Re: [tor-talk] Issue accessing Onion v3 Services#

[Kevin Burress]

Thank you for your assistance.

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019, 11:20 AM Jonathan Marquardt  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 05:22:56AM +0100, Nathaniel Suchy wrote:
> > I'm using the Tor Browser Bundle (v 8.0.4) on macOS to access the Tor
> > Network. I am able to access Onion v2 Services without an issue. I am
> unable
> > to access v3 Services at all. If it helps I requested bridges with the
> built
> > in "bridge fetcher" thing that asks for a captcha then gives you
> bridges. It
> > gave me obfs4 bridges. Clearweb and Onion v2 Services have no issues,
> it's
> > just Onion v3 Services that have the issue. Is this a known bug? Is
> there a
> > workaround?
>
> V3 onion services should work, regardless of whether you use bridges or
> not.
> Are you sure that you tested it with actually working onion services?
>
> For example, are you unable to access this URL:
>
> http://7fa6xlti5joarlmkuhjaifa47ukgcwz6tfndgax45ocyn4rixm632jid.onion/
> --
> OpenPGP Key: 47BC7DE83D462E8BED18AA861224DBD299A4F5F3
>  https://www.parckwart.de/pgp_key
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] "Tor Circuit" list in TBB displaying incorrect exit node and IP address

[Kevin Burress]

Also try listing the nodes by fingerprint.

https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:46 AM Kevin Burress 
wrote:

> devochka?
>
> I'm not sure why that would be an issue when using StrictNodes 1 with
> ExitNodes. It would be interesting to make a list of any nodes that are
> exibiting the wrong behavior and exclude them with ExcludeNodes.
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 10:16 AM  wrote:
>
>> I have noticed that the "Tor Circuit" list in Tor Browser sometimes shows
>> an incorrect IP (and location) when connected to specific web sites.
>>
>> I used "StrictNodes 1" in torrc and selected the exit
>> "PrivacyRepublic0001" which is based in France and has an IP address of
>> 178.32.181.96.
>>
>> Usually when I checked the "Tor Circuit", the correct 178.32.181.96 is
>> shown. However, sometimes it showed a different IP of 179.43.168.166
>> (Switzerland), 192.42.113.102 (Netherlands), and 109.70.100.11 (Austria).
>>
>> 179.43.168.166 is "mccowan", 192.42.113.102 is "Spigen", and 109.70.100.11
>> is "karfiol". None of these are exit nodes.
>>
>> The odd behavior only happens with certain sites:
>> https://bitcointalk.org/, https://www.cato.org/,
>> https://www.whatismyip.com/ (for example - there must be many more)
>>
>> It does not happen with Google, Gmail, Amazon, Alexa, Yahoo, CNN, BBC,
>> etc.
>>
>> This is nothing to do with any specific exit node. I've tried it with
>> others. For some reason, on a minority of sites, the correct exit node
>> does not show in "Tor Circuits" and, in its place, a non-exit node is
>> shown.
>>
>> Is this a known bug? Or something problematic with certain sites? Why are
>> these sites different?
>>
>> --
>> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
>> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>>
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] "Tor Circuit" list in TBB displaying incorrect exit node and IP address

[Kevin Burress]

devochka?

I'm not sure why that would be an issue when using StrictNodes 1 with
ExitNodes. It would be interesting to make a list of any nodes that are
exibiting the wrong behavior and exclude them with ExcludeNodes.

On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 10:16 AM  wrote:

> I have noticed that the "Tor Circuit" list in Tor Browser sometimes shows
> an incorrect IP (and location) when connected to specific web sites.
>
> I used "StrictNodes 1" in torrc and selected the exit
> "PrivacyRepublic0001" which is based in France and has an IP address of
> 178.32.181.96.
>
> Usually when I checked the "Tor Circuit", the correct 178.32.181.96 is
> shown. However, sometimes it showed a different IP of 179.43.168.166
> (Switzerland), 192.42.113.102 (Netherlands), and 109.70.100.11 (Austria).
>
> 179.43.168.166 is "mccowan", 192.42.113.102 is "Spigen", and 109.70.100.11
> is "karfiol". None of these are exit nodes.
>
> The odd behavior only happens with certain sites:
> https://bitcointalk.org/, https://www.cato.org/,
> https://www.whatismyip.com/ (for example - there must be many more)
>
> It does not happen with Google, Gmail, Amazon, Alexa, Yahoo, CNN, BBC, etc.
>
> This is nothing to do with any specific exit node. I've tried it with
> others. For some reason, on a minority of sites, the correct exit node
> does not show in "Tor Circuits" and, in its place, a non-exit node is
> shown.
>
> Is this a known bug? Or something problematic with certain sites? Why are
> these sites different?
>
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] circpathbias.c : Your Guard vs The Guard

[Kevin Burress]

Guard %s ...

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 3:42 AM Roman Mamedov  wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:18:55 +0200
> Lars Noodén  wrote:
>
> > On 12/18/18 10:07 AM, Kevin Burress wrote:
> > > How about "A Guard"
> > Yes, "A guard" would also reduce the potential for confusion, and it's
> > even shorter.  The log error should clearly convey the information of
> > whose guard is being noted.
> >
> > The phrase "Your guard" very strongly suggests that the user is
> > responsible for the guard in question and different but still concise
> > wording is needed.
>
> It does not. If you look back to the original string, it also always
> includes
> the guard name right after that. If that name is unfamiliar to you, then
> how
> can you assume that this must be something that you have thought up,
> created or
> are responsible for. Only if you have too much free time and specifically
> look
> for things to be "confused" about.
>
> Moreover, if you know a few basic things about Tor, you would know what a
> Guard is and what's their place and role in your connection to the Tor
> network.
> And knowing at least the basic things about Tor is certainly a good idea
> before starting to use it.
>
> --
> With respect,
> Roman
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] circpathbias.c : Your Guard vs The Guard

[Kevin Burress]

How about "A Guard"

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018, 2:29 AM Jim  wrote:

> >> perhaps the string
> >> ought to read "The Guard" instead of "Your Guard".
> >
> > Many projects prefer bad strings perpetuate
> > legacy than fix them for future.
>
>
> It is not clear to me that "The Guard" is preferable to "Your Guard".  I
> think the clearest wording would be "the guard you are using" but people
> might not want that verbose of wording, particularly on a message that
> might get used frequently.
>
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor security

[Kevin Burress]

Yeah.. the concern here is that it's so feasible now that an attacker can
correlate packet timing with a smaller portion of nodes and with the advent
of high speed internet I think it would be beneficial for people who would
like to adjust settings on their routing as such to be able to.

