Re: Legal response to real abuse
On 8/7/2010 6:36 AM, and...@torproject.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:48:36PM -0700, mikepe...@fscked.org wrote 3.4K bytes in 84 lines about: : Now personally, I think that what might be more likely to win you : points with your ISP is to reiterate that these events are : extremely rare in comparison to the number of requests and the amount : of traffic that you carry. The overwhelming majority of people are : using the service legitimately, and the incident rate is close to that : of the normal Internet. In the past, I've modified my exit policy to reject the specific IP address and port in question to address the abuse complaint. Shown the modified exit policy snippet to the ISP's Abuse dept and considered the specific abuse complaint solved. I've stated the reject line will be removed in X months, assuming no other abuse complaints from the same IP address owner. How can such an overly simplistic action satisfy the ISP? That simply moves the abuser down the block, it does not stop him. Is it OK if it is not in my back yard? *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Legal response to real abuse
Hi, How can such an overly simplistic action satisfy the ISP? That simply moves the abuser down the block, it does not stop him. Is it OK if it is not in my back yard? For your ISP, that's probably exactly their rationale. The problem is that individual blocking doesn't help against the real issue here: This is considered the first strike of three -- the third resulting in the termination of your account. Moritz *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Legal response to real abuse
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Moritz Bartl t...@wiredwings.com wrote: Hi, This is considered the first strike of three -- the third resulting in the termination of your account. And that is providing your ISP even lets you get to 3 strikes. From my phone experience. tho it was not a letter DMCA and probably just a scare tactic, but was told if I didn't resolve the problem of the server being used for copyright infringements, etc, my account would be terminated. Even with the explanation, they didn't care cause of the complaints. However, I said I would take care of the problem if you give me the ports this was allegedly happening on. I then just blocked them and have had no issues since then. By doing this, I still have a full exit server running, and didnt lose the account and the ISP was happy. Personally I don't trust the 3 strikes your out syndrome. Unless its in the contract, I believe most ISP's can cancel the contract if they believe their subscriber does not seem to want to take care of the problem and the ISP has the paper work with the allegations, etc. But I am not a lawyer. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Legal response to real abuse
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Mike Perry mikepe...@fscked.org wrote: Ideally, it would be great to hear from Wendy, Seth, and/or Peter to You called? :) As far as the law goes, ISPs should not face liability for users' bad acts if they do not specifically assist or benefit from them. They offer general-purpose transit (like, but not quite the same as common carriage, which is defined by law both to prohibit discrimination and to remove liability). Tor node operators should be in a similar position -- we're offering general purpose technology, for plenty of uses recognized as lawful, and can't block particular uses without breaking the generality and limiting the functionality of the node. This is mostly common law (contributory and vicarious liability, or aiding and abetting), not statute. Unfortunately, what the ISP can lawfully do, and what it chooses to allow customers to do are often far apart. They're often motivated by how much nuisance someone else causes them, rather than the law. If you can share with me (we...@seltzer.org) some of the complaints, I will think about additional responses to use in the persuasion. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/ *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
Re: Firefox,Torbutton leaks real IP Address.
I can't reproduce the event of leakage the real IP address within the initial period of establishing the first circuit.I have tried with the same settings: Firefox,Torbutton,Privoxy but now Firefox waits the necessary period till establishement of the circuit,only then,the page www.showmyip.com etc. is displayed,with the IP address of the Tor exit node.So,I am considering the hypothesis that in the two times I noticed the leakage of the real IP address,was not my IP address,but the IP address of an exit node in my country (same flag) within the range of dynamic IP addresses of my DSL provider(and I wrongly thought it was mine).Anyway,now I tested with tor-0.2.0.32(compiled from source) and Iceweasel-3.0.4.(more recent versions).When I noticed the leakage(perhaps it was not) I verified that the torbutton was green and privoxy was setup(as always is).
Re: Firefox,Torbutton leaks real IP Address.
The Are you using Tor? page at http://check.torproject.org/ sometimes tells me that I am not using Tor, even with Tor and Torbutton running. It has only done that soon after starting Tor and the browser. From: Luis Maceira [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 2:15:27 PM Subject: Firefox,Torbutton leaks real IP Address. The combination Firefox-3.0.3(in fact,Iceweasel-3.0.3),Torbutton-1.2.0 leaks my real IP address.This happens BETWEEN when I initiate Tor-0.2.0.31 with the bash command /usr/local/tor/bin/tor and the moment when Tor effectively establishes a connection-circuit. This can be 60 seconds or more,and if in between we connect to the Internet with Firefox-Torbutton the real IP address is used(even with torbutton running-green) I tested with www.showmyip.com and others.My fear is if the same could happen when Tor changes circuit by ten-ten minutes or so,when leaves the previous circuit to the next one.(what happens in the transition moments).I did not test that situation. Thanks.
