Aaron Johnson transcribed 2.1K bytes:
> > > That seems easy to fix. Make the number of Introduction Points the same
> > > as it was before and make them be selected in a bandwidth-weight
> > > way. There is no cost to this. You need IPs to be online, and so
> > > whatever number was used in the pas
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:46:26 +
Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
[snip]
> > Do users know that their router's implementation of NAT-PMP/uPnP is
> > shit?
>
> Who knows better than the user? And who better than the user to take
> an action and to learn it?
At this point with all the resources available
On 7/23/15, Yawning Angel wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:18:34 +
> Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>
>> Why are we avoiding allowing users to make this choice because of the
>> above reasons? If a user wants to run a relay or a bridge, we should
>> make it easy. We don't answer the above questions wh
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:38:00AM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
> implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and recommending
> Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead. But before I do this, I'd like
> to get some
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:50:29 -0700
David Stainton wrote:
> >> But we have a gigantic userbase, and playing "consumer router
> >> support technician" for all of the ones that ship with broken
> >> uPnP/NAT-PMP implementations does not fill me with warm fuzzy
> >> feelings.
> >
> > I think this is
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:18:34 +
Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> Why are we avoiding allowing users to make this choice because of the
> above reasons? If a user wants to run a relay or a bridge, we should
> make it easy. We don't answer the above questions when it is hard -
> are we really off the ho
> Why are we avoiding allowing users to make this choice because of the
> above reasons? If a user wants to run a relay or a bridge, we should
> make it easy. We don't answer the above questions when it is hard -
> are we really off the hook there? It just seems ridiculous.
Obviously NAT has destr
On 7/23/15, Yawning Angel wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:26:33 +
> Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>
>> >> Also - does this mean that after many many years... that this new
>> >> version of tor-fw-helper be enabled by default at build time?
>> >> Pretty please? :-)
>> >
>> > Unlikely, AFAIK the gener
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:26:33 +
Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> >> Also - does this mean that after many many years... that this new
> >> version of tor-fw-helper be enabled by default at build time?
> >> Pretty please? :-)
> >
> > Unlikely, AFAIK the general plan was to have it as a separate
> > pac
It's probably for the best. The implementation of upnp and nat-pmp is
frequently done incorrectly. Many implementations simply break the fw
security or leak identifying information by enabling the feature. I
once saw a case which opened port 0 everytime upnp was used. Not
closed, or stealth, but op
>> Also - does this mean that after many many years... that this new
>> version of tor-fw-helper be enabled by default at build time? Pretty
>> please? :-)
>
> Unlikely, AFAIK the general plan was to have it as a separate package.
>
That is really a major bummer if so - we should be shipping this
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:54:33 +
Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> On 7/21/15, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> > Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
> > implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and
> > recommending Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead. But be
On 7/21/15, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
> implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and recommending
> Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead. But before I do this, I'd like
> to get some sense of whether folks are sh
Filename: 249-large-create-cells.txt
Title: Allow CREATE cells with >505 bytes of handshake data
Authors: Nick Mathewson
Created: 23 July 15
Status: Draft
1. Summary
There have been multiple proposals over the last year or so for
adding post-quantum cryptography to Tor's circuit extension
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Yawning Angel wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:38:00 -0400
> Nick Mathewson wrote:
>
>> Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C
>> implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and
>> recommending Yawning's pure-Go implementat
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Gisle Vanem wrote:
> Nick Mathewson wrote:
>
>> I made the changes conditional on not having GCC, since the GCC syntax
>>
>> will work with older versions of GCC. (Somebody should check whether
>> we care about those versions.)
>
>
Thanks for the info!
> I saw
The Second International Conference on Computer Graphics, Multimedia and
Image Processing (CGMIP2015)
Universitas Siswa Bangsa Internasional
Jakarta, Indonesia
October 29-31, 2015
http://sdiwc.net/conferences/cgmip2015/
cgmi...@sdiwc.net
--
CALL FOR
17 matches
Mail list logo
