privoxy

A while ago there was a thread on OR-TALK that devolved into

"why does Tor still ship ancient privoxy?"

and

"why are you shipping polipo with the Tor Browser Bundle instead of current privoxy?"

For those interested, the thread is here, http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jul-2009/msg00063.html.

Scott had a good argument for why we should update the bundles to the latest privoxy, and I agree, we should. But then I started thinking about why we needed a proxy at all. Almost all browsers support socks5 direct, isn't that faster than a middleman proxy?

This got me thinking about why polipo is in the TBB, but not the other packages. The TBB "feels faster" when using Tor than using the installed Tor, Vidalia, and Privoxy. However, I couldn't find any actual testing of performance of polipo vs. privoxy vs. socks5 direct. read more »

I've noticed a few comments about a Chinese anti-virus program, RISING, reporting that Vidalia.exe and Privoxy.exe are infected with Trojan.PSW.Win32.Undef.adp. In both cases, I suspect that RISING is reporting false positives. These executables as packaged and available on the Tor download page are not infected.

I've looked at the MD5 and SHA-1 sums of these programs as included in the Vidalia bundle and they match what the source packages produce as executables. The privoxy.exe included in the bundles is the exact same one as found at the Sourceforge Privoxy Download Page.

The Vidalia.exe is the same as the one included in the Vidalia Download Page.

Feel free to confirm this is true for you. Better yet, let us know if these individual packages (Vidalia.exe from Vidalia and Privoxy.exe from Sourceforge) also show up as infected.