After running a bunch of tcp ping tests, the conclusion is this attack
is not really effective against TCP like ICMP. The latency is much lower
for TCP pings and though it slightly decreases with cpu stress it is not
consistent. Reloading pages in TBB with cpu stress
on/off does not impact latency readings while doing so with tc
attached has massive latency foot prints - implying it will ironically make such attacks much easier in addition to degrading performance.

Cyrus recommends adding delays per packet to disrupt inter-packet patterns that remain. The command can be fine tuned as such:

The good news is I think I've figured out the equivalent tc-netem command looking the slot parameter in the manual:

Ticket above closed and convo moved to tails-dev.

It looks like bpfilter is in rather early stages, and it's few years until we'll see it in Debian.

Or skip nftables and use Berkeley Packet Filter (BPF)?

Not a problem anymore.

https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Chat#Ricochet_IM

NonaSuomy:

Added requested NFTables example from duclicsic #netfilter freenode.

Starting with Bullseye nftables will be the default:

https://redmine.tails.boum.org/code/issues/17156

Analysis by Cyrus cited here for completion:

Reported build failures:

When an implementation is decided, let's decide if we can include this in security-misc for use on Linux hosts and Kicksecure. We would need some way in detecting the active NIC since on wireless systems wlan0 is the interface of choice and not eth0

tc-netem is a utility that is part of the iproute2 package in Debian. It leverages functionality already built into Linux and userspace utilities to simulate networks including packet delays and loss.

install electrum appimage by default:
https://github.com/Whonix/anon-meta-packages/commit/71d40f5316ee7eb38eb04142d80d23c56a48407b

Any update?

Will keep watching what Tails is doing.

Maybe there is no need. It's just when Tails has a ticket, we should
check it at Whonix too. Thank you for looking into this, too!

The way it is now looks fine. Why would it need to be changed?

madaidan (madaidan):

madaidan added a comment.

> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2016-February/009371.html says it is used for various things so it might break some things.

Wouldn't using a fake machine-id e.g. a bunch of zeroes fix this?

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2016-February/009371.html says it is used for various things so it might break some things.

In T582#18461, @madaidan wrote:

Would it cause any issues if the machine-id was just deleted or replaced with a bunch of 0s?

Would it cause any issues if the machine-id was just deleted or replaced with a bunch of 0s?

Unfortunately, not possible.

The concept was documented for operational use. Auto Guard de-duplication considered too complex to deploy and manual checking is enough.

Done

https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Onion_Services#Step_1:_Install_Server_Software needs update.

Done. You can close this ticket once you agree with edits.

Sounds good!

From this size comparison on Debian wiki, I think the best and most secure option is the smallest and most minimal one: micro-httpd

We still have the warning on https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Onion_Services.