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 10:50 AM Gunnar Wolf  wrote:

> Kevin Burress dijo [Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:21:22AM -0500]:
> > I just have to check, is tor secure yet?
> >
> > I was thinking it might be more secure with these AI based timing attacks
> > now if the number of hops is more adjustable. Although I would like to
> see
> > a means of negotiating a layer between a hidden service or exit node
> using
> > multiple connections in rendezvous as well, splitting data up in both
> > directions between multiple tunnels that could be specified and juggled
> in
> > and out of queue at random..
>
> Do you think perfect security, perfect anonymity, perfect privacy will
> ever be achieved?
>
> It is *more* secure, and particularly *more* anonymous and *more*
> private than not using it.
>
> What you suggest is closer to the original David Chaum idea of
> anonymous mail exchangers by using mixing networks (1981,
> https://www.chaum.com/publications/chaum-mix.pdf) or more recent
> implementations, such as Katzenpost
> (https://katzenpost.mixnetworks.org/).
>
> This, however, fares very poorly for today's internet users' use cases
> — Mix networks are great for protocols such as mail delivery (SMTP),
> because they are not time sensitive. You will likely not care if your
> mail gets through immediately or it is delayed by five
> minutes. Greylisting already imposes such minimum delays in many
> cases.
>
> Network browsing, remotely logging in to administer a system, having a
> videoconference... Those activities are *very* latency- and
> jitter-sensitive and, as such... Cannot really escape from traffic
> analysis by an adversary *who controls enough of the network*. And
> that's closer to Tor's model.
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

[tor-talk] Tor security

[Kevin Burress]

I just have to check, is tor secure yet?

I was thinking it might be more secure with these AI based timing attacks
now if the number of hops is more adjustable. Although I would like to see
a means of negotiating a layer between a hidden service or exit node using
multiple connections in rendezvous as well, splitting data up in both
directions between multiple tunnels that could be specified and juggled in
and out of queue at random..

Let me know if this helps.

Thanks,
Geb
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Tor Browser evolution mysteries

[Kevin Burress]

>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 01:22:00PM +, anan wrote:
>>> How come I have now the same IP address on every tab?
>>
>> Circuit isolation is not per tab, but per site.
>>

>Wow, that's even better!

I would rather have circuit isolation per tab.

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:44 PM anan  wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Marquardt:
> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 01:22:00PM +, anan wrote:
> >> How come I have now the same IP address on every tab?
> >
> > Circuit isolation is not per tab, but per site.
> >
>
> Wow, that's even better!
>
>
> > For example, open two tabs, one with https://ipchicken.com/ and one
> with
> > https://wtfismyip.com/. The circuits should differ.
> >
> >> How come the new-cicuit button is not there anymore?
> >>
> >> I am also curious to know why the list of the three nodes being used per
> >> circuit is not shown anymore.
> >
> > In the address bar, click the "i" symbol or the lock or the onion symbol
> > (depending on what kind of site you're on). You should see your
> circuit's
> > nodes as well as a button that lets you create a new circuit.
> >
>
> Excellent. Thank you very much!!
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] How do tor users get past the recapacha and it's super short 2min exemption

[Kevin Burress]

Consider using a vpn to connect to from tor. Consider paying in crypto.
Consider ssh tunneling on port 443 for convenience and interoperability or
use a hidden service. Consider that they are doing it on purpose.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 1:10 AM grarpamp  wrote:

> Just now, to simply load the frontpage and therein *read* a site...
> 120 clicks across 23 captcha screens... and still denied, twice.
> Hey Google, Cloudflare, and Sites... go fuck yourselves.
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness onli

[Kevin Burress]

I mean unless you love to lie and you're not a christian..

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 3:31 AM Kevin Burress  wrote:

> Well I'm not willing to say that He is not. "It's a side thing."
> Understand.
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 3:25 AM Mirimir  wrote:
>
>> On 06/10/2018 09:13 PM, Kevin Burress wrote:
>> > It is like they are saying they want the apocalypse without saying it by
>> > really saying it (anonymous) that's their way of asking, and christians
>> who
>> > are good christians and israel says "yes come Lord"
>>
>> But hey, some Islamic fundamentalists also want it. And they think that
>> God and Christ will be on _their_ side.
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:28 AM Kevin Burress 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I mean for example historically the people of Canaan worshipped God but
>> >> Canaan was cursed. And it was about the place of the Hittites and
>> >> Canaanites who were slaughtered. But they worshipped the same God.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:23 AM Kevin Burress 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In fact I would imagine given the content and staining and such it
>> would
>> >>> make it more sure that He wants to do it.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:21 AM Kevin Burress 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Well I just want to bring up that should it be the end Yahweh may
>> want
>> >>>> to use anonymity to not reveal Himself to the masses.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:19 AM grarpamp  wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Ben Tasker 
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> As I see it, there are two complimentary ways to fight it
>> >>>>> .
>> >>>>>> Firstly, explain (again) why it's a stupid and flawed idea.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> History shows that method always loses long term.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Second, keep building and supporting systems that help protect
>> >>>>> privacy and
>> >>>>>> anonymity online. That means running more tor relays as well as
>> >>>>> developing
>> >>>>>> new privacy friendly services etc. Essentially, make sure there are
>> >>>>>> alternatives that cannot be affected by whatever half-baked
>> >>>>> implementation
>> >>>>>> they try to foist on us.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Tools themselves will not stop the continual foisting that always
>> wins
>> >>>>> long term.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Note this UK US scam has been spooling up for a wider G7 drop for a
>> >>>>> while now...
>> >>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037851.html
>> >>>>>
>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-March/036940.html
>> >>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037948.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The subject problem is that government is now redundant to your own
>> >>>>> better
>> >>>>> capabilities as human beings, now evolved and connected to the
>> wealth of
>> >>>>> instant global knowledge and comms. There's no longer a need for
>> such a
>> >>>>> central store of knowledge, action, and programming that, among
>> other
>> >>>>> things,
>> >>>>> says that murder and theft are good, since now you can go online
>> and see
>> >>>>> that it is plainly bad, and contribute to better together, directly.
>> >>>>> The solution is thus to go further this time and finally discontinue
>> >>>>> that old redundant system.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That connectedness is a "mob rule" they speak of... more properly a
>> >>>>> "decentralized" mode, with voluntarist, anarchist, libertarian
>> >>>>> flavors, coordinated
>> >>&

Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness onli

[Kevin Burress]

Well I'm not willing to say that He is not. "It's a side thing." Understand.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 3:25 AM Mirimir  wrote:

> On 06/10/2018 09:13 PM, Kevin Burress wrote:
> > It is like they are saying they want the apocalypse without saying it by
> > really saying it (anonymous) that's their way of asking, and christians
> who
> > are good christians and israel says "yes come Lord"
>
> But hey, some Islamic fundamentalists also want it. And they think that
> God and Christ will be on _their_ side.
>
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:28 AM Kevin Burress 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I mean for example historically the people of Canaan worshipped God but
> >> Canaan was cursed. And it was about the place of the Hittites and
> >> Canaanites who were slaughtered. But they worshipped the same God.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:23 AM Kevin Burress 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In fact I would imagine given the content and staining and such it
> would
> >>> make it more sure that He wants to do it.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:21 AM Kevin Burress 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well I just want to bring up that should it be the end Yahweh may want
> >>>> to use anonymity to not reveal Himself to the masses.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:19 AM grarpamp  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Ben Tasker 
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As I see it, there are two complimentary ways to fight it
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>> Firstly, explain (again) why it's a stupid and flawed idea.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> History shows that method always loses long term.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Second, keep building and supporting systems that help protect
> >>>>> privacy and
> >>>>>> anonymity online. That means running more tor relays as well as
> >>>>> developing
> >>>>>> new privacy friendly services etc. Essentially, make sure there are
> >>>>>> alternatives that cannot be affected by whatever half-baked
> >>>>> implementation
> >>>>>> they try to foist on us.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tools themselves will not stop the continual foisting that always
> wins
> >>>>> long term.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note this UK US scam has been spooling up for a wider G7 drop for a
> >>>>> while now...
> >>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037851.html
> >>>>>
> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-March/036940.html
> >>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037948.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The subject problem is that government is now redundant to your own
> >>>>> better
> >>>>> capabilities as human beings, now evolved and connected to the
> wealth of
> >>>>> instant global knowledge and comms. There's no longer a need for
> such a
> >>>>> central store of knowledge, action, and programming that, among other
> >>>>> things,
> >>>>> says that murder and theft are good, since now you can go online and
> see
> >>>>> that it is plainly bad, and contribute to better together, directly.
> >>>>> The solution is thus to go further this time and finally discontinue
> >>>>> that old redundant system.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That connectedness is a "mob rule" they speak of... more properly a
> >>>>> "decentralized" mode, with voluntarist, anarchist, libertarian
> >>>>> flavors, coordinated
> >>>>> under realtime feedback for good... an unexpected result (to their
> >>>>> geriatric
> >>>>> selves and their decades expired models and thinking) of the true
> power
> >>>>> of the Internet now arrived... a curiously interesting process taking
> >>>>> shape
> >>>>> globally... a discussion.. an exploration of alternative models, of
> >>>>> local
> >>

Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness onli

[Kevin Burress]

It would be nice to see some bad journalists disappearing or elites. Who
want to blame israel.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 3:23 AM Kevin Burress  wrote:

> Interesting the elites have a spear campaign going on against Israel
>
> Killing al-Najjar, who clearly posed no threat to its soldiers, made it
> difficult for Israel’s army to argue that its snipers targeted only
> “rioters” in Gaza and did not fire indiscriminately at peaceful protesters,
> journalists, and medics.
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 3:13 AM Kevin Burress 
> wrote:
>
>> It is like they are saying they want the apocalypse without saying it by
>> really saying it (anonymous) that's their way of asking, and christians who
>> are good christians and israel says "yes come Lord"
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:28 AM Kevin Burress 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I mean for example historically the people of Canaan worshipped God but
>>> Canaan was cursed. And it was about the place of the Hittites and
>>> Canaanites who were slaughtered. But they worshipped the same God.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:23 AM Kevin Burress 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact I would imagine given the content and staining and such it
>>>> would make it more sure that He wants to do it.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:21 AM Kevin Burress 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well I just want to bring up that should it be the end Yahweh may want
>>>>> to use anonymity to not reveal Himself to the masses.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:19 AM grarpamp  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Ben Tasker 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > As I see it, there are two complimentary ways to fight it
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> > Firstly, explain (again) why it's a stupid and flawed idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History shows that method always loses long term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Second, keep building and supporting systems that help protect
>>>>>> privacy and
>>>>>> > anonymity online. That means running more tor relays as well as
>>>>>> developing
>>>>>> > new privacy friendly services etc. Essentially, make sure there are
>>>>>> > alternatives that cannot be affected by whatever half-baked
>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>> > they try to foist on us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tools themselves will not stop the continual foisting that always wins
>>>>>> long term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note this UK US scam has been spooling up for a wider G7 drop for a
>>>>>> while now...
>>>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037851.html
>>>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-March/036940.html
>>>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037948.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The subject problem is that government is now redundant to your own
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> capabilities as human beings, now evolved and connected to the wealth
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> instant global knowledge and comms. There's no longer a need for such
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> central store of knowledge, action, and programming that, among other
>>>>>> things,
>>>>>> says that murder and theft are good, since now you can go online and
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> that it is plainly bad, and contribute to better together, directly.
>>>>>> The solution is thus to go further this time and finally discontinue
>>>>>> that old redundant system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That connectedness is a "mob rule" they speak of... more properly a
>>>>>> "decentralized" mode, with voluntarist, anarchist, libertarian
>>>>>> flavors, coordinated
>>>>>> under realtime feedback for good... an unexpected result (to their
>>>>>> geriatric
>>>>>> selves and their decades expired models and thinking) of the true
>>>>>> power
>&

Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness onli

[Kevin Burress]

Interesting the elites have a spear campaign going on against Israel

Killing al-Najjar, who clearly posed no threat to its soldiers, made it
difficult for Israel’s army to argue that its snipers targeted only
“rioters” in Gaza and did not fire indiscriminately at peaceful protesters,
journalists, and medics.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 3:13 AM Kevin Burress  wrote:

> It is like they are saying they want the apocalypse without saying it by
> really saying it (anonymous) that's their way of asking, and christians who
> are good christians and israel says "yes come Lord"
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:28 AM Kevin Burress 
> wrote:
>
>> I mean for example historically the people of Canaan worshipped God but
>> Canaan was cursed. And it was about the place of the Hittites and
>> Canaanites who were slaughtered. But they worshipped the same God.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:23 AM Kevin Burress 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact I would imagine given the content and staining and such it would
>>> make it more sure that He wants to do it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:21 AM Kevin Burress 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well I just want to bring up that should it be the end Yahweh may want
>>>> to use anonymity to not reveal Himself to the masses.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:19 AM grarpamp  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Ben Tasker 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
>>>>>
>>>>> > As I see it, there are two complimentary ways to fight it
>>>>> .
>>>>> > Firstly, explain (again) why it's a stupid and flawed idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> History shows that method always loses long term.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Second, keep building and supporting systems that help protect
>>>>> privacy and
>>>>> > anonymity online. That means running more tor relays as well as
>>>>> developing
>>>>> > new privacy friendly services etc. Essentially, make sure there are
>>>>> > alternatives that cannot be affected by whatever half-baked
>>>>> implementation
>>>>> > they try to foist on us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tools themselves will not stop the continual foisting that always wins
>>>>> long term.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note this UK US scam has been spooling up for a wider G7 drop for a
>>>>> while now...
>>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037851.html
>>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-March/036940.html
>>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037948.html
>>>>>
>>>>> The subject problem is that government is now redundant to your own
>>>>> better
>>>>> capabilities as human beings, now evolved and connected to the wealth
>>>>> of
>>>>> instant global knowledge and comms. There's no longer a need for such a
>>>>> central store of knowledge, action, and programming that, among other
>>>>> things,
>>>>> says that murder and theft are good, since now you can go online and
>>>>> see
>>>>> that it is plainly bad, and contribute to better together, directly.
>>>>> The solution is thus to go further this time and finally discontinue
>>>>> that old redundant system.
>>>>>
>>>>> That connectedness is a "mob rule" they speak of... more properly a
>>>>> "decentralized" mode, with voluntarist, anarchist, libertarian
>>>>> flavors, coordinated
>>>>> under realtime feedback for good... an unexpected result (to their
>>>>> geriatric
>>>>> selves and their decades expired models and thinking) of the true power
>>>>> of the Internet now arrived... a curiously interesting process taking
>>>>> shape
>>>>> globally... a discussion.. an exploration of alternative models, of
>>>>> local
>>>>> and self governance, an elimination of redundancy and inefficiency,
>>>>> reclamation and redeployment of all things ceded.
>>>>>
>>>>> So of course they want to "Digital ID" that, to censor it, balkanize,
>>>>> shape,
>>>&

Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness onli

[Kevin Burress]

It is like they are saying they want the apocalypse without saying it by
really saying it (anonymous) that's their way of asking, and christians who
are good christians and israel says "yes come Lord"

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:28 AM Kevin Burress  wrote:

> I mean for example historically the people of Canaan worshipped God but
> Canaan was cursed. And it was about the place of the Hittites and
> Canaanites who were slaughtered. But they worshipped the same God.
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:23 AM Kevin Burress 
> wrote:
>
>> In fact I would imagine given the content and staining and such it would
>> make it more sure that He wants to do it.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:21 AM Kevin Burress 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well I just want to bring up that should it be the end Yahweh may want
>>> to use anonymity to not reveal Himself to the masses.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:19 AM grarpamp  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Ben Tasker 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
>>>>
>>>> > As I see it, there are two complimentary ways to fight it
>>>> .
>>>> > Firstly, explain (again) why it's a stupid and flawed idea.
>>>>
>>>> History shows that method always loses long term.
>>>>
>>>> > Second, keep building and supporting systems that help protect
>>>> privacy and
>>>> > anonymity online. That means running more tor relays as well as
>>>> developing
>>>> > new privacy friendly services etc. Essentially, make sure there are
>>>> > alternatives that cannot be affected by whatever half-baked
>>>> implementation
>>>> > they try to foist on us.
>>>>
>>>> Tools themselves will not stop the continual foisting that always wins
>>>> long term.
>>>>
>>>> Note this UK US scam has been spooling up for a wider G7 drop for a
>>>> while now...
>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037851.html
>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-March/036940.html
>>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037948.html
>>>>
>>>> The subject problem is that government is now redundant to your own
>>>> better
>>>> capabilities as human beings, now evolved and connected to the wealth of
>>>> instant global knowledge and comms. There's no longer a need for such a
>>>> central store of knowledge, action, and programming that, among other
>>>> things,
>>>> says that murder and theft are good, since now you can go online and see
>>>> that it is plainly bad, and contribute to better together, directly.
>>>> The solution is thus to go further this time and finally discontinue
>>>> that old redundant system.
>>>>
>>>> That connectedness is a "mob rule" they speak of... more properly a
>>>> "decentralized" mode, with voluntarist, anarchist, libertarian
>>>> flavors, coordinated
>>>> under realtime feedback for good... an unexpected result (to their
>>>> geriatric
>>>> selves and their decades expired models and thinking) of the true power
>>>> of the Internet now arrived... a curiously interesting process taking
>>>> shape
>>>> globally... a discussion.. an exploration of alternative models, of
>>>> local
>>>> and self governance, an elimination of redundancy and inefficiency,
>>>> reclamation and redeployment of all things ceded.
>>>>
>>>> So of course they want to "Digital ID" that, to censor it, balkanize,
>>>> shape,
>>>> track, control, criminalize, and shut it down before they
>>>> themselves are.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that they've resorted to deploying worldwide surveillance,
>>>> the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse FUD and more, spinning
>>>> it out 24x365 nonstop now in survival mode, shows they know their
>>>> own end is coming.
>>>>
>>>> Make, keep and use tools... "systems that help protect privacy and
>>>> anonymity online... develop new privacy friendly services etc"...
>>>> not just to hide and shield from the foisting, but to fix and learn
>>>> new thinking, thus ending it for good.
>>>>
>>>> The math is simpler than crypto...
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVEzdh4PMDI
>>>> --
>>>> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
>>>> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
>>>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>>>>
>>>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness onli

[Kevin Burress]

I mean for example historically the people of Canaan worshipped God but
Canaan was cursed. And it was about the place of the Hittites and
Canaanites who were slaughtered. But they worshipped the same God.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:23 AM Kevin Burress  wrote:

> In fact I would imagine given the content and staining and such it would
> make it more sure that He wants to do it.
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:21 AM Kevin Burress 
> wrote:
>
>> Well I just want to bring up that should it be the end Yahweh may want to
>> use anonymity to not reveal Himself to the masses.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:19 AM grarpamp  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Ben Tasker 
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
>>>
>>> > As I see it, there are two complimentary ways to fight it
>>> .
>>> > Firstly, explain (again) why it's a stupid and flawed idea.
>>>
>>> History shows that method always loses long term.
>>>
>>> > Second, keep building and supporting systems that help protect privacy
>>> and
>>> > anonymity online. That means running more tor relays as well as
>>> developing
>>> > new privacy friendly services etc. Essentially, make sure there are
>>> > alternatives that cannot be affected by whatever half-baked
>>> implementation
>>> > they try to foist on us.
>>>
>>> Tools themselves will not stop the continual foisting that always wins
>>> long term.
>>>
>>> Note this UK US scam has been spooling up for a wider G7 drop for a
>>> while now...
>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037851.html
>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-March/036940.html
>>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037948.html
>>>
>>> The subject problem is that government is now redundant to your own
>>> better
>>> capabilities as human beings, now evolved and connected to the wealth of
>>> instant global knowledge and comms. There's no longer a need for such a
>>> central store of knowledge, action, and programming that, among other
>>> things,
>>> says that murder and theft are good, since now you can go online and see
>>> that it is plainly bad, and contribute to better together, directly.
>>> The solution is thus to go further this time and finally discontinue
>>> that old redundant system.
>>>
>>> That connectedness is a "mob rule" they speak of... more properly a
>>> "decentralized" mode, with voluntarist, anarchist, libertarian
>>> flavors, coordinated
>>> under realtime feedback for good... an unexpected result (to their
>>> geriatric
>>> selves and their decades expired models and thinking) of the true power
>>> of the Internet now arrived... a curiously interesting process taking
>>> shape
>>> globally... a discussion.. an exploration of alternative models, of local
>>> and self governance, an elimination of redundancy and inefficiency,
>>> reclamation and redeployment of all things ceded.
>>>
>>> So of course they want to "Digital ID" that, to censor it, balkanize,
>>> shape,
>>> track, control, criminalize, and shut it down before they themselves
>>> are.
>>>
>>> The fact that they've resorted to deploying worldwide surveillance,
>>> the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse FUD and more, spinning
>>> it out 24x365 nonstop now in survival mode, shows they know their
>>> own end is coming.
>>>
>>> Make, keep and use tools... "systems that help protect privacy and
>>> anonymity online... develop new privacy friendly services etc"...
>>> not just to hide and shield from the foisting, but to fix and learn
>>> new thinking, thus ending it for good.
>>>
>>> The math is simpler than crypto...
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVEzdh4PMDI
>>> --
>>> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
>>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>>>
>>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness onli

[Kevin Burress]

In fact I would imagine given the content and staining and such it would
make it more sure that He wants to do it.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:21 AM Kevin Burress  wrote:

> Well I just want to bring up that should it be the end Yahweh may want to
> use anonymity to not reveal Himself to the masses.
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:19 AM grarpamp  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Ben Tasker  wrote:
>> >>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
>>
>> > As I see it, there are two complimentary ways to fight it
>> .
>> > Firstly, explain (again) why it's a stupid and flawed idea.
>>
>> History shows that method always loses long term.
>>
>> > Second, keep building and supporting systems that help protect privacy
>> and
>> > anonymity online. That means running more tor relays as well as
>> developing
>> > new privacy friendly services etc. Essentially, make sure there are
>> > alternatives that cannot be affected by whatever half-baked
>> implementation
>> > they try to foist on us.
>>
>> Tools themselves will not stop the continual foisting that always wins
>> long term.
>>
>> Note this UK US scam has been spooling up for a wider G7 drop for a while
>> now...
>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037851.html
>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-March/036940.html
>> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037948.html
>>
>> The subject problem is that government is now redundant to your own better
>> capabilities as human beings, now evolved and connected to the wealth of
>> instant global knowledge and comms. There's no longer a need for such a
>> central store of knowledge, action, and programming that, among other
>> things,
>> says that murder and theft are good, since now you can go online and see
>> that it is plainly bad, and contribute to better together, directly.
>> The solution is thus to go further this time and finally discontinue
>> that old redundant system.
>>
>> That connectedness is a "mob rule" they speak of... more properly a
>> "decentralized" mode, with voluntarist, anarchist, libertarian
>> flavors, coordinated
>> under realtime feedback for good... an unexpected result (to their
>> geriatric
>> selves and their decades expired models and thinking) of the true power
>> of the Internet now arrived... a curiously interesting process taking
>> shape
>> globally... a discussion.. an exploration of alternative models, of local
>> and self governance, an elimination of redundancy and inefficiency,
>> reclamation and redeployment of all things ceded.
>>
>> So of course they want to "Digital ID" that, to censor it, balkanize,
>> shape,
>> track, control, criminalize, and shut it down before they themselves
>> are.
>>
>> The fact that they've resorted to deploying worldwide surveillance,
>> the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse FUD and more, spinning
>> it out 24x365 nonstop now in survival mode, shows they know their
>> own end is coming.
>>
>> Make, keep and use tools... "systems that help protect privacy and
>> anonymity online... develop new privacy friendly services etc"...
>> not just to hide and shield from the foisting, but to fix and learn
>> new thinking, thus ending it for good.
>>
>> The math is simpler than crypto...
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVEzdh4PMDI
>> --
>> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
>> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>>
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness onli

[Kevin Burress]

Well I just want to bring up that should it be the end Yahweh may want to
use anonymity to not reveal Himself to the masses.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, 2:19 AM grarpamp  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Ben Tasker  wrote:
> >>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
>
> > As I see it, there are two complimentary ways to fight it
> .
> > Firstly, explain (again) why it's a stupid and flawed idea.
>
> History shows that method always loses long term.
>
> > Second, keep building and supporting systems that help protect privacy
> and
> > anonymity online. That means running more tor relays as well as
> developing
> > new privacy friendly services etc. Essentially, make sure there are
> > alternatives that cannot be affected by whatever half-baked
> implementation
> > they try to foist on us.
>
> Tools themselves will not stop the continual foisting that always wins
> long term.
>
> Note this UK US scam has been spooling up for a wider G7 drop for a while
> now...
> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037851.html
> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-March/036940.html
> https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2017-May/037948.html
>
> The subject problem is that government is now redundant to your own better
> capabilities as human beings, now evolved and connected to the wealth of
> instant global knowledge and comms. There's no longer a need for such a
> central store of knowledge, action, and programming that, among other
> things,
> says that murder and theft are good, since now you can go online and see
> that it is plainly bad, and contribute to better together, directly.
> The solution is thus to go further this time and finally discontinue
> that old redundant system.
>
> That connectedness is a "mob rule" they speak of... more properly a
> "decentralized" mode, with voluntarist, anarchist, libertarian
> flavors, coordinated
> under realtime feedback for good... an unexpected result (to their
> geriatric
> selves and their decades expired models and thinking) of the true power
> of the Internet now arrived... a curiously interesting process taking shape
> globally... a discussion.. an exploration of alternative models, of local
> and self governance, an elimination of redundancy and inefficiency,
> reclamation and redeployment of all things ceded.
>
> So of course they want to "Digital ID" that, to censor it, balkanize,
> shape,
> track, control, criminalize, and shut it down before they themselves
> are.
>
> The fact that they've resorted to deploying worldwide surveillance,
> the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse FUD and more, spinning
> it out 24x365 nonstop now in survival mode, shows they know their
> own end is coming.
>
> Make, keep and use tools... "systems that help protect privacy and
> anonymity online... develop new privacy friendly services etc"...
> not just to hide and shield from the foisting, but to fix and learn
> new thinking, thus ending it for good.
>
> The math is simpler than crypto...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVEzdh4PMDI
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] tor-talk Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5

[Kevin Burress]

So can you tell me is WM caused by shortened telomeres and a cell not
triggering apoptosis and instead replicating rapidly? And can that be
treated by extending telomeres?