Re: Firefox,Torbutton leaks real IP Address.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Luis Maceira wrote: The combination Firefox-3.0.3(in fact,Iceweasel-3.0.3),Torbutton-1.2.0 leaks my real IPaddress.This happens BETWEEN when I initiate Tor-0.2.0.31 with the bash command /usr/local/tor/bin/tor and the moment when Tor effectively establishes a connection-circuit.This can be 60 seconds or more,and if in between we connect to the Internet withFirefox-Torbutton the real IP address is used(even with torbutton running-green)I tested with www.showmyip.com and others.My fear is if the same could happen when Tor changes circuit by ten-ten minutes or so,when leaves the previous circuit to the next one.(what happens in the transition moments).I did not test that situation. Thanks. Whenever tor is switching circuits, I just get a proxy error and I'm never actually able to get to a page. Did you install Tor from source? If not, where did you get it? Ringo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJNwGU6pWcWSc5BE4RApFwAJ4whn5J4knfxgpdYX6GDq97Pi8JCQCgl4Mu c4ycKWr6yEUj/We28V6SFss= =zD1O -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Firefox,Torbutton leaks real IP Address.
Hi, i think the main problem is that via java/javacript the browser can do direct connections, bypassing your proxy and only using your default gateway! You can see this bypassing with test sites like https://www.jondos.de/de/anontest . That's why i am not using a default gateway on the PC i am using and usually you only need proxy and no default gateway (behind the Router with the firewall and proxy). For some situations like updating my homepage via ssh/rsync i'm using a default gateway but only for a short time (approx. 1 minute) and at that time i'm using no browser. Regards, Rolf The combination Firefox-3.0.3(in fact,Iceweasel-3.0.3),Torbutton-1.2. 0 leaks my real IP address.This happens BETWEEN when I initiate Tor-0.2.0.31 with the bash command /usr/local/tor/bin/tor and the moment when Tor effectively establishes a connection-circuit. This can be 60 seconds or more,and if in between we connect to the Internet with Firefox-Torbutton the real IP address is used(even with torbutton running-green) I tested with www.showmyip.com and others.My fear is if the same could happen when Tor changes circuit by ten-ten minutes or so,when leaves the previous circuit to the next one.(what happens in the transition moments).I did not test that situation. Thanks.
Re: Firefox,Torbutton leaks real IP Address.
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 11:15:27AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 2.0K bytes in 34 lines about: : The combination Firefox-3.0.3(in fact,Iceweasel-3.0.3),Torbutton-1.2.0 leaks my real IPaddress.This happens BETWEEN when I initiate Tor-0.2.0.31 with the bash command /usr/local/tor/bin/tor and the moment when Tor effectively establishes a connection-circuit.This can be 60 seconds or more,and if in between we connect to the Internet withFirefox-Torbutton the real IP address is used(even with torbutton running-green)I tested with www.showmyip.com and others.My fear is if the same could happen when Tor changes circuit by ten-ten minutes or so,when leaves the previous circuit to the next one.(what happens in the transition moments).I did not test that situation. Thanks. Is torbutton enabled in Firefox the entire time? When I try to replicate this, Firefox reports the socks proxy isn't available. Are you using Firefox directly with Tor? Or do you have privoxy/polipo in between Firefox and Tor? -- Andrew
Re: Is this for real?
Hi, The problem is that it does not scale 1:1. If you set aside the biggest problems: - Users with firewalls/NAT routers and lack of knowhow to set them up correctly. If they can use Tor to surf they should be able to let the Tor server component also access it. Same program. Don't understand this arguement. - Increased use increases incentives for the bad guys, _especially_ if a vulnerability is discovered. Everyone would be vulnerable. What is the point. The same thing right now. If a vulnerability is discovered then people must update immediately. Who says that all people running Tor servers right now are computer whizzes? The reason it does not scale 1:1 is that (in EU at least), Internet-access to the users are provided mostly asymmetrically. My new connection has an awesome 20Mbit downstream, and the whole of 1Mbit upstream. Even with the fastest (consumer) subscription I'm not able to host a TOR server if I'm also going to use other services (VoIP, etc.). Yes, but if everybody gets the download speed that he provides for upload then it scales perfectly. In your case 1M. And I wouldn't approve of the whole forcing-people either, at least by my own moral standards, especially not in a freedom-project like this! Where is the force. That would just be the way the program works! Same thing with emule, freenet, etc, etc. Give and take. No harm done. I wasn't saying that everybody should become an exit node. JT -- JT [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow
Re: Is this for real?
