Thus spake David Fifield (da...@bamsoftware.com):
> I feel there should be a LICENSE file in the flash proxy client packages
> currently at http://www.bamsoftware.com/dist/flashproxy/. What is the
> recommended practice? Right now the files carry no license. I would be
> happy with anything that i
Hi everyone,
Here's what I did for Vidalia in June:
- Reviewed a series of patches from other people: TorrcPrototype
implementation and some Torrc parsing fixes by feroze, the testing
framework by sebb, up to date country code/flags handling by sirop, a
Network Map stream traffic patch by an anony
I fixed the following bugs in June:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?keywords=~MikePerry201206
Exec Summary of Trac Tickets:
I reviewed WebGL for fingerprinting issues as well as reviewed a
rendering-based fingerprinting vector and produced plans for next
steps/defenses on both fron
For comparison with June and to follow Roger's example, here's my May
status report.
- Forwarded message from Mike Perry -
I fixed the following bugs in May:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/query?keywords=~MikePerry201205
Exec Summary of Trac Tickets:
I designed a volunteer
I feel there should be a LICENSE file in the flash proxy client packages
currently at http://www.bamsoftware.com/dist/flashproxy/. What is the
recommended practice? Right now the files carry no license. I would be
happy with anything that is free software and convenient to the Tor
Project. For exam
I agree, Twisted is not a web application framework. So the question is
this: do we want/need a web application framework for Onionoo? It
seems like it is such a straightforward service (process one of a very
few different request types, send back a JSON response) that maybe any
web applicat
Norman Danner writes:
> Based on a quick look, it seems like Cyclone provides a slightly
> nicer way to specify how to handle the various requests than does a
> plain Twisted web application. Are there any other advantages to
> using Cyclone as opposed to plain Twisted?
>From what I understand
> Based on a quick look, it seems like Cyclone provides a slightly nicer way
> to specify how to handle the various requests than does a plain Twisted web
> application. Are there any other advantages to using Cyclone as opposed to
> plain Twisted?
Cyclone provides a much nicer API than Twisted w
> So basically if you would like to make a desktop application including
> Onionoo & Atlas together to provide an end-user an application that he
> can download to query/search/analyze the Consensus, APAF it's a good choice.
> If you just need to do it for a single application that does not need to
On 7/10/12 6:18 PM, Damian Johnson wrote:
>> On APAF (anonymous python application framework) GSoc project, to build
>> cross-platform Windows, OSX, Linux applications including Tor there is
>> the use of Twisted+Cyclone.
>
> I'm still not clear though - what is the advantage of providing
> Oniono
> On APAF (anonymous python application framework) GSoc project, to build
> cross-platform Windows, OSX, Linux applications including Tor there is
> the use of Twisted+Cyclone.
I'm still not clear though - what is the advantage of providing
Onionoo as a hidden service? We shouldn't add dependencie
> After looking at possible use cases, wouldn't it make sense to allow the
> caller to specify a file to be written to?
Make sense, though via a convenience method. Libraries should provide
basic building blocks (such as 'give me the csv string for these
descriptors') in addition to less flexible
On 7/10/12 5:36 PM, Norman Danner wrote:
>
>
> On 7/9/12 12:09 PM, Sathyanarayanan Gunasekaran wrote:
>>> Is this available yet?
>>
>> Yep - https://github.com/gsathya/pyonionoo It's pretty hacky(it was
>> meant to be a prototype to see if Cyclone was a good idea - and well,
>> i like it) and wil
On 7/9/12 12:09 PM, Sathyanarayanan Gunasekaran wrote:
Is this available yet?
Yep - https://github.com/gsathya/pyonionoo It's pretty hacky(it was
meant to be a prototype to see if Cyclone was a good idea - and well,
i like it) and will probably have to be refactored.
Based on a quick look,
Hi Damian,
After looking at possible use cases, wouldn't it make sense to allow the
caller to specify a file to be written to? Regardless, we were thinking of
creating two methods, one that takes a list of descriptors, and one that
takes a single descriptor. This would remove the need to check fo
On 7/7/12 7:06 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> The only part I'm worried about here is that we had once considered
> doing authenticated hidden services or some other kind of wacky hidden
> service with a design like "b.aaa.onion", where
> b is some additional data to use in
16 matches
Mail list logo
