Lunar transcribed 3.7K bytes:
> isis:
> > Lunar transcribed 2.9K bytes:
> > > Matthew Finkel:
> > > > I agree, and I think it's safe to assume that some nation-state
> > > > adversaries do not have these capabilities yet. Users should choose
> > > > obfs3 over obfs2, but if a user has a reason for
isis:
> Lunar transcribed 2.9K bytes:
> > Matthew Finkel:
> > > I agree, and I think it's safe to assume that some nation-state
> > > adversaries do not have these capabilities yet. Users should choose
> > > obfs3 over obfs2, but if a user has a reason for requesting obfs2 then
> > > I don't think
Lunar transcribed 2.9K bytes:
> Matthew Finkel:
> > I agree, and I think it's safe to assume that some nation-state
> > adversaries do not have these capabilities yet. Users should choose
> > obfs3 over obfs2, but if a user has a reason for requesting obfs2 then
> > I don't think we should deny the
Matthew Finkel:
> I agree, and I think it's safe to assume that some nation-state
> adversaries do not have these capabilities yet. Users should choose
> obfs3 over obfs2, but if a user has a reason for requesting obfs2 then
> I don't think we should deny them.
But aren't “we” the expert on the to
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 09:42:04PM -0700, Ken Keys wrote:
> On 7/26/2014 1:54 AM, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> > We also do try to discard fake requests, isis actually added another
> > yesterday!
> Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you mean my fake
> requests but the incident sounds
On 7/26/2014 1:54 AM, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> We also do try to discard fake requests, isis actually added another
> yesterday!
Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand what you mean my fake
requests but the incident sounds interesting.
___
tor-dev
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:32:42AM +, isis wrote:
> Lunar transcribed 2.1K bytes:
> > isis:
> > > > PS: why are we still shipping obfs2 bridges?!
> > >
> > >
> > > tl;dr: Because we have them.
> >
> > The protocol is known to be broken and fingerprintable. That's something
> > we know. Not u
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:16:44PM +, harmony wrote:
> Nima Fatemi :
> >
> > I think "bridges" works just fine for "vanilla bridges" and I want to
> > take the opportunity to +1 Philipp's idea on looking for keywords
> > instead of commands, regardless of how they're phrased.
>
> Help desk fr
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:01:34PM -0400, Israel Leiva wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I support what Philipp and Nima say about keywords. The given commands
> surely look simple for technical users, but what about non-technical users?
> If the purpose of the distributor is to give info, and you're already
> fil
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 06:07:03PM -0400, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 06:52:44PM +, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> > So, the questions I am posing to those in the community who has an
> > opinion about this: What do you think? What problems do you currently
> > have with this? How
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:19:40PM +, isis wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Yawning Angel transcribed 2.9K bytes:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:25:31 +0200
> > Lunar wrote:
> >
> > > isis:
> > > > > We can't just make Tor Browser stop accepting obfs2 because some
>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:19:40 +
isis wrote:
> > Personally I think when we deploy the next round of transports
> > (meek, and either ScrambleSuit or obfs4) would be the right time to
> > revisit this, and I can't think of a good reason to keep obfs2
> > around beyond "there are bridges that on
isis transcribed 4.0K bytes:
> bridgedb@ponticum:/srv/bridges.torproject.org$ grep 'transport obfs2'
> from-authority/cached-extrainfo* | wc -l
> 2071
> bridgedb@ponticum:/srv/bridges.torproject.org$ grep 'transport obfs3'
> from-authority/cached-extrainfo* | wc -l
> 2840
> bridgedb@ponticum:/srv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Yawning Angel transcribed 2.9K bytes:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:25:31 +0200
> Lunar wrote:
>
> > isis:
> > > > We can't just make Tor Browser stop accepting obfs2 because some
> > > > people are using obfs2 bridges right now. But we shouldn't add
>
Griffin Boyce transcribed 1.6K bytes:
> Lunar wrote:
> > We can't just make Tor Browser stop accepting obfs2 because some
> > people are using obfs2 bridges right now. But we shouldn't add more
> > people to the set of users of a broken protocol.
>
> We should really be reaching out to those run
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:25:31 +0200
Lunar wrote:
> isis:
> > > We can't just make Tor Browser stop accepting obfs2 because some
> > > people are using obfs2 bridges right now. But we shouldn't add
> > > more people to the set of users of a broken protocol.
> >
> > Obfs3 is also "broken", it's jus
isis:
> > We can't just make Tor Browser stop accepting obfs2 because some people
> > are using obfs2 bridges right now. But we shouldn't add more people to
> > the set of users of a broken protocol.
>
> Obfs3 is also "broken", it's just that we haven't yet seen a DPI box do it
> IRL. If you want
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:00:01 +0200
Lunar wrote:
> isis:
> > > We can't just make Tor Browser stop accepting obfs2 because some
> > > people are using obfs2 bridges right now. But we shouldn't add
> > > more people to the set of users of a broken protocol.
