Re: or-talk list migration Feb 19, 2011

A final reminder that this migration occurs today. On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:35:14 -0500 Andrew Lewman wrote: > A reminder that this migration occurs this week. > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:05:03 -0500 > Andrew Lewman wrote: > > > Hello or-talk subscribers, > > > > On February 19, 2011, we are mi

Re: Where is vidalia config file?.MacOSX.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:52:57AM -0800, luis_a_mace...@yahoo.com wrote 0.9K bytes in 17 lines about: : I compiled/installed vidalia-0.2.10 from sources but I cannot find the vidalia configuration file(on Linux vidalia.conf) so I can change some things not available from the vidalia GUI interfa

Re: Where is vidalia config file?.MacOSX.

Assuming you have it installed in the normal location, it is at /Applications/Vidalia.app/Contents/Resources/vidalia.conf. If you have any questions about how to get there, feel free to message me. All the best, Joel Knighton On Friday, February 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Luis Maceira wrote: I comp

Re: Undeletable cookies

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 04:39:39 -0800 Mike Perry wrote: > Thus spake Irratar (irrata...@gmail.com): > > > Hello. > > > > I have just found a site that can recognize me when I re-accessed it > > after I deleted all private data, toggled Torbutton and restarte

Re: Undeletable cookies

Thus spake Irratar (irrata...@gmail.com): > Hello. > > I have just found a site that can recognize me when I re-accessed it > after I deleted all private data, toggled Torbutton and restarted Tor. > > http://samy.pl/evercookie/ This is news to me. Are you using the default

Re: Undeletable cookies

On 2011-02-18 Irratar wrote: > I have just found a site that can recognize me when I re-accessed it > after I deleted all private data, toggled Torbutton and restarted Tor. > > http://samy.pl/evercookie/ > > Of course, it isn't a Tor problem, but I think it's better

Re: Contacted by "oompaloompa" operator: BadExit removed

Thus spake t...@lists.grepular.com (t...@lists.grepular.com): > On 16/02/2011 05:10, Mike Perry wrote: > > > I was contacted by the operator of oompaloompa. He has changed the > > exit policy of his two nodes to the "Reduced" policy: > > http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_detail.php?FP=775df6b8

Re: Contacted by "oompaloompa" operator: BadExit removed

On 16/02/2011 05:10, Mike Perry wrote: > I was contacted by the operator of oompaloompa. He has changed the > exit policy of his two nodes to the "Reduced" policy: > http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_detail.php?FP=775df6b8cf3fb0150a594f6e2b5cb1e0ac45d09b > http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/router_d

Re: Scroogle and Tor

On Tuesday 15 February 2011 05:20:21 Mike Perry wrote: > > I was under the impression that we hacked it to also be memory-only, > though. But you're right, if I toggle Torbutton to clear my cache, > Polipo's is still there... The polipo shipped in the tor bundles has the cache turned off, but any

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Monday 14 February 2011 18:11:42 Dave U. Random wrote: > SHUT UP EELBASH! I'm not eelbash, nor do I know who eelbash is (I've heard rumors that eelbash is wormcast, but I don't remember what that was about, it was years ago).

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

enough. The same logic applies to nearly any volunteer or community service situation you could get yourself into. You wouldn't be allowed to re-arrange books at a library without explaining yourself, just as you shouldn't expect to run a broken- or malicious-looking Tor node without

Re: Please Badexit:

2011/2/15 Mike Perry : > I think you've become a troll. Sorry 'bout it, man. I think you just noticed in the mirror, how irrational your decision to BadExit gatereloaded et al. was. Thank you! morphium *** To unsubscribe, send an

Re: Please Badexit:

Thus spake morphium (morph...@morphium.info): > 2011/2/15 Mike Perry : > >> please BadExit the following nodes (for the same reason you badexit'ed > >> gatereloaded et al. - no valid contact info, they didn't explain their > >> exit policy to us, I suspect they are sniffing unencrypted Exit > >> t

Re: Please Badexit:

2011/2/15 Mike Perry : > Thus spake morphium (morph...@morphium.info): > >> Hi, >> >> please BadExit the following nodes (for the same reason you badexit'ed >> gatereloaded et al. - no valid contact info, they didn't explain their >> exit policy to us, I suspect they are sniffing unencrypted Exit >

Re: Please Badexit:

Thus spake morphium (morph...@morphium.info): > Hi, > > please BadExit the following nodes (for the same reason you badexit'ed > gatereloaded et al. - no valid contact info, they didn't explain their > exit policy to us, I suspect they are sniffing unencrypted Exit > traffic): > > TORy0 - 753e0b

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

2011/2/14 Julie C : > If this BadExit policy is being > made up ad-hoc, that's fine by me. If the offending Tor node operators want > to stand up and defend themselves, or their choices, that's fine too. So, I as a Tor Node Operator now have to defend myself, because it's a priviledge to run a Tor

Re: Scroogle and Tor

Thus spake Robert Ransom (rransom.8...@gmail.com): > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:19:50 -0800 > Mike Perry wrote: > > > 2. Storing identifiers in the cache > > > > http://crypto.stanford.edu/sameorigin/safecachetest.html has some PoC > > of this. Torbutton protects against long-term cache identifiers

