@mlanger yes, and it'll only get worse.
- I'd not be surprised if soon all sites will act like @torproject's #BridgeDB via mail [
bridges@torproject.org
] and only allowlist a few #MailProviders (in their case @riseup and #GMail)...

@mlanger yes, and it'll only get worse.
bridges@torproject.org
] and only allowlist a few #MailProviders (in their case @riseup and #GMail)...@torproject Q: I wish there was a similar tool test #Bridges, as https://bridges.torproject.org/scan/ is not that good and I don't want to hammer it with dozens of addresses, cuz at best that's quite antisocial if not possibly trigger responses assuming this is an intelligence gathering operation.
I.e.
bridgetest -v4 obfs4 203.0.113.0:80 …
bridgetest -v6 webtunnel [2001:DB8::1]:443 …
bridgetest -list ./tor.bridges.list.private.tsv
Similarly there needs to be a more granular way to request #TorBridges from #BridgeDB (as it's basically impossible to get #IPv4 #Webtunnel addresses nor is there an option to filter for #ports like :80
& :443
to deal with restrictive #firewalls (i.e. on public #WiFi)…
ipv6=yes
but neither ipv4=yes
nor ipv6=no
yielded me other resultd than #IPv6 webtunnel
bridges…And before anyone asks: Yes, I do have a "legitimate purpose" as some of my contacts do need Bridges to get beyond a mandatory firewall and/or do use #TorBrowser (through an #SSH tunnel) to circumvent Tor & #VPN blocks and maintain privacy (as many companies do block sometimes entire #Hosters' ASNs due to rampant #scrapers…
@tails_live @tails @torproject plus support for meek
, snowflake
, webtunnel
and non-#obfs4 #Bridges seems missing in #Tails.
Cuz to this day I've to yet see an IPv4-#webtunnel #bridge…
Right now the problem with @torproject #BridgeDB is that I can't get #webtunnel bridges on #IPv4 even when I try to specify those by setting ipv6=no
at the URL:
https://bridges.torproject.org/bridges?transport=webtunnel&ipv6=no
And no, removing IPv6 from the URL doesn't yield any IPv4 results either.
https://bridges.torproject.org/bridges?transport=webtunnel
It would be better if #BridgeDB would have a radio button / switch to choose IPv4 & #IPv6 for this reason.
#WhatsMissing: A tool to check if #TorBridges are still available/online/reachable that one can use either #standalone (with #TorBrowser and/or #Tor Expert Bundle) or on @tails_live / @tails / #Tails.
Whilst I do acknowledge that @torproject do disrecommend having a huge list of Tor Bridges on hand, I do regularly need them for contacts who are behind a #GreatFirewall and can't #SSH-Tunnel out of it.
Espechally being able to filter for #IPv4only and not just #IPv6only is something I miss, alongside the filter for #PluggableTransports type as @guardianproject #Orbot seems to only handle #obfs4 and not webtunnel or #meek at all...
@torproject And there's only so much bandwith I can donate aka. run a private bridge until that's no longer an option.
So having like a proper #API [even if it requires a #Captcha to solve] would be a godsent.
And no, #moat doesn't solve the demand for getting a #bridge with like parameters like
- IPv4
- Port: 443
- Webtunnel
Espechally when one's bedind the #IronFirewall and can't contact #BridgeDB...
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/anti-censorship/bridgedb/-/issues/16671
There are several issues I have with @torproject 's #BridgeDB:
For once, it's good and convenient but it's filtering options are half broken.
For example https://bridges.torproject.org/bridges/?transport=webtunnel&ipv6=yes will get me a #Webtunnel #TorBridge that has #IPv6, but setting ipv6=no or ipv4=yes doesn't work.
Nor can I add ports=80,443 or port=443&port=80 or similar.
So it would be really cool if one could just query stuff like that [OFC I'm not talking about the CAPTCA, that exist for reasons]...