> >
> > Obfs3 is also "broken", it's jus
isis:
> > We can't just make Tor Browser stop accepting obfs2 because some people
> > are using obfs2 bridges right now. But we shouldn't add more people to
> > the set of users of a broken protocol.
>
> Obfs3 is also "broken", it's just that we haven't yet seen a DPI box do it
> IRL.
That's news
Lunar transcribed 2.1K bytes:
> isis:
> > > PS: why are we still shipping obfs2 bridges?!
> >
> >
> > tl;dr: Because we have them.
>
> The protocol is known to be broken and fingerprintable. That's something
> we know. Not users. If BridgeDB is giving them out, then it must be that
> it's ok to
Griffin Boyce transcribed 0.8K bytes:
> isis wrote:
> >Do you have a better suggestion for what to call "vanilla bridges"?
>
> I keep calling them standard bridges (as opposed to fancy, monocle-wearing
> bridges). People seem to understand immediately that other types of bridges
> are special s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lunar wrote:
> We can't just make Tor Browser stop accepting obfs2 because some
> people are using obfs2 bridges right now. But we shouldn't add more
> people to the set of users of a broken protocol.
We should really be reaching out to those runnin
isis:
> > PS: why are we still shipping obfs2 bridges?!
>
>
> tl;dr: Because we have them.
The protocol is known to be broken and fingerprintable. That's something
we know. Not users. If BridgeDB is giving them out, then it must be that
it's ok to use, right?
We can't just make Tor Browser stop
Nima Fatemi transcribed 4.0K bytes:
> isis:
> [...]
> >> Are some of our least technical users, many of whom have never even seen a
> >> command line before and who may live in Sub-Saharan Africa or one of the
> >> Stan countries with only a rudimentary knowledge of English going to
> >> understand
Hi.
I support what Philipp and Nima say about keywords. The given commands
surely look simple for technical users, but what about non-technical users?
If the purpose of the distributor is to give info, and you're already
filtering emails to *try* to avoid fake requests (correct if i'm wrong),
then
Nima Fatemi :
>
> I think "bridges" works just fine for "vanilla bridges" and I want to
> take the opportunity to +1 Philipp's idea on looking for keywords
> instead of commands, regardless of how they're phrased.
Help desk frequently sees bridge keywords in other
(supported/unsupported) language
isis wrote:
Do you have a better suggestion for what to call "vanilla bridges"?
I keep calling them standard bridges (as opposed to fancy,
monocle-wearing bridges). People seem to understand immediately that
other types of bridges are special somehow if I call
regular/vanilla/non-obfs bri
El jue, 24-07-2014 a las 06:54 +, Nima Fatemi escribió:
> isis:
> [...]
> >> Are some of our least technical users, many of whom have never even seen a
> >> command line before and who may live in Sub-Saharan Africa or one of the
> >> Stan countries with only a rudimentary knowledge of English
isis:
[...]
>> Are some of our least technical users, many of whom have never even seen a
>> command line before and who may live in Sub-Saharan Africa or one of the
>> Stan countries with only a rudimentary knowledge of English going to
>> understand the difference between vanilla bridges and, say
Ken Keys transcribed 3.4K bytes:
> On 7/23/2014 10:57 AM, Matt Pagan wrote:
> >
> >>> COMMANDs: (combine COMMANDs to specify multiple options simultaneously)
> >>> get bridgesRequest vanilla bridges.
> >>> get transport [TYPE] Request a Pluggable Transport by TYPE.
> >>> get hel
Matt Pagan transcribed 2.6K bytes:
>
>
> >>
> >> COMMANDs: (combine COMMANDs to specify multiple options simultaneously)
> >> get bridgesRequest vanilla bridges.
> >> get transport [TYPE] Request a Pluggable Transport by TYPE.
> >> get help Displays this message.
On 7/23/2014 10:57 AM, Matt Pagan wrote:
>
>>> COMMANDs: (combine COMMANDs to specify multiple options simultaneously)
>>> get bridgesRequest vanilla bridges.
>>> get transport [TYPE] Request a Pluggable Transport by TYPE.
>>> get help Displays this message.
>>>
>>
>> COMMANDs: (combine COMMANDs to specify multiple options simultaneously)
>> get bridgesRequest vanilla bridges.
>> get transport [TYPE] Request a Pluggable Transport by TYPE.
>> get help Displays this message.
>> get keyGet a copy of Bridge
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 06:52:44PM +, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> So, the questions I am posing to those in the community who has an
> opinion about this: What do you think? What problems do you currently
> have with this? How can this be improved?
Non-technical users might be confused by the par
Hi everyone,
A short time ago BridgeDB learned how to accept some more commands via
email[0]. Below is an example of the current help/overview autoresponse
email[1] that users receive (in English, we do have translations).
These commands may not be optimal, so we'd love to be given feedback on
th
35 matches
Mail list logo
