0

Is it because of the nature of it's encryption protocol? I'm assuming there are other reasons as well, but I have not been able to find any information about it.

-1

Basically it's about the main difference between TCP and UDP - udp packets are fire-and-forget ones, but tcp's are much more strict and simple to handle. The working with UDP as a transport for Tor itself has it's uses, but I'm sure that it will be implemented in a future: there're too many bonuses in doing so that it simply can be ignored. If you want to transport UDP for your hidden service, for example, - just use OpenVPN! TCP was the "first and most universal/wide" choice, and it's better implement a single feature, but good - rather than ten of them, but badly: we've seen the Microsoft approach on features, it stinks :)

IMHO: - this is my very personal opinion:

  • Privacy concerns in Tor FAQ about non-tcp packets revealing OS are ridiculous, this can be handled "not so hard"
  • The "DNS resolver excuse" is an issue that must be fixed regardless of IP support, even if it will be still just TCP only supported
  • 1
    "Privacy concerns in Tor FAQ about non-tcp packets revealing OS are ridiculous, this can be handled "not so hard"" <- Dunning-Kruger in action. – cacahuatl Dec 17 '16 at 16:51
  • Also you're wrong re the difference between tcp/udp in that respect but you already demonstrated you don't understand that aspect of networking in previous answers. – cacahuatl Dec 17 '16 at 16:55
  • @canonizingironize You should clarify yourself a word "basically" - just to stop sounding like a joke, man :) Pehaps you're better cool down and actually read and try to understand what I mean in a whole answer, not cherrypicking a separate words and sentences out-of-context. Thanks! – Alexey Vesnin Dec 18 '16 at 2:07

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.