I don't really see anything wrong with it if you really want to do it. It doesn't really increase anonymity, but it sounds good to me. I'm assuming that tor2 sees the ip address of the tor 1 exit node.
I took a look at your other thread. It seems you're worried about your ISP seeing your traffic,
Sure, here is the diagram: my web browser-->privoxy-->tor1-->tor2--> internet tor1 is a Tor instance running in client mode and started using FreeCap. All of its internet connections are transparently redirected through tor2 by FreeCap, using SOCKS. tor2 is another instance of Tor running
Well, I'm fine with the network load personally but I know people get hate mail for network load.
I guess I'm a little confused as to what exactly you're trying to do. Can you possibly draw a diagram such as this:
my client-->tor-->tor loop 2 --> internet
I'm a little confused here.
As for incr
Thanks for the response. Just to clarify, I wasn't refering to routing other users circuts through the Tor network again, just the requests from a single Tor client running on my computer, and what the security implications of that would be. I don't really have any intention of routing all my Tor
I don't think re-routing users through tor is good because:
1. It increases network load
2. They could end up in a very long loop with you as the exit point several times
3. It doesn't increase anonymity (perhaps generating cover traffic would be better)
4. Why don't you have your server fetch some
Im wondering what the anonynimity implications the following:1) Running Tor using Freecap: By this I mean running a Tor client and using FreeCap to transparently redirect all of Tors network connections through a SOCKS proxy. This seems to work, and feels just like using Tor in the standa
IÂve been running an Tor server (middleman only) for a while and IÂve been wondering about using FreeCap and an account on an SSH server that has a SOCKS proxy to tunnel my Tor serverÂs connections over an SSH tunnel to the SOCKS proxy running on that SSH server. Hopefully I explained that cl
Thus spake Michael Holstein ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >The problem is that yahoo can custom-generate its links to DoubleClick
> >so they encode your email address (dunno if they do do this, but I'm
> >sure some sites and ad parters do). Therefore identifiying information
> >is sent independent of the
The problem is that yahoo can custom-generate its links to DoubleClick
so they encode your email address (dunno if they do do this, but I'm
sure some sites and ad parters do). Therefore identifiying information
is sent independent of the cookie.
Which is why one should have separate accounts cre
Thus spake Michael Holstein ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >So the problem is that a motivated adversary can subpoena or simply
> >ask DoubleClick to hand over their IP/cookie logs. If you are using
> >Tor for /everything/, then what they get from DoubleClick for that
> >email address is just a Tor IP, no
Thus spake Mike Perry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > but if you're asking whether XPCOM allows one to use a proxy on/off
> > based on a page and all its components (images, css files, js files), the
> > answer is yes.
>
> Yes, excellent. That is the property that is needed. If you use that
> level of c
The problem (as I understand the question originally asked) was that
regardless of TOR (or as you say, FoxyProxy, etc.) that sites can still
'connect' you based on analysis of traffic from multiple time periods.
Eg: doubleclick .. sites A and B have a doubleclick ad. You get the
doubleclick co
And what's more ...
If you've ever signed into your Yahoo account *even once* from a Non-TOR
IP address (including to sign up for it), it shouldn't be trusted. They
could just see what IP's you've ever touched a Yahoo site from while
authenticated, and 'fgrep -v toriplist'.
Likewise for anyw
So the problem is that a motivated adversary can subpoena or simply
ask DoubleClick to hand over their IP/cookie logs. If you are using
Tor for /everything/, then what they get from DoubleClick for that
email address is just a Tor IP, no harm no foul. However, if the user
had set up a filter that
Hi Michael,
Now that I understand I2P, perhaps you can respond to the rest of my email?
The problem you identify does not seem to be any more or less exacerbated by
FoxyProxy; the
problem, if I understand correctly, exists regardless of whether not one uses
FoxyProxy.
So when you say "If you c
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >Unique
> >identifiers can be handed to the ad sites that will associate the
> >torrified email account access with the non-torrified ad server
> >access.