On Wed, 2007-11-04 at 23:18 -0700, JT wrote: Hi, The problem is that it does not scale 1:1. If you set aside the biggest problems: - Users with firewalls/NAT routers and lack of knowhow to set them up correctly. If they can use Tor to surf they should be able to let the Tor server component also access it. Same program. Don't understand this arguement. Surfing with Tor uses outbound connections, being a server requires inbound connections. Inbound connections will break against a NAT/router that isn't configured correctly as the Nat/router hasn't been told to which internal IP to route incoming connections on a given port. same is true for many Firewalls. And I wouldn't approve of the whole forcing-people either, at least by my own moral standards, especially not in a freedom-project like this! Where is the force. That would just be the way the program works! Same thing with emule, freenet, etc, etc. Give and take. No harm done. I wasn't saying that everybody should become an exit node. Being just the way the program works is force. Just as a government that has a rule we shoot all dissidents without question.. sorry that's just the way we work is force. Now providing someone can solve the NAT problem without using UPNP or breaking anonymity I still wouldn't like to see a Tor implementation that defaults to a server. NAT/router/firewall aside there are other problems, Bandwidth shaping/throttling by ISP's, On many ISP's running a server of any kind is a direct violation of their terms and conditions, in some jurisdictions running a Tor server may be illegal where using the client isn't, etc. So, if Tor were to come server as default it absolutely must have a very simple way to turn the server off permanently, which breaks the whole reasoning for having Tor be server default and you might as well just provide an easy way to turn the server on and let the user decide based on his, network, isp, legal situation, etc. -- Freemor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freemor [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been digitally signed with GnuPG signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Is this for real?
The problem is that it does not scale 1:1. Yes, but if everybody gets the download speed that he provides for upload then it scales perfectly. In your case 1M. False. If there is one site in the chain that has, for example, a 20K bps upload speed, then no traffic through that site can provide data faster than 20K bps. If I have a 6 Mbps cable link, and my tor traffic is going through someone's DSL that cannot upload more than 20Kbps, then I will see my speed drop from 6Mbps down to .020Mbps. That's going from 6,000 K down to 20K. That is why the current tor system [b] cannot [/b] scale, without tor using multiple connections at once.
Re: Is this for real?
If I have a 6 Mbps cable link, and my tor traffic is going through someone's DSL that cannot upload more than 20Kbps, then I will see my speed drop from 6Mbps down to .020Mbps. Gar, double check. I'm mixing bytes and bits. 6 M-bits-ps cable versus 20K-bytes-ps DSL. That's actually about 250K-bits-ps. Or 6,000K down to 250K. About a 25 times factor slowdown. Yes, I've seen 6Mbps cable download (at a friend's house; mine never went above 4Mbps).
Re: Is this for real?
On 4/11/07, Thomas M. Jett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Quick question then, *how* much bandwidth is required to run Tor as a server, or router? I've only recently upgraded to DSL light (can't afford full DSL, and I don't remember the advertised bandwidth, but using my ISP's bandwidth test it shows 118.6 kbps with a maximum download speed of 14.83 kbps). Now I'm sure full DSL has more than enough bandwidth, but as far as DSL light goes, I'm not sure. Wouldn't be that much of a concern except for the fact that I do quiet a bit of downloading and I don't know how much of an effect that will have on performance. I know you can limit the bandwidth in the torrc file, but if it's going to be cutting it very close it may not be that much of a help. JT wrote: | Hi, | | if every Tor user was a router these kind of concerns wouldn't even pop | up. Who cares if the NSA is running a few routers in a pool of 300 000. | More and more people are stopping to use Tor because surfing has become | unbearbly slow. Just doesn't scale. Every Tor user must also be a router | and it scales 1:1! | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGHKZRlzq1/FLekkARClBxAJ9+5ca2Pj98H63ouhv9+0wd72WkRQCfQyj8 CtsvY5TFQyQX75u2AZ+tPRM= =vKiu -END PGP SIGNATURE- The problem is that it does not scale 1:1. If you set aside the biggest problems: - Users with firewalls/NAT routers and lack of knowhow to set them up correctly. - Increased use increases incentives for the bad guys, _especially_ if a vulnerability is discovered. Everyone would be vulnerable. - Anonymous users can simply be port-sweeped (and/or banner-scanned) for. The reason it does not scale 1:1 is that (in EU at least), Internet-access to the users are provided mostly asymmetrically. My new connection has an awesome 20Mbit downstream, and the whole of 1Mbit upstream. Even with the fastest (consumer) subscription I'm not able to host a TOR server if I'm also going to use other services (VoIP, etc.). And I wouldn't approve of the whole forcing-people either, at least by my own moral standards, especially not in a freedom-project like this! -- Stian Øvrevåge
Re: Is this for real?
