Bobby Brewster: > > Currently, my Tor use model is as follows: > > Me (TBB in Ubuntu) ---> VPN ---> Tor (entry node) ---> Tor network > > I could, instead, do: > > Me (TBB Ubuntu VM) ---> VPN (configured in VM) ---> Tor (entry node) ---> Tor > network > > However, from what I've read, there isn't really any advantages to using a VM > unless the non-VM system has been compromised (e.g. trojan / rootkit / > whatever).
if your non-VM host system has been compromised, there is absolutely no notable advantage to using a vm. your vm will be affected by the malware that sits on the host system. however, if you use a vm and the vm gets infected by malware, you have an extra layer of protection against the malware infecting your host system. thus, with the snapshot method i described, you can effectively wipe away malware in certain scenarios. from an anonymity standpoint, whether running from your host or from a vm, malware with a phone home system has a greater chance of successfully identifying you than if you used a system like whonix. > Also, one thing I'm unclear about is, if one is using a VM, whether a bridged > or NAT'd connection is superior. > > The only difference I can see is that the bridge provides a 192.168.x.x > address while the NAT provides a 10.0.2.x address. Both appear as the > interface eth1. > > Any opinions? for anonymity, it doesn't make any difference. you're better off running it as an "internal network" and using an additional vm as a gateway that has rules to push all traffic through the tor network. -- gpg key - 0x2A49578A7291BB34 fingerprint - 63C4 E106 AC6A 5F2F DDB2 3840 2A49 578A 7291 BB34 -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
