tinyzimmer's recent activity

  1. Comment on Tor’s shadowy reputation will only end if we all use it in ~tech

    tinyzimmer
    Link Parent
    So government agencies. Who run exit nodes as a means to deanonymize people.

    Only well-funded adversaries with the capability to passively watch most network traffic over the globe have a chance of deanonymizing Tor users by means of advanced traffic analysis.

    So government agencies. Who run exit nodes as a means to deanonymize people.

    2 votes

  2. Comment on Xenia Canary, a Xbox 360 emulator, will beep annoyingly and blames user of piracy if the user uses an ISO file in ~games

    tinyzimmer
    Link Parent
    I also feel like someone could easily make a downstream patch that removes the check entirely

    I also feel like someone could easily make a downstream patch that removes the check entirely

    2 votes

  3. Comment on You have one fast travel point, where do you place it? in ~talk

    tinyzimmer
    Link Parent
    Meh as long as it's the same city it could still be convenient. Just not for the new people in that house.

    Meh as long as it's the same city it could still be convenient. Just not for the new people in that house.

    13 votes

  4. Comment on Open-sourcing some Tildes-related code in ~tildes

    tinyzimmer
    Link Parent
    I could help with this potentially. Going an OpenAPI or Protobuf route would be ideal because it would enable clients in any language.

    I could help with this potentially. Going an OpenAPI or Protobuf route would be ideal because it would enable clients in any language.

    4 votes

  5. Comment on WebMesh: Yet Another WireGuard Mesh/VPN Solution in ~comp

    tinyzimmer
    Link Parent
    Yea my documentation and pitch still leaves much to be desired. Work in progress on that front. You are pretty much right on the money though with most of your assumptions, save towards the end....

    Yea my documentation and pitch still leaves much to be desired. Work in progress on that front.

    You are pretty much right on the money though with most of your assumptions, save towards the end. It is essentially scripting networking actions across devices, while maintaining a very small in-memory sqlite (with periodic snapshots to disk) of public keys, routes, edges (I maintain nodes as a DAG and each edge represents a "direct peering"), etc.

    WireGuard is created, configured, and pointed towards the people the network says that person can reach. They'll be able to reach everyone else as well by default - but only through the node that they joined. This is probably best described in my site-to-site docker-compose example and (I hate hate hate hate having to direct people to the code) but the test cases that validate the logic that decides who connects directly to who. E.g. the star test case is a good simple example of what happens.

    Database is kept on every node, whether they are the leader, a voter, or just an observer. Raft consensus is used to stream changes to everyone. When a leader drops, any of the other voters will jump into gear as the controller depending on the configured election timeout. If people connecting can't reach the leader directly - they'll get proxied to it via the peers they can reach.

    TailScale does a far better job on the hole punching side than I do currently. They employ all sorts of crazy magic - and I'm on the fence about just how much I want to implement into the core code base. I've added a plugin architecture to hopefully spread things out more. As it stands, you are shit out of luck if you can't at least get out on gRPC to ask to join. Then once you get over that hurdle - you are limited by either direct wireguard traffic or a hole punched ICE/STUN connection. Definitely lots of design to take place still in this area.

    Hope this answered your questions :)

    1 vote

  6. Comment on WebMesh: Yet Another WireGuard Mesh/VPN Solution in ~comp

    tinyzimmer
    Link Parent
    This is one of the areas where I think "peering" meshes could help. One of the hard limitations of using WireGuard (and really ICE negotiation in general) is you will eventually hit a system...

    This is one of the areas where I think "peering" meshes could help. One of the hard limitations of using WireGuard (and really ICE negotiation in general) is you will eventually hit a system limit. Be it hitting a maximum number of peers, or running out of local ports for relaying traffic. There is already the concept of MeshDNS that can be optionally exposed on nodes. It's pretty much a requirement though if I explore the independent but peerable meshes route. Each mesh has a domain where a node is resolvable by {node_id}.{mesh_domain}. But it is a very juvenile implementation currently. No concept of forwadings or any of that.

    There isn't that much information going into the schema. Address/key mappings and RBAC rules pretty much. In a single mesh of 65k peers (which is currently a hard limit because of how I'm handling IPv6, but I want to fix that) it gets to be a couple MB. The logic in allowing nodes to join makes sure that all currently connected nodes are caught up with the latest before another mutation occurs. Whether that scales is a question for experimentation I suppose.

    2 votes

  7. Comment on WebMesh: Yet Another WireGuard Mesh/VPN Solution in ~comp

    tinyzimmer
    Link Parent
    This is a fantastic read! Thanks! I'm kind of in the same boat as the author I think. Decentralization of this project would be a side effect of the way it is built, but not necessarily a core...

    This is a fantastic read! Thanks!

    I'm kind of in the same boat as the author I think. Decentralization of this project would be a side effect of the way it is built, but not necessarily a core feature. That's mainly because the most common use cases would ultimately involve some level of centralization to begin with.

    I think I illustrate that best in my pseudo "site-to-site" example. What you really have is just a fault-tolerant, centralized network. Call the "leader" nodes your MPLS racks basically. But like the author, I guess I want to believe lol.

    Let's say we want to make the ZeroTier peer-to-peer network completely decentralized, eliminating central fixed anchor nodes. Now we need a fast, lightweight distributed database where changes in network topology can rapidly be updated and made available to everyone at the same time. We also need a way for peers to reliably find and advertise help when they need to do things like traverse NAT or relay.

    So I hope I am providing this with the in-memory sqlite, periodic raft snapshots, and STUN/TURN capabilities. I don't think typical network needs justify an enormous schema that will outgrow the sqlite. I think it would hit system limitations before. In my test environments it has held up quite well, but it definitely needs to be battle tested.

  8. Comment on WebMesh: Yet Another WireGuard Mesh/VPN Solution in ~comp

    tinyzimmer
    Link Parent
    It's an area where I am unsure how to proceed currently. Under default conditions, nodes peer to the ones they are able to reach. The ones they cannot reach have their traffic handled by the nodes...

    It's an area where I am unsure how to proceed currently.

    Under default conditions, nodes peer to the ones they are able to reach. The ones they cannot reach have their traffic handled by the nodes that can reach those targets. In that way the network branches out, rather then directly connecting everyone. The admin API then exposes ways to explicitly define the hops that take place.

    I've added the ability to facilitate so called "direct peerings" (example here: https://github.com/webmeshproj/node/tree/main/examples/direct-peerings) in a way very similar to how TailScale/ZT do by using ICE connections, but this is obviously not as robust as what the others have put together thus far. They are far more mature.

    The final question I keep having with myself, is just how much more I want to put into the core code. I've added this so called "Plugin architecture" that in theory should be able to allow people to handle most use cases not intrinsically supported. But a lot of the juice in offerings like this is all the magic that takes place underneath. It just comes at the expense of more complication in the code. So where those lines are is still a bit blurry for me.

    2 votes

  9. Comment on WebMesh: Yet Another WireGuard Mesh/VPN Solution in ~comp

    tinyzimmer
    Link
    Hi friends! Showing off my new project, Webmesh. It is similar to projects like TailScale - but with a controller-less architecture where any node can help facilitate new connections to the mesh....

    Hi friends!

    Showing off my new project, Webmesh. It is similar to projects like TailScale - but with a controller-less architecture where any node can help facilitate new connections to the mesh. More infoz can be found on the project website: https://webmeshproj.github.io/

    Happy to hear any feedback :)

    6 votes