The whole point of You are limited by the slowest upload speed of your routers, plus the whole My un-tor'd download speed is great is a big concern. Here is a thought. Since most of the time I'm not downloading -- most of the time my connection is idle with tor traffic -- I don't mind giving more of my traffic to others. When I'm active, I want to make full use of my download bandwidth. That means I need to get downloads from multiple people. If I'm looking at 20K tor upload, and 1.5 MB download (about 150K), then I need to download from 7 different tor nodes. At once. Yes, there are fast routers, but if I ever get a slow one, or an overloaded one, then I am slowed for using Tor, and Tor looks unattractive. If an average user is active 10% of the time, and uses 7 connections when active, that's still a surplus of network resources (70% utilized). That means, that for Tor to get fast, 1. Rather than everything using one connection by default, we need to use many connections, load balanced. Round robin is probably a good first approximation to load balanced. Since we know the speed of the routers we are using, we can do a better approximation. 2. ??? (3. Profit :-). (Yea, getting keep-alive to work will help a lot with web browsing, but that means tossing privoxy and using something else. But keep-alive, by reducing the number of connections, will magnify the problem of a slow router over doing multiple connections.) *how* much bandwidth is required to run Tor as a server, or router? Tor wants a minimum of 20K, or about 220 kbps. DSL Light, that I've seen, has a 384kbps upload, although I've heard that it goes as low as 256 kbps up. Either one is sufficient to run Tor as a router.
Re: Is this for real?
On 4/1/07, xiando [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just opened Tork and there in the server list was a server named NSAFortMeade. Is this for real, or is the NSA running a Tor Server? If it's for real, it's going to spook a lot of people away from Tor, at least those who are inclined to use Tor for political reasons. In bullet summary, we know: 1. Tor comes from the US Naval Research Laboratory, which is a DoD Corporation 2. NSA is also a DoD Corporation. This is very important to remember, it's the NSA!!!? NO. NSA is a part of Depertment of Defense. 3. Mr. Dingledine, Mr. Mathewson and Mr. Syverson make no secret that DoD use Tor. 4. HOW do the DoD get THEIR network security? From MY Tor-servers. 5. HOW do I get MY network security? From DoD using Tor! See? I pop out of the Tor-network. It could be me. It could be the NSA, or any other branch of US DoD. So, should DoD-subsidiaries like NSA run fast Tor-servers? YES! And that is exactly how YOU get increased security! You really should realize that DIVERSITY is how I get the security properties I want. Let me put it like this: Let's say ONLY people who are inclined to use Tor for political reasons were running Tor-servers. He's using Tor!! He has political reasons for using it! GET HIM!? -OR- He's using Tor! He COULD be a political activist. Or he COULD be the NSA. Or he COULD use it simply because he don't want websites tracking what products he's looked at in the past. Or he COULD .. etc. If the entire Tor-network was run by US DoD then Yes, that really would be bad. But if US DoD runs 5% of it? GREAT. We really NEED FAST SERVERS! My view is that US DoD, and their subsidiaries such as NSA, really SHOULD run servers. So should China. And Russia. And Venezuela. That is how we get diversity! In bullet summary, here's what I have to say about not only DoD/NSA, but ANY single entity running a Tor-network, regardless of what you think of them: You're running 1-5% of the servers? GREAT! THANKS! You're running MORE than 5% of the servers? WHAT ARE YOU UP TO? Helping the Tor-network is great. Regardless of you think those doing it are bad, because it gives diversity and better network security. Only start paying attention if one single entity are suddently running a large percentage of the network - DoD/NSA running 50% of the Tor-servers? That would raise my eyebrows That's a great assesment xiando. Say that this actually IS NSA (for which there is no proof afaik), why automatically assume it's because they are hunting down thought criminals? The NSA Mission Statement is posted at http://www.nsa.gov/about/about3.cfm : The ability to understand the secret communications of our foreign adversaries while protecting our own communications -- a capability in which the United States leads the world -- gives our nation a unique advantage. This might as well be an effort of the latter as an effort of the first. But ofcourse, we'll never know for sure... -- Stian Øvrevåge
