CCC dirserver gone
It' seems to me that CCC dirserver disappeared from serifos stats. Is this connected with the German busting ? BTW I think that few lines of summary of assested facts reaction of bistong posted here can really be useful, not only for info but for the peace of mind of Tor exit node admins too. Thanks. Marco -- +--- http://www.winstonsmith.info ---+ | il Progetto Winston Smith: scolleghiamo il Grande Fratello | | the Winston Smith Project: unplug the Big Brother | | Marco A. Calamari [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcoc.it | | DSS/DH: 8F3E 5BAE 906F B416 9242 1C10 8661 24A9 BFCE 822B | + PGP RSA: ED84 3839 6C4D 3FFE 389F 209E 3128 5698 --+ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
An observation
This incident in germany just highlights something which I think that I would like to raise to the forefront of the tor community's mind, and in fact perhaps this would be well advanced in the entire open source community as a whole. This is a war. We are fighting at the highest level, and this project itself represents the ultimate counterattack to surveillance, and surveillance being the highest level of military strategic processes. All i want to say, after that sort of heavy statement is: tor server operators should not expect to be free of injury from this battle we all are engaged in. Having said that, it is a war worth fighting. We are fighting on the side of peace. Our cause is in the name of the defeat of all methods of fighting war at the top level. If they cannot surveil the enemy, they cannot establish adequate strategy. This means any potential warmonger. It does not matter what you think your ideology is, tor is at the top of the heap of defensive weapons. The more citizens chose to adopt this defense the less capability any military organisation has of determining a strategy. Without an effective stategy they will not chose the right course of action and the wrong course of action in military strategy leads to political disgrace. Yes, it makes tor a political target. But we all knew that it would be, and here is proof. Don't take it lightly. Tor is not just idealism, it is offensive to the most central power of oppression. It is ironic that this all emerged from the most submerged of military cultures, ultimately, but they put it out there, the people who started this obviously realised what they were doing. There is nothing more powerful in war than evasion. Surrender is weak compared to running away. If you can remain out of the crosshairs, you live to fight another day. Fostering this technology is helping people escape. I salute you! :)
Re: CCC dirserver gone
I would say: up and running router chaoscomputerclub 80.237.206.93 9001 0 9030 platform Tor 0.1.1.23 on FreeBSD i386 published 2006-09-09 17:15:12 Marco A. Calamari schrieb: It' seems to me that CCC dirserver disappeared from serifos stats. Is this connected with the German busting ? BTW I think that few lines of summary of assested facts reaction of bistong posted here can really be useful, not only for info but for the peace of mind of Tor exit node admins too. Thanks. Marco signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CCC dirserver gone
hehe i was so emphatic! anyway, it still is valid what i said but if i'd realised that CCC meant the chaos computer club i'd have said 'oh wait, i saw that one in my vidalia network viewer app just this morning' BlueStar88 wrote: I would say: up and running router chaoscomputerclub 80.237.206.93 9001 0 *9030* platform Tor 0.1.1.23 on FreeBSD i386 published 2006-09-09 17:15:12 Marco A. Calamari schrieb: It' seems to me that CCC dirserver disappeared from serifos stats. Is this connected with the German busting ? BTW I think that few lines of summary of assested facts reaction of bistong posted here can really be useful, not only for info but for the peace of mind of Tor exit node admins too. Thanks. Marco
Re: CCC dirserver gone
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 13:21 +0200, BlueStar88 wrote: I would say: up and running I repeat - CCC *dirserver* The router is just fine, and on 9030 it still giving directory informations as router, but is no more authoritative following serifos stats (dirserver are marked in red) I would be happy being wrong router chaoscomputerclub 80.237.206.93 9001 0 9030 platform Tor 0.1.1.23 on FreeBSD i386 published 2006-09-09 17:15:12 Marco A. Calamari schrieb: It' seems to me that CCC dirserver disappeared from serifos stats. Is this connected with the German busting ? BTW I think that few lines of summary of assested facts reaction of bistong posted here can really be useful, not only for info but for the peace of mind of Tor exit node admins too. -- +--- http://www.winstonsmith.info ---+ | il Progetto Winston Smith: scolleghiamo il Grande Fratello | | the Winston Smith Project: unplug the Big Brother | | Marco A. Calamari [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcoc.it | | DSS/DH: 8F3E 5BAE 906F B416 9242 1C10 8661 24A9 BFCE 822B | + PGP RSA: ED84 3839 6C4D 3FFE 389F 209E 3128 5698 --+ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: CCC dirserver gone
CCC is no authority server and it was not http://node2.xenobite.eu/torstat.php the first five green are authority server Greets Marco A. Calamari schrieb: On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 13:21 +0200, BlueStar88 wrote: I would say: up and running I repeat - CCC *dirserver* The router is just fine, and on 9030 it still giving directory informations as router, but is no more authoritative following serifos stats (dirserver are marked in red) I would be happy being wrong router chaoscomputerclub 80.237.206.93 9001 0 9030 platform Tor 0.1.1.23 on FreeBSD i386 published 2006-09-09 17:15:12 Marco A. Calamari schrieb: It' seems to me that CCC dirserver disappeared from serifos stats. Is this connected with the German busting ? BTW I think that few lines of summary of assested facts reaction of bistong posted here can really be useful, not only for info but for the peace of mind of Tor exit node admins too. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: torstat (bold?)
