Quoting Michael Rogers (2022-08-02 13:23:30)
> Another thing that would be useful for this scenario would be for
> BridgeDB to publish some kind of signed record saying "the bridge with
> such-and-such a fingerprint was known to BridgeDB at such-and-such a
> time" - similar to what can already b
Quoting trinity pointard (2022-08-02 15:29:37)
> > Bridge URIs do not address the problem of multiple bridges in the same
> QR. An
> > idea could be to separate them by newlines.
>
>
>
> QR-codes from BridgeDB are already big enough I can't scan them reliably on
> my
> phone. I think even if mul
> Bridge URIs do not address the problem of multiple bridges in the same
QR. An
> idea could be to separate them by newlines.
QR-codes from BridgeDB are already big enough I can't scan them reliably on
my
phone. I think even if multiple bridges per QR-code is supported, BridgeDB
(and
anything al
On 20/07/2022 18:15, Nathan Freitas wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, at 8:01 AM, meskio wrote:
Quoting Torsten Grote (2022-07-19 14:54:01)
On Monday, 18 July 2022 13:47:21 -03 meskio wrote:
What do you think of the proposal? How can we improve it?
A slightly unrelated question:
Was there an
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, at 1:15 PM, Nathan Freitas wrote:
> I believe in Orbot today we do promote the user after they scan a code
> or click on a bridge link. Definitely agree there should be that step.
I meant *prompt* the user.
___
tor-dev mailing
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, at 8:01 AM, meskio wrote:
> Quoting Torsten Grote (2022-07-19 14:54:01)
>> On Monday, 18 July 2022 13:47:21 -03 meskio wrote:
>> > What do you think of the proposal? How can we improve it?
>>
>> A slightly unrelated question:
>>
>> Was there any consideration about deanon
Quoting Torsten Grote (2022-07-19 14:54:01)
> On Monday, 18 July 2022 13:47:21 -03 meskio wrote:
> > What do you think of the proposal? How can we improve it?
>
> A slightly unrelated question:
>
> Was there any consideration about deanonymization attacks by giving the user
> a
> bridge control
On Monday, 18 July 2022 13:47:21 -03 meskio wrote:
> What do you think of the proposal? How can we improve it?
A slightly unrelated question:
Was there any consideration about deanonymization attacks by giving the user a
bridge controlled by the attacker? I worry that those get more likely when
Hello,
We have a messy situation to share bridges between devices. BridgeDB and Tor
Browser have QR codes but they use different format for them. There has being
some attempts to standarize a bridge URI[0][1], but it looks like we never
finished that work.
Pier has produced an RFC of a bridge URI