>
> True, but I don't see how this is a result of FoxyProxy. IOW, doesn't
> this problem e
I was able to install a tor server in a Ubuntu VMWare player, and experienced the same problem you're having with the "Cannot bind to port 443"Here is the reason why :10. If your computer isn't running a webserver, please consider
changing your ORPort to 443 and your DirPort to 80. Many Tor
users a
Bridged will work if you have an extra IP for the VM. NAT will also
work, but you need to modify the config to make it aware of it's
external address (and configure vmware-natd to forward 80/443).
~Mike.
Landorin wrote:
Okay, I'll try that out, thanks.
I just ran into another problem: the orp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Okay, I'll try that out, thanks.
I just ran into another problem: the orport appears to be unreachable.
I really don't know how the connection works in VMWare environments.
Do I have to forward the orport to the VMWare IP or to my Windows IP?
Also, do
Michael Holstein wrote:
>> Okay, I just tried out a different orport and now the server starts
>> up. So somehow either port 443 is blocked already by something else or
>> it's because the permission is denied (since it's a blank Ubuntu I
>> guess it's the permission thing). Anything I can do about
Okay, I just tried out a different orport and now the server starts
up. So somehow either port 443 is blocked already by something else or
it's because the permission is denied (since it's a blank Ubuntu I
guess it's the permission thing). Anything I can do about it?
"netstat -apn |grep 443" (as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Okay, I just tried out a different orport and now the server starts
up. So somehow either port 443 is blocked already by something else or
it's because the permission is denied (since it's a blank Ubuntu I
guess it's the permission thing). Anything I
Forgive my ignorance. What is I2P?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2p
I believe so, I always run it with sudo
That should solve the permission issue in binding to a prviledged port.
"Could not bind to port 443: Permission denied
Do "netstat -apn |grep 443" and see if something else is already
listening there. You might have installed apache-ssl or some such,
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Landorin wrote:
> it displays this:
> Apr 27 12:25:49.739 [notice] Tor v0.1.0.17. This is experimental
> software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity.
>
> But that's the only line I get. if I stop the server it claims the
> process isn't running.
> If I put a comment symb
Hi Mike,
>The I2P folks are very vocal against doing
>exactly this for .i2p addresses.
Forgive my ignorance. What is I2P?
>Unique
>identifiers can be handed to the ad sites that will associate the
>torrified email account access with the non-torrified ad server
>access.
True, but I don't see h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
@Michael:
I believe so, I always run it with sudo (for some unknown reason, I
can't logon with the root user in this VMWare Ubuntu). I did change
the config file to bind the orport to 443.
@Alex:
Thanks, I thought the log only logs what it showed me
But that's the only line I get. if I stop the server it claims the
process isn't running.
Since I assume you're still doing this as an unprivileged user, what do
you have defined as your DirPort and OrPort? (hint .. if they're below
1023 .. it won't work unless you're root).
~Mike.
Landorin wrote:
Apr 27 12:25:49.739 [notice] Tor v0.1.0.17. This is experimental
software. Do not rely on it for strong anonymity.
But that's the only line I get. if I stop the server it claims the
process isn't running.
Check the logfiles under /var/log for a hint.
/var/log/daemon && /var/lo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Good advice, I did some research and finally got it almost working.
My only problem now is when I type in the following:
sudo etc/init.d/tor start
it displays this:
Apr 27 12:25:49.739 [notice] Tor v0.1.0.17. This is experimental
software. Do no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi
You must become superuser (su root) or use sudo to install packages.
Maybe you should read some basic Debian / Linux docs?
man sudo
man su
M
Landorin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone help me with getting this set up? I'm a linux newbie and the
> com
Hi,
Can anyone help me with getting this set up? I'm a linux newbie and the
commands such as "deb" described in the linux setup tor guide don't seem
to work in my Ubuntu breezy 5.10 vmware image.
Using apt-get install tor says something like (translated from German):
"couldn't open lock file /var/
32 matches
Mail list logo