Order by country is already given. Use CC-Button (CountryCode). Bold Nicknames are registered (named) nodes at Tor26 authority node. Clickable node information is planned too, but the current state is the first step to gain easy access to the node *status flag* information. Try http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/exit.pl for bandwidth and further node informations. The script is open, if i have incorporated more features like bandwidth-information, authority-comparision, node-id/name/flag-history (trackback) and so on.. Greets numE schrieb: Hi, some nodes are printed in bold letters. i cant find any description what bold means. suggestion: it would be nice to order by country, too. i'd really like to host this script, too. will you open the source in the near future? :-) greetings. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: CCC dirserver gone
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 04:12:43PM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote: I repeat - CCC *dirserver* The router is just fine, and on 9030 it still giving directory informations as router, but is no more authoritative following serifos stats (dirserver are marked in red) Hi Marco, We've had five directory authorities the whole time. I've been meaning one day to add a CCC node as the sixth, and your node as the seventh, but haven't gotten around to it yet. So don't be too worried yet. In other news, I think this shows us that we probably want another requirement on being a directory authority: must not be an exit node. That is, we should avoid having more than one reason why somebody might want to attack a directory authority. --Roger
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This may be a good idea to contemplate, Anthony. I know of many successful action organizations, including some I've worked for/with directly that had such set-ups. Does anyone here have legal knowledge specific to this realm of affairs? I myself am not a trial lawyer, so I don't know the pros/cons of this directly. On the other hand, I am an expert on legal and non legal related privacy and asset protection solutions. If done correctly, one can conceal one's ownership of property (finances, physical property like house/car, etc) and hide most economic transactions from the Databases-of-Doom. Fellow ExitNode operators should check out http://www.mpassetprotection.com/ and read the Asset Protection Crash Course. The bottom line here is that if the self-proclaimed authorities can't find/don't know you own anything of value in the first place, they're much less likely to seek you out as the next great example to be held up and publically beaten to scare the public (metaphorically speaking). It's worked for several years for me and longer for many others, so covering your legal-financial ass is very affordable insurance when standing up to the welfare/warfare/police state. Mr. Georgeo, I think we may have something here with the idea of a two-pronged legal defense: A. On the front-end, a good regimen of preventative care privacy/asset protection best practices should be encouraged amongst Tor users, especially server/router owners. This will nip most seizures and lawsuits in the bud before they start in most cases. B. For those rare exceptions when someone slips up and/or the men with guns happen to get lucky through sheer statistics, we'll need a way to fight back using the judicial system. I'm sure many of us are already EFF members (I know I am at least), but going forward, the EFF's legal burden may consist of Tor related lawsuits to a greater extent. We already know that Germany and France have labeled operators Child Porn ringleaders already, and something similar has happened to a student at a US university relating to computer crime. As anyone know pays attention to world politics knows, the US and all other national governments have the bad habbit of picking up on their peers' worst habbits. Anything to usurp more power... I mean spread democracy and/or fight the war on terror/porn/[made up issue X], right? What are your thoughts? ~Andrew - -- Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. It's a scary world out there! Protect your privacy, keep what you earn, and even earn more income at: http://www.KeepYourAssets.net/?andrew Anothony Georgeo wrote: Hi, Tor server operators are more frequently subject to government action due to the fact they are running an exit or entry node. IMO this will cause some operators to shutdown their nodes to avoid legal repercussions and/or the monetary damages that can be incurred (from fines or legal defense). I propose a fund (eg. Tor Defense Fund) that would be available to server operators engaged in legal battles. The TDF would be funded by donations from other Tor users, as it would be in their best interest to donate if they wish to keep the Tor network running well. Maybe the EFF would consider running the fund and paying out X amount of dollars to each operator who meets a certain criteria? Comments? Anogeorgeo -- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42973/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFBHC3gwZR2XMkZmQRAgrgAJ0bCXLAbXTmZ3fkA2wyC+BdFMNqMgCfcOWt GlrtCMtOa6yAO1Iow4HK+g8= =SQHw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
