database64128

> go-shadowsocks2 The maintainer of that project (riobard) was opposed to having a successor to Shadowsocks AEAD (2017) in earlier discussions. So this is unlikely to happen. If you want...

@GF-Huang The plaintext fits in a single AES block, so the raw AES block cipher is used without any block cipher mode.

> should the client side also need to consider socket-closing strategy? @GF-Huang Good question. I don't think we have any implementations out there that use these strategies on the client...

## Related issues/discussions - #28 - Qv2ray/gun#17 ## Mentions ### Shadowsocks - @zonyitoo - @madeye - @Mygod ### Qv2ray - @DuckSoft - @U-v-U - @studentmain ### V2Fly - @kslr ###...

Preliminary proposal by @studentmain: - For Shadowsocks clients that can check local ports, before starting the plugin, check to make sure both TCP and UDP are available for the specified...

The new `plugin_mode` option in shadowsocks-rust does not communicate to plugins about UDP support. Plugins would have to define their own option, which could cause fragmentation. Maybe we should reserve...

Fair enough. I guess you could open a PR to update the spec doc and then close this issue?

I [implemented](https://github.com/database64128/shadowsocks-go/commit/23be05cccda87536b7c9041e78c3ff0c3a2b40d1) my proposed equivalent as a pair of pre-shared stream prefixes in [shadowsocks-go](https://github.com/database64128/shadowsocks-go). To enable this feature, specify the prefixes in base64 encoding as `"unsafeRequestStreamPrefix"` and `"unsafeResponseStreamPrefix"` in server...

> The proposal of adding a new pair of client and server between the original pair is helpful, but often not feasible, as you need to acquire servers on both...

It's also trivial to implement the prefix pair as an optional part of the stream: If the server sees the request prefix in the request stream, then the response prefix...