In CFP 3 I tightened the automatically generated rule for Opera, allowing only the predefined policies for web browser and email client. Quite a bit later (several sessions I think) the following outbound attempts got blocked:
FROM: my IP, ports 1075, 1090, 1092
TO: an IP yielding the same result than mine in WHOIS, always port 82
(Now that I notice, it’s unfortunate than exported logs don’t include the protocol, guess they should.) According to the Wikipedia, port 82 is used (in UDP) for controlling Tor transmissions. I’m not very knowledgeable and haven’t looked really deep into what Tor actually is, and I’d be thankful for any help. Is this some feature in Opera for greater privacy, should I create a rule to allow it in CFP? Thanks.
Soya have you noticed something of this? Maybe you didn’t look in the logs anyway, because it doesn’t prevent Opera from working. And besides I’ve only seen it once during many days. ???
You’re right. I don’t know nor have I ever seen Opera using those ports, and it doesn’t help since I don’t log Opera. I know for sure there others in this forum who know a lot about TOR and Opera (cough Gibran cough).
I don’t actually use tor but from what I know TOR is bundled with a proxy.
Internet browsers can use whatsoever ports the HTTP server use (80 is only a default port for HTTP). Japo are you sure that those are UDPs and not TCPs?
So is this just HTTP traffic? You say it’s the website the one choosing port 82, and I shouldn’t really add it to my set of HTTP ports? Okay thanks. (Anyway I didn’t notice any single website failing to load.)
By the way if we are to we could continue this in the original thread so that all remain in topic. (:AGL)
Not really you loaded a page or a link that connect to that site port. You could easily track that page using your browser history.
post the url of that page here I’ll give a look at it. the culprit should be an image in that page
Ooh you nasty spybot. Anyway… Even if port 82 is non-standard, using it wouldn’t enable the site to perform any fishiness it couldn’t attempt the same through port 80, or would it?
