Anon Mus wrote:
This question is for those with the knowhow.
A while back I got a number of emails from the same source where the
emails were sent in "pairs" a minute or less apart.
The first of each of the "email pair" were large (over 700characters),
the second were small (under 50 charact
Thanks, I have some comments that may help...
Max Berger wrote:
Am Freitag, den 11.01.2008, 09:44 -0800 schrieb Anon Mus:
This question is for those with the knowhow.A while back I got a number of
emails from the same source where the emails were sent in "pairs" a minute or
less apa
Am Freitag, den 11.01.2008, 09:44 -0800 schrieb Anon Mus:
> This question is for those with the knowhow.
>
> A while back I got a number of emails from the same source where the
> emails were sent in "pairs" a minute or less apart.
>
> The first of each of the "email pair" were large (over 700ch
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:02:28PM -0600, Jon McLachlan wrote:
> (please correct me if I'm incorrect but...)
>
> if the adversary controls your entry-guard (which is nearly impossible
> to detect and considered a 'strong' adversary)
> if the adversary controls input to your tunnel (like text in a
Well, kind of. Imagine if a person constantly download a ton of data (say a
large iso for several hours). That person would be seen as "the person". So
you have to differentiate yourself from other traffic to conclusively prove
it was you. Now, a much more effective means is to go "these 10 people
On Friday 11 January 2008 22:02:52 Robert Hogan wrote:
> On Friday 11 January 2008 05:15:13 Scott Bennett wrote:
> > I'm assuming the patch is to get tsocks to do name resolution via a
> > socks proxy using 4a or 5. If that is correct, where can I get the
> > patch, please? I'm running FreeBS
(please correct me if I'm incorrect but...)
if the adversary controls your entry-guard (which is nearly impossible
to detect and considered a 'strong' adversary)
if the adversary controls input to your tunnel (like text in an email,
which is easy)
and, if you do not use end to end encryption,
On Friday 11 January 2008 05:15:13 Scott Bennett wrote:
>
> I'm assuming the patch is to get tsocks to do name resolution via a
> socks proxy using 4a or 5. If that is correct, where can I get the patch,
> please? I'm running FreeBSD 6.3-PRERELEASE, but haven't updated my ports
> tree in mont
This kind of attack is only effective over vsst amounts of time and can only
conclusively prove who you are if they are able to view all the nodes your
data travelled through.
Comrade Ringo Kamens
On Jan 11, 2008 12:44 PM, Anon Mus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This question is for those with the
This question is for those with the knowhow.
A while back I got a number of emails from the same source where the
emails were sent in "pairs" a minute or less apart.
The first of each of the "email pair" were large (over 700characters),
the second were small (under 50 characters). On the face o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Bennett escribió:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:47:23 + Robert Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Thursday 10 January 2008 17:39:54 kazaam wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I tested today Pidgin and Gajim for DNS-leaking and found that both are
>>> do
On Thu, January 10, 2008 22:47, Robert Hogan wrote:
> For the likes of Pidgin and Gaim you're better off using the patched
> version of tsocks.
true. another option would be running dns-proxy-tor as your local dns
server, it's avalaible at http://p56soo2ibjkx23xo.onion/
ciao
--
Marco Bonetti
Sla
12 matches
Mail list logo