glymr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An amusing subtext in this is that issue of social reward which came upin discussions about how to encourage tor servers to appear. I'minclined to suggest that a firehose blasting would work better, find aneffective way to get more people to run tor nodes, and it goes fromvictimisation to class action.Well, I know Roger, Nick, etc are against it but making Tor run as a server by default may be worth more consideration (I2P does this). Also, I've read posts about the possibility of offering better speed/etc to clients who also operate servers, this may be the best option.A class-action would be the best option but I believe it would be hard/impossible to make a class-action with operators in different countries due in part to how each country handles class-actions (or if they allow them at all). This would mean a class-action in Germany by German operators and a class-action in France by French operators, etc, etc. It may be more feasible to offer monetary help with legal defense and fines incurred to individual operators than try to launch class-actions in each country.Thoughts?Anogeorgeo All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There is some truth to this perhaps, but on the other hand, the more people participating, the more statistically likely it is that more people get 'busted', therefore draining the fund even more. Glymr, I think you've got some good analysis here, but it needs to be tied into a greater whole. Please see my other response to this topic about real life privacy and asset protection methods to help prevent most of such potential suits in the first place. `Andrew glymr wrote: An amusing subtext in this is that issue of social reward which came up in discussions about how to encourage tor servers to appear. I'm inclined to suggest that a firehose blasting would work better, find an effective way to get more people to run tor nodes, and it goes from victimisation to class action. Anothony Georgeo wrote: Hi, Tor server operators are more frequently subject to government action due to the fact they are running an exit or entry node. IMO this will cause some operators to shutdown their nodes to avoid legal repercussions and/or the monetary damages that can be incurred (from fines or legal defense). I propose a fund (eg. Tor Defense Fund) that would be available to server operators engaged in legal battles. The TDF would be funded by donations from other Tor users, as it would be in their best interest to donate if they wish to keep the Tor network running well. Maybe the EFF would consider running the fund and paying out X amount of dollars to each operator who meets a certain criteria? Comments? Anogeorgeo Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42973/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview - -- Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. It's a scary world out there! Protect your privacy, keep what you earn, and even earn more income at: http://www.KeepYourAssets.net/?andrew -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFBHH+gwZR2XMkZmQRAmPmAKC0c08BzH3pokMGYccxh9lGVQFnYACgvzzT OkE/r1eGv8UD1usgQwJWFUY= =zfIH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
My point here, which seems to be lost on everyone, is that putting your neck out is a monetary (at least requires monetary) contribution. As for organising users together that is just a matter of good viral marketing. Fast internet is starting to spread fast anyway, with all this ADSL2 popping up. I think perhaps that better would be to get people to sign on for being part of the class action defense group as a part of running a server. I'm sure this would bring a lot of the broader civil liberties people into the fold. Anothony Georgeo wrote: */glymr [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: An amusing subtext in this is that issue of social reward which came up in discussions about how to encourage tor servers to appear. I'm inclined to suggest that a firehose blasting would work better, find an effective way to get more people to run tor nodes, and it goes from victimisation to class action. Well, I know Roger, Nick, etc are against it but making Tor run as a server by default may be worth more consideration (I2P does this). Also, I've read posts about the possibility of offering better speed/etc to clients who also operate servers, this may be the best option. A class-action would be the best option but I believe it would be hard/impossible to make a class-action with operators in different countries due in part to how each country handles class-actions (or if they allow them at all). This would mean a class-action in Germany by German operators and a class-action in France by French operators, etc, etc. It may be more feasible to offer monetary help with legal defense and fines incurred to individual operators than try to launch class-actions in each country. Thoughts? Anogeorgeo All-new Yahoo! Mail http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43256/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta- Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Re: Updates
Arrakistor, --- Arrakistor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we heard any response about the offer for a windows box on which to compile? Have we heard any response to a request for a win32 version for the latest tor? Regards, Arrakistor Quote by Phobos: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2006/msg00108.html --- I'm working towards building the official win32 binaries going forward. I'm hoping to have something together for 0.1.2.1-alpha by the weekend. We'll see how it goes. --- It looks like Phobos is kind enough to do the official Win32 builds for the community. Anogeorgeo __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Updates
