phantom. IPv4 simply doesn't have
enough private (or otherwise) space to handle (without collision):
growth in Phantom user count over time, use of the same space for
pre-existing purposes, and the vast address space of Phantom... all
in a 1to1 fashion.
========================================

[behnam rousta]

Excuse me.
I need a table of comparison between phantom, tor, and i2p.
their differences like routing algorithm, communication protocol, connection type and more like this.
if anyone can help please do me a favor and show me a table or something to make me understood their differences.
Thank you guys.

[grarpamp]

There was a hidden wiki at one point, don't know if still there.
I2P may be harder for some to understand than tor and phantom.
For phantom just review these, and ask list if any questions...

http://www.magnusbrading.com/phantom/phantom-design-paper.pdf
http://www.magnusbrading.com/phantom/phantom-implementation-paper.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYM_zog5Su4

Let the mailing list know if you port the code to your platform.

[behnam rousta]

thank you for your recommendation and helpmeet

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Phantom Protocol" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/phantom-protocol/R-GKR0KJoOw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to phantom-protoc...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to phantom-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/phantom-protocol.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.