1

Will the "obfs4proxy.exe" compiled for "Win32", as extracted from the official Tor-browser download, work normally on an AMD Athlon-XP ? Specifically, this is a modern X86(32) processor but that does not have SSE2 and superior instruction sets - in case this is useful information.

I cannot run the TBB, using standalone Tor.exe (own compilation) instead, with home made configuration. I extracted the 'obsf4procy' from the TBB tho, added proper 'torrc' configuration lines to have it run 'managed' and got my trial obfs4-bridges from the usual place @ bridges.torproject.org - but alas ! it does not run ! Actually just trying to run the executable on this machine - even with option '-h' or '--help' bombs out !

Please help - if applicable, providing a special build compatible to Athlon-XP ! In case target CPU-compatibility is NOT the problem, what else could be ? Missing dependencies ? The executable /does/ bomb out (crash) anyway... not good :=(

P.S : I got no problems whatsoever using the Python based obfs(2,3)proxy.

## TOR Configuration file (noino)
### bridges
UseBridges 1
UpdateBridgesFromAuthority 1
## obfsproxy configuration (works OK, commented out):
##ClientTransportPlugin obfs2,obfs3 exec obfsproxy managed
## obfs4proxy doesn't work on my comp :=(
ClientTransportPlugin obfs2,obfs3,obfs4,scramblesuit exec M:\PROGRAMS\TOR\obfs4proxy
Bridge obfs3 XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SocksPort 9050 # what port to open for local application connections
ControlPort 9051 ## Entry policies
  • Can you include your torrc, excluding the bridge addresses and certificates, etc? – cacahuatl Sep 14 '16 at 15:43
  • @canonizing ironize : sure ![p] ## TOR Configuration file (noino) ### bridges UseBridges 1 UpdateBridgesFromAuthority 1 ## obfsproxy configuration (works OK, commented out): ##ClientTransportPlugin obfs2,obfs3 exec obfsproxy managed ## obfs4proxy doesn't work on my comp :=( ClientTransportPlugin obfs2,obfs3,obfs4,scramblesuit exec M:\PROGRAMS\TOR\obfs4proxy Bridge obfs3 78.46.XXX.XXX:XXXXX 5AXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX SocksPort 9050 # what port to open for local application connections ControlPort 9051 ## Entry policies {truncated, irrelevant}.... – Noino Sep 14 '16 at 16:17
  • Sorry for the sh.t formatting above : this comment system beats me ! Anyway, I do not think there is a problem w/ my specific torrc. What I observe is the tor launch process stalling after it tries to launch the 'obfs4prxy', but the proxy bombs out immediately and 'tor' will stay awaiting indefinitely at that stage. Using 'obfsproxy' (not 4) instead everything is OK, as it is using bare 'Tor' without further obfuscating 'transport'. – Noino Sep 14 '16 at 17:37
  • Just to check, your torrc has the bridge set as an obfs3 bridge but in your original question you said you'd received obfs4 bridges. was that a typo in the question? you can't use an obfs4 bridge as an obfs3 bridge, for example. – cacahuatl Sep 14 '16 at 20:04
  • Answer : not a typo. I did try an obfs4 bridge per original question, makes no difference. It appears the executable can't run on my Win XP SP3 32 bits/ and-or my CPU :[M:\PROGRAMS\TOR]obfs4proxy.exe -h Exception 0xc000001d 0x1003f 0x0 0x500069 – Noino Sep 14 '16 at 21:06
2

obfs4proxy can probably be made to work, but as far as I know, the Go toolchain used for the bundle builds does not go through the extra hoops required to do this. Specifically, you need to compile obfs4proxy with a Go that's built with GO386=387 or it will generate SSE2 code, since the only processors that reject that are at least a decade old.

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/8152

  • understood ! ... Would you, being the most qualified as the author, and time allowing, kindly attempt such a special build and provide (the exe only) in your repository ? Clearly I like most individual users can't be expected to Go (pun intended) to the hassle of installing a complete compiler and build environment, learning the Go system just to try and make a single target, however valuable ! OTOH there are still millions of quite capable Athlon systems in activity which would benefit from the effort ! – Noino Sep 15 '16 at 9:01
  • I have no plans to support such a thing, expecting me to support hardware I don't have, that's over a decade old seems unreasonable. I won't intentionally break such things, though FF49+ will require SSE2 so other things will break sooner rather than later. – user78 Sep 15 '16 at 11:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.