On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:22:37PM +0100, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> Interesting, but the board hos a lot of unneded stuff (VGA, Audio).
There are several boards there. The one I mean is
http://pcengines.ch/alix2c3.htm
> Soekris 4801 is comparable but headless, both provider
Have looked it up,
On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 21:01 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 08:47:44PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > > You might or might not be aware about ALIX, the successor to WRAP.
> >
> > As far as I know, this is proprietary software. Since there are
>
> Um, did you look at the
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 08:19:26PM +, Smuggler wrote:
> Backbones etc. are excluded from the data retention laws. As well as any
Excluded by laws yet, but still monitored by TLAs. Yeah, I know,
it's not the threat model, but it still doesn't hurt to be pointed
out now and then.
What about c
Smuggler wrote:
> Backbones etc. are excluded from the data retention laws.
really? I don't find that clause in the new German TKG law. Would you
pls point me into the right direction?
> As well as any
> networks that are not available to the general public (like university
> networks as well co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:18:52PM +, Smuggler wrote:
>
>> The reason why to do this is that those nodes would not provide relaying
>> to the "public" and thus imho not fall under the various EU Data
>
> How would you argumen
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 08:47:44PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > You might or might not be aware about ALIX, the successor to WRAP.
>
> As far as I know, this is proprietary software. Since there are
Um, did you look at the link http://pcengines.ch/alix.htm that I posted earlier?
It's no
> You might or might not be aware about ALIX, the successor to WRAP.
As far as I know, this is proprietary software. Since there are
a number of Free Operating Systems available for embedded platforms[1],
I am not quite sure why you are posting this on or-talk.
> accept *:443
> reject *:*
Folks, please open port 22. 587 and 5222 would be helpful too.
Juliusz
2007/11/25, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> How would you argument in court that middleman nodes don't offer
> services to the public?
>
>
again, this works only if you forward the hop over a F2F network, all other
is not working.
-> plug in the tor system into http://retroshare.sf.net F2F
this is a good idea, see the thread to do this over f2f,
in your model this is done as well, but you need to make sure, that a
middelman-only node NEVER connects to another node, which is any other node
in the same law-country,
So the middleman-only-node connecting to another middleman-only-node i
Smuggler wrote:
>
> The reason why to do this is that those nodes would not provide relaying
> to the "public" and thus imho not fall under the various EU Data
> retention rules.
why do you expect middleman-only operation not to be a "public
telecommunication service" for the purpose of the law?
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 05:18:52PM +, Smuggler wrote:
> The reason why to do this is that those nodes would not provide relaying
> to the "public" and thus imho not fall under the various EU Data
How would you argument in court that middleman nodes don't offer
services to the public?
> ret
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I wonder if it would be a good thing to define "Middleman-Only" nodes.
Those nodes would ONLY talk to other Tor-Nodes. They will not accept
connections from non-Tor-nodes and not relay to non-Tor-nodes.
While the latter is currently configurabl
hi,
I'm curious how much my or's bandwidth is used for exit gateway. Is
there any easy way to figure out the bandwidth ratio (exit gw) / (exit
gw + middleman)?
Olaf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25/11/07 13:41, Robert Hogan wrote:
> On Sunday 25 November 2007 02:23:18 anonym wrote:
>> On 25/11/07 02:54, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> On 11/24/07, anonym <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even though we still get as much anonymity as Tor offers and
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 10:44:17AM +0100, Andrew wrote:
> Sadly, what you say is true. Precautions have to be implemented in Tor
> that no more than one node from Germany is chosen for any connection. We
> should ask tor development to implement such a feature until 12/2008,
> and have it activated
You might or might not be aware about ALIX, the successor
to WRAP. There's not a lot of RAM (256 MByte) and the AMD
Geode LX is not a very fast CPU, but it has a crypto
accelerator, which is already supported e.g. by OpenBSD
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=glxsb&sektion=4&arch=i386
an
On Sunday 25 November 2007 02:23:18 anonym wrote:
> On 25/11/07 02:54, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > On 11/24/07, anonym <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Even though we still get as much anonymity as Tor offers and netstat is
> >> wrong in some way I really do not want this to happen. Incognito uses
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:47:01 +0100
"TOR Admin (gpfTOR1)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the European Cybercrime Convention anon servers are something like
> telephone providers. The following is important because of this fact:
No they are not by the EU Convention but just in the german law!
>
just run tor on a dedecated server, install a truecrypt.org container and
make if portable only in this container.
if the power is off, the tor installation has gone.
But I guess you mean a password protection while running?
2007/11/25, TOR Admin (gpfTOR1) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi onion guys,
>
Hi onion guys,
we want to write about a few points of the European Cybercrime
Convention, which became real by law in Germany last time.
Sorry - we didnt read the or-talk very carefully last time. May be, it
was always discussed here.
By the European Cybercrime Convention anon servers are someth
21 matches
Mail list logo
