i2pd offers a http proxy server, it works well.

i2pd is great, if you are ok with flat config files and no limits.

1. Site don't working with socks proxy. Must be http.
2. I2pd sucks.

Project looks interesting. Is there a link to the demo? (NVM it's http://music.simp.i2p)

that is one intestine

That made my day. Thank you!

thanks :)

I know they are working on their own OS and such. Could be disinfo.

But I won't bet my computer on it. ;)

Cool project OP

we're at a lvl far removed from the inner workings. evrything could be propaganda lies, west and east. the tidbit about "unknown encrypted data packets" triggering "pre-implanted backdoors" in windows is funny. thnk these are target based or exist widely on every windows installation? waiting for a neutral security auditor to find and expose?

i wonder what incentives lie in wait for such an auditor.. $$$ and recognition, or something more sinister

90% on target. 10% possibly off target.

I forget what it is called, but AMD has their own version as well.

it probably could, to me that along with traffic analysis are things that fall more into state sponsored level attack. guess avoiding those chipsets is the way or disabling it, but only 3 people are going to do that. like i'd think that at least with intel it's basically a backdoor, probably would take a fair amount of effort for someone outside of them to exploit it. but i guess that doesn't stop intel from gathering intel, lol

there's a surprising amount of low-lying fruit that can be way easier to do for non state actors. Best to assume your ip address is known to be running i2p as public knowledge, and like just poking around the netdb will give info that can sometimes lead to deanon if not careful

I wonder how the intel management engine and AMD PSP could be used to track I2P users. They make up the majority of the nodes on this network. We really don't have a way to fight that unless we all jump to RISC-V right? Also, that article is interesting but incredibly outdated. It's from 2010. Id imagine the security posture of i2p has improved dramatically since then.

you should be able to set the port like z3d said and it'll only use that, dangerous to share obviously because port scanning could be done to identify from suspected ips

i think in theory this is probably true to an extent, we're getting into the realm of traffic analysis. There's some info on this on http://i2p-projekt.i2p/en/docs/how/threat-model

As not_bob mentioned, it's useful.

I2P+ comes with feature rich console interface, one that also happens to be a great place for beginners to start out - doesn't mean users would need to keep the outproxy.

Some otherwise might not have opportunity to try outproxy (some lazy, some unsure how).

And having access to browse clearnet also means a user is more likely to keep an i2p browser (in turn, i2prouter) set up - this means more traffic for all of us. And that's good for all.

In this way, I'd say it's a win win, to have built in (by default, not required to keep).

The management engine cannot be completely disabled in intel chips that ship with it because some of the things it handles are required for the chip to actually work. Really, you are better served by getting a chip without a management engine. Most AMD chips have their own version of the intel management engine, so they aren't safe. ARM boards are usually a little safer but not all. All of the Apple chips have a technology very similar to management engine built in. I don't know about the RISC-V boards but they are borderline trash so far anyway so they aren't a great escape route either.

incorrect. The port the relay uses to the outside world is random and not to be disclosed, and certainly never a fixed port posted on a ramble post. Also, this fails to address my question. products like the firewalla purple can phone home and keep track of all the connections made on the port I granted a firewall exception to. My question was whats stopping the companies behind these products (or even just he ISPs themselves) from linking all the connections people are making on I2P? They wouldn't know the content of the data being sent but they would be able to piece together the paths it took potentially leading to deanon.

i gave tuckit a "force_outbound_quantity = x" to get around it, that would be even better :)

I can fix the display so if it's over the limit it still shows correctly.

There's no way to create an exception for i2p as the destinations vary.

Allow all inbound and outbound traffic on your configured TCP and UDP port indicated on http://127.0.0.1:7657/confignet#udpconfig in I2P+. You should expect that traffic to only be handled by your Java runtime. No other ports on I2P need to exposed publicly (in your firewall).

Just if anyone finds this, the outproxy is disabled by default in i2pd.

good doggy

i'm not completely sure but i'd hazard a guess that it could have something to do with i2p+ being more selective in it's peer profiling compared to i2pd and that java routers use different bids for NTCP2 and SSU2

emissary is super exciting, just kinda showed up out of nowhere

It's very useful to have a working outproxy. You will find many sites that are banned when you use Tor, but work just fine though an I2P outproxy.

But, remember to use one browser just for I2P. Never let it touch the normal clearnet. Going through an outproxy is fine though.

found it. theres an outproxy in i2p+ by default. Why would that be there? I thought the entire point was to keep traffic internal to the i2p network