[e12e]

I don't think you can generally expect all processes to transparently use a SOCKS proxy? You might be able to finagle a custom vpn around it, I suppose. But AFAIK SOCKS isn't 100% transparent at the IP layer allowing all protocols to transparently layer on top?

I guess SOCKS5 handles tcp and udp - so you might get away with redsocks (which explicitly recommends against using with TOR):

https://github.com/darkk/redsocks

See also transocks (SOCKS4 tcp only): https://transocks.sourceforge.net

And transocks (in go) https://github.com/cybozu-go/transocks

Ed: see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30684574

[samhw]

Does anyone know how TAILS accomplishes this, then? It doesn't rely on a relay like Whonix does, but I'm not a networking expert or a Linux expert, so I'm not altogether sure how it does work.

[nopcode]

TAILS has a very simple approach:

- Configure all applications to use Tor with the SOCKS proxy

- Block all non-Tor traffic with iptables

https://tails.boum.org/contribute/design/Tor_enforcement

[samhw]

Ah, interesting, thank you. As far as point (b) goes, it seems to work pretty well: I can’t recall an occasion where I’ve had traffic blocked. (I suppose in practice not many applications use custom IP-but-not-TCP-or-UDP-based protocols.) So could that same thing not be a solution to e12e’s question?

[conradev]

Tor itself does not support UDP, even if SOCKS might

[e12e]

Good point. Makes it a better fit for SOCKS I suppose. Tor does dns over tcp - or no dns?

[Caligatio]

SOCKS explicitly supports DNS but no other UDP.