Unless a billionaire steps up to fund Tor it will be a while before
small contributions can supplant federal funding. It now comes from
DoD through a contractor and from the State Department's principal
propaganda agency, Braodcast Board of Governors, through a
named front, Internews.
Since this
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>...
> http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2013-07-2013-09.html#Reworking-random(4)
the interesting bit:
"""
FreeBSD's CSPRNG also allowed for certain stochastic sources, deemed
to be "high-quality", to directly supply the random(4) device w
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/2013-October/007226.html
http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2013-07-2013-09.html#AES-NI-Improvements-for-GELI
http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2013-07-2013-09.html#Reworking-random(4)
___
On that note, I really would love to hear from a lawyer as to why
accepting bitcoin or anonymous donations would be problematic. Unless
they start laundering money, I don't see that really being an issue.
On 21/10/2013 3:41 PM, Kyle Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Kelly John Rose
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Kelly John Rose wrote:
> I think it simply reduces to a desire to not be beholden to political
> interests.
>
> Regardless, I think if they can get the money from the Feds as well as
> other sources, they will have more money and more resources to build a
> good pr
I think it simply reduces to a desire to not be beholden to political
interests.
Regardless, I think if they can get the money from the Feds as well as
other sources, they will have more money and more resources to build a
good program and thus be a better product.
The real problem only arises wh
On 21 October 2013 16:57, Kyle Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > On 14 October 2013 14:36, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> >>
> >> Guys, in order to minimize Tor Project's dependance on
> >> federal funding
> >
> > Why?
>
> Is that not self-explanatory after everythin
> If that is all you want, have you considered SipHash? It is much faster
> than the other algorithms, yet more secure than CityHash, Murmurhash and
> friends. And it provides an IV/salt to make it per instance unique.
Is SipHash really that fast in this context? AFAIK it's only much
faster for sh
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> On 14 October 2013 14:36, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>
>> Guys, in order to minimize Tor Project's dependance on
>> federal funding
>
> Why?
Is that not self-explanatory after everything that happened in the
federal government this month?
--
@kylemax
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:55:52PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
Note that you can use broadcast encryption to efficiently encrypt the
messages to multiple recipients. (a deployed example is in the AACS
video encryption) Or more simply keep people's PGP keys on file and have
the mail server encrypt ea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aloha!
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> The reason is purely for dedup and pretty much nothing else. As such,
> we only need a hash with a good pseudo-random output distribution
> and collision resistance. We don't specifically need it to be
> super-secure. The
11 matches
Mail list logo
