On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Ringo<2600den...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> I still feel like there's got to be a simpler way to do this.
iptables owner match (by process uid) is simpler, both LAMP and Tor in
a single VM. restrict outbound for LAMP user processes.
lightweight appliance type virtu
Hey,
I was thinking about how to get more companies/organizations to run Tor
servers and then it hit me that maybe the expenses associated with doing
so could be taken as a tax exemption. It's hard to convince a company to
run a Tor server, but if it's in their financial interest, you might
have a
That's a good solution, but it sounds like it would take lots of
memory/cpu, especially if you're running both of these VMs from an
encrypted partition. If a serious exploit was found in Tor (or
implemented in Tor), it would still be able to break out of the main VM,
but at least it still wouldn't
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Ringo<2600den...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> One could.. run Tor inside the vm and have that torrc contain the
> instructions for the hidden service. The problem then, is that the vm
> has to access the web. ...
>
> Of course, one could always run a hidden service on t
The unsubscribe instructions are in the headers of the list emails: you have to
send to a different address
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 23:58:49 -0500
Subject: unsubscribe or-talk
From: nervcomm...@gmail.com
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
_
Hey Tor users,
My work to write a how-to manual for setting up and securing hidden
services is well underway, but I've got a question that's been getting
at me.
Obviously, hidden services are the 'most secure' when they're run inside
a virtual machine (qemu, vmware, etc. pick your poison). One co
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:10:00 +0200 Sebastian Hahn
wrote:
>On Jul 7, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>> But *which* descriptor? The last successful one? Or the one that
>> failed?
>
>They generate a new one, based on their current config options.
I think you snipped
On Jul 7, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
[snip]
But *which* descriptor? The last successful one? Or the one that
failed?
They generate a new one, based on their current config options.
BTW, thank you for looking at this so quickly. This one indeed is
much less urgent than
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:39:10 +0200 Sebastian Hahn
wrote:
>On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
>> [stuff deleted --SB]
>
>> Yes, I see your comment. However, if the decision is to go with =20=
>> making
>> the relay (not client) recognize that the authorities didn't take =
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
Yes, I see the mistake now. My apologies. I was still thinking
about
the "Last edited by" field at the top of the report. :-(
no problem at all
Okay. From Roger's comment, I wasn't su
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:51:53 +0200 Sebastian Hahn
wrote:
>On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>> I submitted tor bug report #1026 via Jon =
>> >,
>> who volunteered to post it to bugs.torproject.org for me because =20
>> that web
>> site refuses to log me in. (Should I write
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Scott,
On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
I submitted tor bug report #1026 via Jon >,
who volunteered to post it to bugs.torproject.org for me because
that web
site refuses to log me in. (Should I write up a bug report on that
13 matches
Mail list logo