Re: Is this for real?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Yeah, that's the problem, given it says NSA, who knows for sure. As arrogant as govt. has gotten in the last few years it would not surprise me one bit to see them run a server under that name. Ringo Kamens wrote: | Yeah I also noticed that server. I get routed through it a lot as an | entry guard. Based on the IP I don't think the NSA runs it but who | knows. | Ringo Kamens | | On 3/31/07, Thomas M. Jett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I just opened Tork and there in the server list was a server named | NSAFortMeade. Is this for real, or is the NSA running a Tor Server? | If it's for real, it's going to spook a lot of people away from Tor, | at least those who are inclined to use Tor for political reasons. | | PS: let me ad an addendum, the server in question is in the | Routers/Entry Guards list. | | | | . -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDma1lzq1/FLekkARCp9jAJ9HDtHkJgAN047i2oyZ3kaS6POb9QCfROVL S0D/woWzcjRJ/EfEIpwxm3Y= =5JnC -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Is this for real?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yeah, that's the problem, given it says NSA, who knows for sure. As arrogant as govt. has gotten in the last few years it would not surprise me one bit to see them run a server under that name. But wouldn't they have even more fun, if they called their server WeLovePrivacy? At least, I would have, if I were them... ;) Don't worry, the probability that it's an NSA server is the same as for every other server in the Tor network. Karsten -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDmj50M+WPffBEmURApuKAJ41aZS/OgkrljDaX/KkK+XzGLU1zwCfZl4S Wrgmie15uH96Wtf6hYgjVhE= =J1BJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Is this for real?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Well, that's the problem with power, those in power enjoy rubbing it in the face of those they have power over. Remember, I believe it was Lord Acton who said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. While I doubt it's a serious threat, still the potential exists, and given the current political climate it would not surprise me if they ran a server under a name like that just to scare people into not using Tor. Karsten Loesing wrote: | Yeah, that's the problem, given it says NSA, who knows for sure. As | arrogant as govt. has gotten in the last few years it would not | surprise me one bit to see them run a server under that name. | | But wouldn't they have even more fun, if they called their server | WeLovePrivacy? At least, I would have, if I were them... ;) | | Don't worry, the probability that it's an NSA server is the same as for | every other server in the Tor network. | | Karsten . -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDmrwlzq1/FLekkARCrUxAKCPxNSyB/9+ZE9NGo/yC7HWAesPoQCgh02E SwZGwUtaEFtxG2DqZSJoTHQ= =+u4y -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Is this for real?
On 3/31/07, Karsten Loesing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But who knows? Perhaps they have multiple strategies? :) Sorry, I can't help myself, but I'm tempted to rename my node to something intriguing just for the fun of it. Fear and Loathing in Fort Meade :) Names mean nothing. Karsten Alex. -- I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped. -- Simon Cameron, U.S. Senator, on the Smithsonian Institute, 1901.
Re: Is this for real?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 The most likely person to be scared, and the one that the NSA would want to scare, would be a political activist. Most, but not all of them (I fall into the category of not all of them ;-) ) are not all that technically inclined, and use Tor based upon faith that it will give them an anonymous means to research, and in some cases communicate over a highly monitored internet. In other words, the intent would be to create a chilling effect. Not all would fall for it, but perhaps enough to diminish the positive effects (upon freedom of speech expression, especially political speech) of Tor. Perhaps, because of the intimidating strategy used by the present occupants of 1600 Penn. Ave. I'm expecting this type of thing, but history tends to prove my concerns in this regard. Just look at the actions of governments in the past, all have used intimidation as a means of quelling dissent. Karsten Loesing wrote: | ... it would not surprise | me if they ran a server under a name like that just to scare people | into not using Tor. | | That's an interesting issue. Who is scared by a suspicious server name | and would thereupon stop using Tor? Not the absolute beginner who does | not care about log files and not the expert who knows that an attacker | needs all 3 out of 900+ routers a user chooses to subvert her privacy. | | However, I assume that the NSA would rather run 10, 20, or 50 nodes with | inconspicuous names, sit back, and see what they can observe. But who | knows? Perhaps they have multiple strategies? :) | | Karsten . -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGDnTylzq1/FLekkARCsEAAJ0Rywvj5LFt+gE3uNHv5fFHOSm6yACfbkfp /HYby9dQSjpFzB5KZxmiMxg= =sCiI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
