Last night I reported here that the directory authorities are in
disagreement over client-versions and server-versions. Tonight they are
still in disagreement. The consensus documents still fail to list any
development branch versions later than 0.2.0.15-alpha as server-versions.
When
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
if you use a transparent proxy plus a provider proxy as parent proxy for
your TOR server, you can simply avoid that ;-) To be absolutely sure, you
can restrict the TOR output to port 80 and and use transparent http
proxying to port 80, plus a provider proxy as parent
Hi,
if you use a transparent proxy plus a provider proxy as parent proxy for
your TOR server, you can simply avoid that ;-) To be absolutely sure, you
can restrict the TOR output to port 80 and and use transparent http
proxying to port 80, plus a provider proxy as parent proxy.
I
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you use a transparent proxy plus a provider proxy as parent proxy for
your TOR server, you can simply avoid that ;-) To be absolutely sure, you
can restrict the TOR output to port 80 and and use transparent http
proxying to port 80,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Bennett wrote:
| Last night I reported here that the directory authorities are in
| disagreement over client-versions and server-versions. Tonight they are
| still in disagreement. The consensus documents still fail to list any
|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florian Reitmeir wrote:
|
| And i'm using two dozens of IP numbers in the headers of my
transparent proxy, so
| it's neither easy nor sure to find the IP number of my internet
connection.
| Another point is that logging has several flaws: The
TorOp schrieb:
And what's this about?
Jan 27 10:08:00.373 [Notice] Our IP Address has changed from
69.119.206.101 to 212.112.242.159; rebuilding descriptor.
Jan 27 10:08:01.595 [Notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is
reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing server descriptor.
Andrew wrote:
TorOp schrieb:
And what's this about?
Jan 27 10:08:00.373 [Notice] Our IP Address has changed from
69.119.206.101 to 212.112.242.159; rebuilding descriptor.
Jan 27 10:08:01.595 [Notice] Self-testing indicates your ORPort is
reachable from the outside. Excellent. Publishing
Hi,
... As dr no pointed out,
many sites log only the IP address, not any Forwarded-For or similar
headers. So while those proxies cannot be *trusted* to provide any level
of obscurity or anonymity, they *might* with luck proove to be a dead
end (or at least a serious obstacle) for
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:42:29 -0500 TorOp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just upgraded to 0.2.0.17 and didn't see an announcement of 0.2.0.18,
which I guess I'll install tonight.
Jan 27 10:07:38.882 [Warning] Please upgrade! This version of Tor
(0.2.0.17-alpha) is not recommended, according to
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:27:01 +0100 Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Bennett wrote:
| Last night I reported here that the directory authorities are in
| disagreement over client-versions and server-versions. Tonight they are
| still in disagreement. The consensus documents still
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:44:38PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 2.2K bytes in
42 lines about:
: Yes, that's what I've reported twice already on this list. Thus far,
: it appears that only Peter Palfrader has corrected the information that his
: directory authority server dishes out. The
Scott Bennett schrieb:
The latest consensus file appears to have 0.2.0.18-alpha listed as
a recommended server version, but not 0.2.0.16-alpha or 0.2.0.17-alpha,
even though it still lists 0.2.0.11-alpha, 0.2.0.12-alpha, and
0.2.0.15-alpha. Also, the individual status documents are still in
greetings!
another recurrence of the same type of unusual connection.
i include the time the server started in the log below. the connection
through 212.112.242.159 persists for a much longer period of time on
this occassion (the 'scrubbed' connection did not occur last time).
Jan 27
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:02:28PM +0100, Dominik Schaefer wrote:
Scott Bennett schrieb:
The latest consensus file appears to have 0.2.0.18-alpha listed as
a recommended server version, but not 0.2.0.16-alpha or 0.2.0.17-alpha,
even though it still lists 0.2.0.11-alpha, 0.2.0.12-alpha, and
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:42:14PM +, john smith wrote:
another recurrence of the same type of unusual connection.
i include the time the server started in the log below. the connection
through 212.112.242.159 persists for a much longer period of time on
this occassion (the 'scrubbed'
Inspired by the principle of tor, we intend to develop a distributed data base
which could maintain privacy preserving.
But I still have some questions about how does tor work, especially how does it
encrypt my data?
We know that there is an entrance node and an exit node in a path, cleartext
On Jan 27, 2008 11:08 AM, Kraktus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can add
ExcludeNodes NodeName1, NodeName2
to your torrc, where the NodeName1, etc. are the names of Chinese exit
nodes that you are aware of. However, you much disallow each Chinese
node separately; you can't exclude by country.
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:50:50 -0500 Roger Dingledine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:02:28PM +0100, Dominik Schaefer wrote:
Scott Bennett schrieb:
The latest consensus file appears to have 0.2.0.18-alpha listed as
a recommended server version, but not 0.2.0.16-alpha or
19 matches
Mail list logo