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 8:31 PM ralph applegate 
wrote:

> I am world wide authority on proof of Roundup causing Waldenstrom
> Macroglobulinemia , and nobody gives a damn !
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:15 PM,  
> wrote:
> > Send tor-talk mailing list submissions to
> > tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > tor-talk-requ...@lists.torproject.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > tor-talk-ow...@lists.torproject.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of tor-talk digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security
> >   minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end
> >   online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness online,
> >   the securit (gdfg dfgf)
> >2. Re: Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK
> >   security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in
> >   to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness
> >   online, the securit (A KA)
> >3. Re: Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK
> >   security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in
> >   to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness
> >   online, the securit (mick)
> >4. Fw:  Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK
> >   security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in
> >   to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness
> >   online, the securit (mick)
> >5. Re: Fw: Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK
> >   security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in
> >   to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness
> >   online, the securit (A KA)
> >6. Re: Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK
> >   security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in
> >   to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness
> >   online, the securit (Ben Tasker)
> >7. Re: Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK
> >   security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in
> >   to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness
> >   online, the securit (Mirimir)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:09:22 +0200
> > From: gdfg dfgf 
> > To: , "tor-talk"
> > 
> > Subject: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says
> > UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought
> in to
> > end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness
> online,
> > the securit
> > Message-ID: <20180610170922.fbf57...@net.hr>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >
> > Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister
> Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that
> permits "mob rule" and lawlessness online, the security minister has said.
> >
> >
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
> <
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 17:13:33 +0200
> > From: A KA 
> > To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> > Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online,
> > says UK security minister Ben Wallace - Digital IDs should be
> brought
> > in to end online anoymity that permits "mob rule" and lawlessness
> > online, the securit
> > Message-ID:
> >  znmrdfnol4jhojsvetuu4-6lu+mficsrx9szdvka8...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Oi mate, where is your anonymity loicense?
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 17:09 gdfg dfgf  wrote:
> >
> >> Digital IDs needed to end 'mob rule' online, says UK security minister
> Ben
> >> Wallace - Digital IDs should be brought in to end online anoymity that
> >> permits "mob rule" and lawlessness online, the security minister has
> said.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-digital-identification-mob-rule-online-security-minister-ben-wallace-a8390841.html
> >> <
> >>
> 

Re: [tor-talk] Post Quantum Tor

[Kevin Burress]

Right well I suppose I can see this as a system of routing anonymously to a
key. I was just wondering about using tor ostensibly as a network interface
module and I suppose it could be compiled as a library elf and other
applications can be made for working with certain aspects of tor and
passing structures through ipc.

On Tue, May 29, 2018, 1:51 PM grarpamp  wrote:

> >> was just looking at BGP routing over tor. I'm not sure how to do that
> with
> >> the current implementation over hidden service. I'm having a hard time
> >> working out how to use it as layer 2 and encapsulate things over the
> >> network from one hidden service to another.
> >
> > This is because Tor only provides proxying and exit services at the
> > transit layer.  You can't route arbitrary IP packets over Tor, and
> > so you can't, for example, ping or traceroute over Tor.
> >
> > https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#TransportIPnotTCP
> >
> > Hidden services, for their part, don't even identify destinations with
> > IP addresses, so there's no prospect of using IP routing protocols to
> > describe routes to them.
>
> There are ways to do that...
>
> https://www.onioncat.org/
> https://github.com/david415/onionvpn
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj4hSx6cW80
> https://itsecx.fhstp.ac.at/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/FischerOnionCat.pdf
>
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/search?q=onioncat=1=on=on
>
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/search?q=onionvpn=1=on=on
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx4rS1gvp7Y
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByRkUowW7UY
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFHD6rKX3LI
>
> Yes if you changed the /48, played with NAT, and/or added router
> services...
> you could also interface onions end to end with clearnet and things
> like CJDNS / Hyperboria if you wanted to.
>
> > There have been projects to try to make a router that would automatically
> > proxy all TCP traffic to send it through Tor by default.
>
> Packet filters, tails, whonix, tor-ramdisk, etc do essentially this
> all the time.
>
> > that they were supposed to remove linkable identifiers and behaviors.
>
> > send cookies from non-Tor sessions
>
> > continue to be highly fingerprintable.
>
> Then don't do those things.
> They're user issues, not issues of whatever anonymous overlay.
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Post Quantum Tor

[Kevin Burress]

Okay, a little more grounded, about the Utah datacenter in 2012:

"The NSA project now aims to break the "exaflop barrier" by building a
supercomputer a hundred times faster than the fastest existing today, the
Japanese "K Computer." That code-breaking system is projected to use 200
megawatts of power, about as much as would power 200,000 homes."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/16/nsas-new-data-center-and-ultra-fast-supercomputer-aim-to-crack-worlds-strongest-crypto/#3d46c8f332e0

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:53 PM, grarpamp  wrote:

> https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-warns-of-instant-breaking-
> of-encryption-by-quantum-computers-move-your-data-today/
>
> https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
> https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
> http://www.etsi.org/news-events/news/947-2015-03-news-
> etsi-launches-quantum-safe-cryptography-specification-group
> http://www.pqcrypto.org/
> https://ianix.com/pqcrypto/pqcrypto-deployment.html
> https://pqcrypto.eu.org/
> https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7210-pqchacks
> https://github.com/zcash/zcash/issues/805
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Post Quantum Tor

[Kevin Burress]

Now whether or not all of this power consumption is a coverup for the
quantum capibilities of the NSA is a matter of speculation, but the fact of
the matter is they are breaking encryption and they did spend $2 billion on
a datacenter for that sole purpose.

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Kevin Burress 
wrote:

> Okay, a little more grounded, about the Utah datacenter in 2012:
>
> "The NSA project now aims to break the "exaflop barrier" by building a
> supercomputer a hundred times faster than the fastest existing today, the
> Japanese "K Computer." That code-breaking system is projected to use 200
> megawatts of power, about as much as would power 200,000 homes."
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/16/nsas-
> new-data-center-and-ultra-fast-supercomputer-aim-to-
> crack-worlds-strongest-crypto/#3d46c8f332e0
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:53 PM, grarpamp  wrote:
>
>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-warns-of-instant-breaking-
>> of-encryption-by-quantum-computers-move-your-data-today/
>>
>> https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-cryptography
>> https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography
>> http://www.etsi.org/news-events/news/947-2015-03-news-etsi-
>> launches-quantum-safe-cryptography-specification-group
>> http://www.pqcrypto.org/
>> https://ianix.com/pqcrypto/pqcrypto-deployment.html
>> https://pqcrypto.eu.org/
>> https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7210-pqchacks
>> https://github.com/zcash/zcash/issues/805
>> --
>> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
>> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>>
>
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] Post Quantum Tor

[Kevin Burress]

S7r I generally agree with you there. There is no evidence that it has been
broken. Thus we can only go by what these agencies are saying or hinting
about their capabilities. I certainly don't think that in this case it is
required and must negotiate with post quantum cryptography, only that as a
feature a client may require that for all of their tunnels unless it is
found to be flawed.