Or, if needed, I've an official Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Beta 2 DVD That I can send to someone that wants to do that under a REAL windows environment. Alex On Dim 10 septembre 2006 22:30, Anothony Georgeo a écrit : Arrakistor, --- Arrakistor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have we heard any response about the offer for a windows box on which to compile? Have we heard any response to a request for a win32 version for the latest tor? Regards, Arrakistor Quote by Phobos: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2006/msg00108.html --- I'm working towards building the official win32 binaries going forward. I'm hoping to have something together for 0.1.2.1-alpha by the weekend. We'll see how it goes. --- It looks like Phobos is kind enough to do the official Win32 builds for the community. Anogeorgeo __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:42:39 -0700, Anothony Georgeo wrote: My original point is still vaild though, a class-action in multiple countries would be very difficult if not impossible. Thus it seems it may be necessary to make a different class-action in each country due to each countries specific class-action requirments. I am not a lawyer. But I suspect this would not need to be pursued in as many countries as I think you're thinking. That it would need to be pursued in the United States is a given. I assume that the paranoia in Germany follows from Bush administration propaganda. Because Germany is making these moves, it, too, is a given. To this list, I would add the United Kingdom. Beyond that, I'm not sure how many other countries would really be needed. -- David Benfell, LCP [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/
Protecting exit-nodes by GeoIP based policy
Hello, I just had the idea which can help to protect exit-nodes against some kinds of legal prosecution. Basically, it would be policy to Tor servers which says do not connect into country XY. Such a rule does not increase anonymity but would require that legal actions (e.g. confiscations) must be performed in another country than this where the crime happened. This is a much higher hurdle, especially for lower delinquencies. I see two steps how this policy can be implemented: A. On client side 1. add a new option, e.g. 'Jurisdiction' with possible values of * 'other' ... when set, do not use an exit-node when it is the same jurisdiction as the target-ip; this should be the default on new installations * 'same' ... use an exit-node only, when it is in the same jurisdiction (just for completeness...) * 'ignore' ... ignore jurisdiction (same behavior as now) * a country code ... use only exit-nodes within this country; a negated format should exist too 2. when choosing path, use only exit-nodes which are following the constraint above B. On (exit-)node side 1. add a new option, e.g. 'JurisdictionPolicy' which accepts country codes and perhaps special values like '%same'. Behavior is similar to the client side option mentioned above 2. Tor protocol/meta data must be changed to transmit this option 3. node forbids connections which are violating the policy The decision whether a node and a target are in the same jurisdiction can be done e.g. by a GeoIP like service. A problem might be the license: GeoIP is GPL, Tor is BSD. Dunno, whether the database can be used freely and Tor has to implement own parsing routines. Perhaps, similar projects exist. Enrico pgpsiUzNvGBkw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This may very well be true in general. However, consider these two important aspects: 1. Government=force, and if you can get away with shutting up your opponents AND stealing most of or everything they have, why not? For them, it kills two birds with one stone, and as we all know, it's nearly impossible to get any of it back after the fact. This factor is important not exclusively for Tor people, but for political critics in general. 2. More directly related to your analysis (which I believe is true as a general principle), we must recall that in today's connected world, the easiest way to get someone and take them down is to review their many public and allegedly private records, such as bank transaction information, utility bills, health forms (especially in more socialized nation-states), etc. I don't pretend to argue that this will instantly make you immune to the legal railroading that some operators have experienced over the months, but it does make it quite a bit more time consuming and expensive. After all, we're dealing with incompetent, lazy bureaucrats here that would rather eat donuts than bust people if it means having to do some actual work. They rely on goading ISPs, banks, etc. into forking over information. This is an even more acute risk in the US since the (un)PATRIOT Act passed. Here's an example: I have an 'invisible' LLC whose principle place of business is registered as being in the Canary Islands. I organized it so that I could get set up a wireless Internet account with a major US telcom. I paid for it with an anonymous prepaid debit card. As a result, no one knows where I live, nor do they have my SSN, as my LLC's EIN# was used instead (also not connected to my personal info). You could use this basic process for a variety of needs, but I used this one, as it's germane to the basic problem at hand: How can we help legally protect Tor router operators?. ~Andrew - -- Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. It's a scary world out there! Protect your privacy, keep what you earn, and even earn more income at: http://www.KeepYourAssets.net/?andrew Anothony Georgeo wrote: --- Andrew Del Vecchio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bottom line here is that if the self-proclaimed authorities can't find/don't know you own anything of value in the first place, they're much less likely to seek you out as the next great example to be held up and publically beaten to scare the public (metaphorically speaking). Well, in terms of the Tor network I believe the authorities concider the possibility of shutting down the network to be of utmost value. IMO the authorities in this case don't really care if an operator has anything of value as they seek to prevent their citizens from gaining anonymity. Anogeorgeo __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFBKq9gwZR2XMkZmQRAmYzAKChSeyPL42Nfh+AF27+kgfjZMSNkgCfXC7Y GSmJaJbURIpxdvhvNVYcnuw= =LiGC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: bug / ISPs blocking ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This happens to me every so often, say about once per month. AFAIK, this is normal and is a result of some dirservers going down before the new polling data is distributed across the whole network (?) Arrakistor wrote: Greetings, Does anyone know why I would be getting responses of: Sep 10 17:24:37.203 [notice] Tor 0.1.1.23 opening new log file. Sep 10 17:24:37.515 [notice] I learned some more directory information, but not enough to build a circuit. Sep 10 17:24:39.343 [notice] I learned some more directory information, but not enough to build a circuit. Sep 10 17:24:41.906 [notice] I learned some more directory information, but not enough to build a circuit. Sep 10 17:24:42.281 [notice] I learned some more directory information, but not enough to build a circuit. Sep 10 17:24:42.640 [notice] We now have enough directory information to build circuits. Yet, no circuit is ever built? I have come across this, it is always like that on my network now, and some other users have reported it as well. I've tried it on other machines on my network and I have the same problem. Is this a case of the ISP blocking connection to tor? What could be causing this? Regards, Arrakistor - -- Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. It's a scary world out there! Protect your privacy, keep what you earn, and even earn more income at: http://www.KeepYourAssets.net/?andrew -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFBL1lgwZR2XMkZmQRAo7QAJ9IjCV2q1HAK/BajJKgAAmD3vWpowCggJ7d fL4tAyOpjQjoxc/41O2smsI= =1yRe -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 06:34:45PM -0700, Andrew Del Vecchio wrote: Tor was originally supported by the US Navy, but that is no longer the case for whatever reason. Tor, as with the previous generations of Onion Routing, was designed by myself and others from NRL. It's the first system that was partly rather than entirely done by NRL personnel, Roger and Nick were under contract to NRL for design, development and initial deployment of Tor. Funding for related research is ongoing, e.g., for analysis and improvement of hidden services (which led to improved security for all Tor circuit building cf. http://www.onion-router.net/Publications.html#locating-hidden-servers) Development and maintenance per se of Tor has passed beyond being a research project; that aspect is no longer an NRL project. You might want to look at http://www.onion-router.net/ in general, and http://www.onion-router.net/Sponsors.html in particular. Funding from EFF for Tor development ended about a year ago, though they still provide the web site and support in other indirect ways. So the sponsors page is a little dated in that respect. HTH, Paul -- Paul Syverson () ascii ribbon campaign Contact info at http://www.syverson.org/ /\ against html e-mail
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Was anyone on the original project full-on Navy, or was this entirely contracted out? Paul Syverson wrote: On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 06:34:45PM -0700, Andrew Del Vecchio wrote: Tor was originally supported by the US Navy, but that is no longer the case for whatever reason. Tor, as with the previous generations of Onion Routing, was designed by myself and others from NRL. It's the first system that was partly rather than entirely done by NRL personnel, Roger and Nick were under contract to NRL for design, development and initial deployment of Tor. Funding for related research is ongoing, e.g., for analysis and improvement of hidden services (which led to improved security for all Tor circuit building cf. http://www.onion-router.net/Publications.html#locating-hidden-servers) Development and maintenance per se of Tor has passed beyond being a research project; that aspect is no longer an NRL project. You might want to look at http://www.onion-router.net/ in general, and http://www.onion-router.net/Sponsors.html in particular. Funding from EFF for Tor development ended about a year ago, though they still provide the web site and support in other indirect ways. So the sponsors page is a little dated in that respect. HTH, Paul - -- Frivolous lawsuits. Unlawful government seizures. It's a scary world out there! Protect your privacy, keep what you earn, and even earn more income at: http://www.KeepYourAssets.net/?andrew -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFBNhtgwZR2XMkZmQRAjnKAJ9tozHUdUzf/bj4yJsYM+R35+Q4cwCgoQXG uceNg3gTAk29fE9WCms= =QGSL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
torrc Clientonly
I would like some clarification regarding the Clientonly setting. Does this explicitly mean you do not participate in any circuits, or that you are not running as an entrance/exit node but may still run mitm. Regards, Arrakistor
Re: Tor Defense Fund...an idea.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:30:54PM -0700, Andrew Del Vecchio wrote: Was anyone on the original project full-on Navy, or was this entirely contracted out? I'm not sure I understand the question. Onion Routing was originally invented and developed entirely by civilian (non-uniformed) employees of NRL (not contractors). So, if that counts as full-on Navy, then yes. As I said before, Roger and Nick were contractors when the three of us devised Tor together. Beyond that I think I already covered. aloha, Paul
