Andrew Lewman wrote:
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 00:11:49 Jim wrote:
I haven't seen this brought up on this list yet, so I thought I would
mention it. Tech Dirt (among others) are reporting on yet another round
of misguided (U.S.) legislation supposedly targeting copyright
infringement. Part
Hullo.
noticed that the new, very latest browser bundle for windows
has Java Script enabled, cookies enabled and NoScript
changed settings back to "enable globally" considered "dangerous"!
Any reason for this? Even after I unchecked "enable globally" I started to surf
and then noticed a diffe
hello:
i believe there is a real need for secure communications but as a new user
to tor it seems the common entry points to the network are rife with
criminal activity.
the torproject website lists users as friends and family, military,
business owners etc - use cases that make sense to me, but
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 02:45:40AM +, Gozu-san wrote:
> Expert review of OpDarknet's "The Honey Pawt" malware, and precisely how
> The Mozilla Foundation was involved, seems crucial. Perhaps The Tor
> Project's "Onion Logo" trademark was infringed, and perhaps The Mozilla
> Foundation did not
Expert review of OpDarknet's "The Honey Pawt" malware, and precisely how
The Mozilla Foundation was involved, seems crucial. Perhaps The Tor
Project's "Onion Logo" trademark was infringed, and perhaps The Mozilla
Foundation did not exercise due diligence. Or maybe OpDarknet just said
that for lul
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 00:11:49 Jim wrote:
>> I haven't seen this brought up on this list yet, so I thought I would
>> mention it. Tech Dirt (among others) are reporting on yet another round
>> of misguided (U.S.) legislation supposedl
On 11/02/2011 05:54 PM, Gozu-san wrote:
Is it really possible that over 100 fools would have downloaded a
purported Tor security update from Hard Candy in one day? In the middle
of an attack by OpDarknet? Seriously?
Mozilla stats https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/statistics/addon/2275
seem t
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 00:11:49 Jim wrote:
> I haven't seen this brought up on this list yet, so I thought I would
> mention it. Tech Dirt (among others) are reporting on yet another round
> of misguided (U.S.) legislation supposedly targeting copyright
> infringement. Part of this legisla
On 11/2/2011 4:40 PM, Advrk Aplmkt wrote:
> Joe Btfsplk 於 2011/11/2 12:06 寫道：
>> On 11/1/2011 8:23 PM, Advrk Aplmkt wrote:
>>> Thanks Joe for the info.
>>> Yes, I *do* know how to remove search engines, including the method you
>>> described.
>>> However, I was suggesting that Google (and probabl
On 02/11/11 23:32, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> I have no concrete knowledge if it would violate any Mozilla agreements.
As the GPL is one of the license options, there is no way that any
contract or agreement between Google and Mozilla could possibly be
binding on a third party. Mozilla do impose restric
nobody ever said people were smart, especially when they believe they
are totally secured
Sent from my iPhone 4
On Nov 2, 2011, at 6:59 PM, Gozu-san wrote:
> On 02/11/11 21:00, Perforin wrote:
>
>> Hey watch this!
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/hquN9kg5
>
> Is it really possible that over 100 fools
OK, I get that. Notwithstanding, there is the warning:
"Advice for editors: this page is subject to constant vandalism; before
editing the page, please check history and make sure you don't
contribute on top of the vandalized versions."
Anyway, I note that there is no pornography on the Hard Can
On 02/11/11 21:00, Perforin wrote:
> Hey watch this!
>
> http://pastebin.com/hquN9kg5
Is it really possible that over 100 fools would have downloaded a
purported Tor security update from Hard Candy in one day? In the middle
of an attack by OpDarknet? Seriously?
Joe Btfsplk 於 2011/11/2 12:06 寫道：
> On 11/1/2011 8:23 PM, Advrk Aplmkt wrote:
>> Thanks Joe for the info.
>> Yes, I *do* know how to remove search engines, including the method you
>> described.
>> However, I was suggesting that Google (and probably some of the other
>> defaults) be not in the T
Hey watch this!
http://pastebin.com/hquN9kg5
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
On 11/2/2011 11:55 AM, Luis Maceira wrote:
I have used Torbutton-1.2.5 and Firefox 3.6.23 and the Torbutton status of
active stays permanently,after closing an opening Firefox and so on.Now,with
the new Torbutton and Firefox when I open Firefox the Torbutton is ALWAYS
disabled,I turn it on and
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:35:18 -0700
Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> On 10/30/2011 05:37 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 05:31:34PM -0700, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> >> otherwise, I sometimes use a
> >> HTTP proxy with proxychains to prevent DNS leaky applications that have
> >> not
I have used Torbutton-1.2.5 and Firefox 3.6.23 and the Torbutton status of
active stays permanently,after closing an opening Firefox and so on.Now,with
the new Torbutton and Firefox when I open Firefox the Torbutton is ALWAYS
disabled,I turn it on and if I close Firefox when I open it again turn
On 11/1/2011 8:23 PM, Advrk Aplmkt wrote:
> Thanks Joe for the info.
> Yes, I *do* know how to remove search engines, including the method you
> described.
> However, I was suggesting that Google (and probably some of the other
> defaults) be not in the TBB to begin with, or at least not the defa
On 11/1/2011 5:24 PM, Tim Wilde wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/1/2011 4:11 PM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
No, I didn't. I told it * TO * redirect (which it did), I just
didn't click the "make it permanent" box. By my thinking, the only
way that notice should NOT have appea
>> Speaking of which, is there a way to disable autoports in TBB? Both
>> torrc and Torbutton have settings which look like they should control
>> it, but neither seems to have the desired effect.
>
> In Vidalia, go to Settings->Advanced and untick the box that says 'Configure
> ControlPort automat
21 matches
Mail list logo