We know that ecdsa is weak against a quantum computer, as well as rsa. The
only evidence I can provide is publicly available:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/nsa-will-not-use-quantum-computers-to-crack-bitcoin-antonopoulos

The NSA stating they could break crypto with their current tools
(specifically the weak ecdsa used for wallets) and that they won't and use
the tools for "other things" which immediately makes me think of Tor.

The only other evidence I can submit as a need to upgrade encryption in
general is the government issued that they will no longer use key lengths
below 3k rsa, and require at least 4096 for top secret information.



On Mon, May 28, 2018, 11:48 AM s7r  wrote:

> Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
> > RSA/ECDSA are both screwed.
> >
> > SPHINCS seems good.
> >
> > Post quantum asymcrypt doesn't seem generally ready yet, but hashes work.
> >
>
> You claim this based upon what evidence? Do you have any technical
> document or citation in order to sustain your claim? I am not talking
> about something you read on an anonymous blog here. Also, which RSA?
> There is limited evidence that RSA 1024 might not be sufficient with
> current existing computing power (not even evidence, more like an
> assumption), but RSA 2048 / 4096 should be sufficient. Even  for RSA
> 1024 you might need to be a real threat in order to be worth the
> resources to be spent on you.
>
> There is no evidence of ECDSA and ECDH being screwed (regardless of the
> curve used, NIST ones, cv25519, secp256k1, etc.).
>
> I understand that some might be inclined to think that everything is
> screwed, and that the NSA/CIA have the power to do anything, but there
> is no evidence to sustain such a claim. To be frank, I am very happy to
> have people like this in the community because problems might get fixed
> even before they become real problems.
>
> Everyone who correctly used encryption tools with up to date recommended
> standards were safe, the cases where it failed relied purely on human
> error, social engineering or other kind of side channel attacks. If I am
> able to spy on the passphrase of your private key (or if you have a weak
> dictionary passphrase that I can break with brute force in like 1 year)
> this does not mean I have the power to break the algorithm of your
> encryption key (RSA, ECC). Unfortunately way too many people use small,
> easy to remember passphrases (even related to their names, dates of
> birth, spouse names, pet names, etc.). A good brute force tool will take
> for example 2 years to break a relatively simple passphrase, but if fed
> with hints (names, dobs, friends, pets, places) that can be narrowed
> down exponentially to 2 months.
>
> Let's keep this discussion productive. Tor _needs_ post quantum
> resistant crypto as a _feature_, so that current traffic if captured and
> stored cannot be decrypted within reasonable time in the future. The
> time frame is variable an dependent on each case and threat model, but
> let's say like one or two decades. So, this is just an extra security
> measure Tor takes as the number one privacy tool, one that can be relied
> on.
>
> There is no evidence that quantum computers will be strong enough in 5
> or 10 years to break the current NON QUANTUM RESISTANT crypto used. At
> current moment quantum computers barely can do a square root of a two
> digit number. Also, I think it's safe to assume this type of threat is
> irrelevant if the current crypto in Tor might be broken in 100 years
> from now, because even if the subject is still alive at that moment, it
> might not matter at all.
>
> Taking the discussion just a little further, quantum computers face a
> physics problems related to time and space. A proven physics assumption
> tells us that something can only be in one place/position at a time.
> Like bits in normal computers nowadays, that can be either 0 either 1.
> Qbits have to be both at the same time. So, being a true lover of
> technology and believer, I am not stating it's impossible and it will
> never happen, but it is surely not knocking on our doors, from my opinion.
>
> Before experts struggle to answer this one, let us be productive and
> work on the proposals Nick quoted in a previous email to this thread, so
> we eliminate risk and don't have to worry if / when this becomes reality.
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe 

Re: [tor-talk] Post Quantum Tor

[Kevin Burress]

honestly, ideally it would be a lot easier to do things with tor if it
actually internally followed the unix philosophy and the layers of service
could be used as a part of the linux system and modular use of the parts. I
was just looking at BGP routing over tor. I'm not sure how to do that with
the current implementation over hidden service. I'm having a hard time
working out how to use it as layer 2 and encapsulate things over the
network from one hidden service to another. But i also understand the whole
system is not well funded. I'm glad it has progressed as far as it has
since I had first looked at all of the various deepwebs in 2007. At least
we no longer have to set up privoxy and worry about dns leakage.

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Nick Mathewson 
wrote:

> For current work on postquantum handshake support in Tor, see
> proposals 263, 269, 270, and ticket #24985.
>
> A digression:
>
> Personally, I don't agree that the evidence is so convincing about the
> NSA being able to break 256-bit ECDSA today: if they have it, then
> they'd treat it as a big secret, and not go around cagily implying
> that they had it.  When they brag publicly about their capabilities,
> they're usually not doing so on order to advertise secret advances
> that the world doesn't know about.
>
> Of course, by the same argument, we don't have much evidence that
> there *aren't* scalable quantum computers today.  If somebody has one,
> it makes sense that they would be keeping quiet about it.
>
> And even if there aren't large-scale quantum computers today, we need
> to keep in mind that any future such quantum computer would be able to
> decrypt today's traffic.
>
> So I think the sensible thing to do is to be cautious, and work under
> the assumption that we'll need to move our key exchange to a PQ
> handshake, according to something like the proposals above.
>
> cheers,
> --
> Nick
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk