The more fiercely defended security system (anything) the more likely indefensible. Best ones require constant patching and understatement, without exculpation, apologia and bullying arrogance of ignorance.
But cloying humility, obsequiousness and masochism seduces sadists for backdooring STD. IMHO, IYCFFT. At 08:34 AM 7/4/2013, you wrote:
On 30/06/13 at 01:04am, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: > Yeah, about that... > > Have you seen the most recent paper by Egger et al? IMHO that's is unfair. There are many publications on Tor vulnerabilities as well, and this is unavoidable. Are you sure that in the next two months Tor will not be the main actor of a similar publication? You should have pointed us over principles and design, rather than vulnerabilities. By principles, I like i2p more than tor, for its decentralization, and for its focus on providing an "anonymous" network layer than a "exit point" to existing internet. But this is completely personal, and each of us as his/her requirements to satisfy. And, by the way, I am aware that the most important bug (which can't be corrected) of any systems is the human who is using it. With respect, danimoth _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
