On 9/09/22 23:51, Simon Wilson wrote:
Noting that whilst some may consider that block excessive, it does appear that some 'authorities', including at least the Australian government's cyber security department, Fortinet, and others, recommend these IPs are blocked.

E.g. "The Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) recommends organisations block traffic from Tor exit nodes to their internet-exposed services provided this will not meaningfully impact accessibility for significant numbers of legitimate users" https://www.cyber.gov.au/acsc/view-all-content/publications/defending-against-malicious-use-tor-network

Just a brief read of the summary of that article indicates that they are basically saying that malicious users use tor so you should block tor to avoid connections from malicious users. I would like to point out the following:

* TOR connections are slow. Malicous users don't like slow connections because it limits what they can do.

* Blocking connections from CN and RU will probably be a lot more effective in blocking malicious traffic than blocking TOR connections, but the same arguments could be said for that, you can get legitimate traffic from anywhere.

* Malicious users are much more likely to come from botnets than from TOR, and botnets can connect from anywhere and are much *less* likely to be malicious (People who run exit nodes tend to be knowledgeable enough to know how to keep their computers from becoming part of a botnet).

My take on the article is it's an underhanded attempt by the Australian and other governments to get people to block TOR. The reason why governments want to block TOR is rather obvious, TOR makes it much more difficult for law enforcement and other government agencies to track the source of illegal activities, propaganda, censored content, political speech and other forms of communication that these same governments which to prevent. Recommending that the general public block TOR exit nodes serves their own ends, but quite likely not yours.

Okay, off-topic rant is over now.


Peter

Reply via email to