fari...@arcor.de:
> It's not clear to me why torbirdy by default sets the port for socks
> forwarding to 9150 while on the other hand the default port for tor is
> 9050. And Torbirdy explicitely underlines it presumes the installation
> of tor.
The default port of the Tor Browser is 9150. Idea is
It's not clear to me why torbirdy by default sets the port for socks
forwarding to 9150 while on the other hand the default port for tor is
9050. And Torbirdy explicitely underlines it presumes the installation
of tor.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> I wonder if there's a way to retrofit high-latency hidden services
> onto Tor -- much as Pond does, but for applications other than Pond's
> messaging application.
[...]
> Then a question is whether users would want to use a service that
Andreas Krey writes:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:50:29 +, Tor Talker wrote:
> ...
> > > enough to do it securely enough. Also, hidden services are far more
> > > vulnerable than Tor users, simply because they serve stuff.
> ...
> > What sort of vulnerabilities would you expect to see?
>
> Proble
Well, let's see this:
> 1) compute the cost of global traffic analysis. we have big data mark
> to put a ball park on it, but the point is: the cost is non zero and
> non trivial.
We already know from the Snowden releases that the physical infrastructure for
this is in place. That it spans at
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:14 PM, coderman wrote:
> ...
> 1) compute the cost of global traffic analysis. we have big data mark
> to put a ball park on it, but the point is: the cost is non zero and
> non trivial.
specifically UPSTREAM model collection at backbone peering points.
consider both la
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Juan wrote:
> ...
> You´ve been officially threatened by one of the ´leaders´ of the
> ´tor family´ for (unlike me) politely point out tor´s obvious
> flaws.
"pointing out obvious flaws" - as in, "it's so easy to protect against
traffic an
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:31:20 -0400
Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> > Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
> >sock puppet for an intelligence agency who has started to panic about
> >the network going truly
On 6/29/2014 4:20 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the input, but this end-to-end traffic analysis is a well
> documented problem by the Tor devs themselves. Although, what is missing
> from the devs statements is more revealing, namely that it can be fixed by
> removing visibil
Mike,
Thanks for the input, but this end-to-end traffic analysis is a well documented
problem by the Tor devs themselves. Although, what is missing from the devs
statements is more revealing, namely that it can be fixed by removing
visibility of one of the ends.
One must ask why that statem
Eleven tabs open now. When it affects me the most is when I am filling out a
posting - I have no backup of what I was typing, and if I wait ten minutes
Firefox will repost it for me, if I get a new browser session, I have to try to
remember what I was going to send. Since it tends to catch me by
Roger,
Fair enough. I skipped through that talk and wow, you do look like you work at
MIT. It still seems to me that the marketing focus is given to a myriad of
exposure techniques, but this global view is buried as a footnote. Even
though, it is the most important element.
I also noticed a
On 6/29/2014 9:11 AM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> As you mentioned, there are legitimate worries, mainly that Tor and people
> like yourself have a conflict of interest. The main funding appears to come
> from the US military. It appears to many of us, that the software has been
> deliberately kep
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 07:30:35PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> I see Roger has remained quiet, so I am assuming he either does not
>want to address the issue or is subject to a National Security letter.
"Wtf dude?"
I'm working on the dev meeting that starts tomorrow. I'll get to answering
your
Mick,
Congratulations, so you found someone with a similar name what are the odds of
that. When you are reduced to digging up dirt, it stems from the fact that you
are trying to change the nature of the discussion.
FYI, I am a security specialist. I've previously worked with the Australian
F
++ 29/06/14 00:56 -0700 - C B:
>Firefox can't establish a connection to the server" message. Right now
>I am stuck on 188.226.249.138 as I have been many times before. In ten
>minutes I will be re-assigned a new exit node and can get back to what
>I had been doing. With the old Vidalia, though,
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:11:18 +0100
Mark McCarron allegedly wrote:
> Roger,
>
> I see that you were quite quiet whilst ad hominem attacks were being
> made against me. But I will put that to one side for the moment.
>
> As you mentioned, there are legitimate worries, mainly that Tor and
> peopl
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:31:20 -0400
Roger Dingledine allegedly wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> > Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
> >sock puppet for an intelligence agency who has started to panic about
> >the network go
On 6/29/2014 1:22 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 09:38:05PM +, williamwin...@openmailbox.org wrote:
I don't understand what Schneier means by this:
"After identifying an individual Tor user on the internet, the NSA
uses its network of secret internet servers to redirec
On 6/29/2014 2:56 AM, C B wrote:
It is really pretty annoying to be surfing along and suddenly get a "Unable to
connect
Firefox can't establish a connection to the server" message. Right now I am stuck on 188.226.249.138 as I have been many times before.
In ten minutes I will be re-assigned a
Roger,
I see that you were quite quiet whilst ad hominem attacks were being made
against me. But I will put that to one side for the moment.
As you mentioned, there are legitimate worries, mainly that Tor and people like
yourself have a conflict of interest. The main funding appears to come f
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
>sock puppet for an intelligence agency who has started to panic about
>the network going truly dark.
>
> Deal with it.
Hi Mark,
I've tried to tolerate the conspi
Zenaan,
I work with big data analytics, implementing traffic analysis and pinpointing
the location of servers is a trivial task given a global view. The obvious
solution is to make one of those ends invisible ensuring a comparison cannot be
made.
Given the scale of this obviousness, I can onl
It is really pretty annoying to be surfing along and suddenly get a "Unable to
connect
Firefox can't establish a connection to the server" message. Right now I am
stuck on 188.226.249.138 as I have been many times before. In ten minutes I
will be re-assigned a new exit node and can get back to
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 09:38:05PM +, williamwin...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> I don't understand what Schneier means by this:
>
> "After identifying an individual Tor user on the internet, the NSA
> uses its network of secret internet servers to redirect those users
> to another set of secret i
25 matches
Mail list logo
