(Sorry for cross-posting, but I think this is a topic for tor-dev@, not
tor-talk@. If you agree, please reply on tor-dev@ only. tor-talk@
people can follow the thread here:
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2013-June/thread.html)
On 6/6/13 7:32 PM, Norman Danner wrote:
> I have two
>> This has the side effect of promoting good onion upkeep.
Which people might be loathe to do given the recent paper
about deanon hidden services seeming to be relatively doable.
At least until those issues are solved...
> of the system. After 6 months (or so) the naming will stabilize and be
>
> Yeah, unhappy people are both no fun and more likely to be confused by
> the new system.
>
>> Thoughts?
Not really following this talk, but for the parts that revolve
around a greater than 16 char onion address, I don't see
much problem here. There are some DNS RFC name length
limitations, maxpa
Hi there,
We would like to implement some specific protocol in Tor as an implementation
project.
Our one of pseudo codes that we have to take into account is the one mentioned
on the paper under the link http://www.cypherpunks.ca/~iang/pubs/UC-OR.pdf ,
page 5, figure 2.
I would like to know how
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 06:23:28AM -0700, George Kadianakis wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I'm supposed to write a Tor proposal for the migration of the
> long-term identity keys of Hidden Services. When I began writing the
> proposal, I realized that some of my choices might not be appreciated by
> Hidd
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:44:27PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2013-05-17 15:23 , George Kadianakis wrote:
> [..]
> > That is, when we change the identity keys of a Hidden Service, its
> > onion also changes (since the onion is the truncated hash of its
> > public key). This will be quite prob
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:25:03AM -0400, Tom Ritter wrote:
> On 17 May 2013 09:23, George Kadianakis wrote:
>
> > There are basically two ways to do this:
> >
>
> A third comes to mind, somewhat similar to Mike's.
>
> If we believe that 1024 RSA is not broken *now* (or at the very least, if
>
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 12:48:42PM +, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:11:37AM -0400, Griffin Boyce wrote:
> > Matthew Finkel wrote:
> Unless, are you talking about running I2P and Tor on the same
> computer/network and being able use the same naming scheme to connect to
>
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:11:37AM -0400, Griffin Boyce wrote:
> Matthew Finkel wrote:
>
> > So I think we should make some terms clear (just for the sake of
> > clarity). We have, I guess, three different naming-system ideas
> > floating here: petnames, (distibuted) namecoin-ish, and centralized
> If you wish to make weasel (one of Tor all mighty sysadmins) happy you
> could update TorDNSEL to the new APIs and make sure that it works on
> Debian Wheezy.
> How do you feel about it?
Well, I'm interested. But I don't promise anything.
> Even if my Haskell is rusty, I'd be happy to have a
Hi Nikita!
Nikita Karetnikov:
> I'd like to improve my Haskell skills. Are there any opportunities?
>
> I've been told there is at least one project that uses Haskell, which is
> not maintained. (For example, this page [1] mentions TorDNSEL, which
> was replaced by TorBEL.)
TorDNSEL is providi
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:19AM +0400, Nikita Karetnikov wrote:
> I'd like to improve my Haskell skills. Are there any opportunities?
>
> I've been told there is at least one project that uses Haskell, which is
> not maintained. (For example, this page [1] mentions TorDNSEL, which
> was repla
12 matches
Mail list logo