Re: Scroogle and Tor

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:19:50 -0800 Mike Perry wrote: > 2. Storing identifiers in the cache > > http://crypto.stanford.edu/sameorigin/safecachetest.html has some PoC > of this. Torbutton protects against long-term cache identifiers, but > for performance reasons the memory cache is enabled by def

Re: Scroogle and Tor

Thus spake scroo...@lavabit.com (scroo...@lavabit.com): > My efforts to counter abuse occasionally cause some > programmers to consider using Tor to get Scroogle's > results. About a year ago I began requiring any and all > Tor searches at Scroogle to use SSL. Using SSL is always > a good idea, bu

Re: Scroogle and Tor

On 02/14/2011 06:29 PM, scroo...@lavabit.com wrote: > Some have wondered why anyone would want to abuse Scroogle > using Tor. Apart from some malicious types that may be > doing it for their own amusement, it looks to me like they > are trying to datamine Google -- arguably the largest, > most dive

Re: Scroogle and Tor

Some have wondered why anyone would want to abuse Scroogle using Tor. Apart from some malicious types that may be doing it for their own amusement, it looks to me like they are trying to datamine Google -- arguably the largest, most diverse database on the planet. If you can manage to run a script

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

companion port to 119 ?  How about 6667 ? > > Since these ports, like 25, have no "standard" companion (like 80/443 > typically does) what collection of encrypted ports need to be maintained to > balance out running 199/6667 ? > > Come on people - I thought there would b

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On 2011-02-14 John Case wrote: > Where's the answer to this ? I chose edge-case scenarios above, for > sure, but this is the real meat of the implementation of your plans, > and I'd like to know if you've given any thought to this whatsoever. > > What _is_ the "proper" corresponding open port for

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

80/443 typically does) what collection of encrypted ports need to be maintained to balance out running 199/6667 ? Come on people - I thought there would be quick answers to all of this... RE: clearer perspective - it's easy to have a clear perspective when you discount

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Monday 14 February 2011 14:17:45 Aplin, Justin M wrote: > However, I see no reason why providing an anonymous contact email would > be so hard. Certainly if you're going out of your way to avoid [insert > conspiracy of choice] in order to run a node, you have the skills to use > one of the hundr

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On 2/14/2011 7:48 AM, grarpamp wrote: [snip] If another example is needed, not that one is; Corporate, edu and other LAN's sometimes think they can block 'ooo, encryption bad' ports so they can watch their user's plaintext URL's with their substandard vendor nanny watch tool of the day. All the w

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 17:41 +, John Case wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Ted Smith wrote: > > > Sorry, but this has been a long thread and I want to try to make > sure I > > understand something important. > > > > Is it true or false that traffic was actually exiting through > > gatereloaded et

Re: dir-spec.txt and directory-signature entries

On 2011-02-14 19:46, Nick Mathewson wrote: >> >> Does that mean "The hash from the network-status-version entry to the >> *first* directory-signature entry including a SP"? > > It means everything beginning with the string "network-status-version" > and ending with the first string "directory-s

Re: dir-spec.txt and directory-signature entries

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:41 PM, J wrote: > The final entries in a consensus document are a number of directory- > signature entries. > > dir-spec.txt says: > > > >  "directory-signature" SP identity SP signing-key-digest NL Signature > >        This is a signature of the status document, with th

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

I suppose the anarchist genes in me are not strong enough. I have to agree with Mike Perry's arguments, given his credibility, and his clearer perspective than most of the rest of us. If this BadExit policy is being made up ad-hoc, that's fine by me. If the offending Tor node operators want to stan

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, John Case wrote: I was not aware that "the plan" had evolved into a 1:1 mapping between ports you usually use in cleartext and ports you usually use enciphered. So, if my exit has TCP 19 open ... what will you accept as a suitably secure chargen ? What about 37 ? I don

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, morphium wrote: Sure, dude. Since you've read everything that was said, I take it you're volunteering to contact the other node operators and ask them to give reasons for why they chose their exit policy? So please BadExit all nodes without contact email, if they don't ex

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Ted Smith wrote: Sorry, but this has been a long thread and I want to try to make sure I understand something important. Is it true or false that traffic was actually exiting through gatereloaded et all? I recall seeing that those nodes weren't marked as exits in the cons

Re: Problem with downloading attachments in torbrowser for osx

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Mike Perry wrote: > > It sounds like you're describing a problem that only you have. Usually > when this happens, it is because of a Firefox addon conflict. You can > try a couple of things: > > 1. Use Tor Browser Bundle: > https://www.torproject.org/projects/tor

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 14:41 +0100, morphium wrote: > So, with everything said, could we now please Un-BadExit the nodes > that were affected? > Sorry, but this has been a long thread and I want to try to make sure I understand something important. Is it true or false that traffic was actually ex

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

> Sure, dude. Since you've read everything that was said, I take it > you're volunteering to contact the other node operators and ask them > to give reasons for why they chose their exit policy? So please BadExit all nodes without contact email, if they don't explain why they chose the default exi

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

> the whole discussion didn't change my mind. I still support the idea of > flagging them as bad exit. Same. Mike gave some good reasons for flagging them weeks ago and I've yet to see much else besides ranting that seems to ignore most of this thread. -Damian *

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

Am 14.02.2011 14:41, schrieb morphium: > So, with everything said, could we now please Un-BadExit the nodes > that were affected? the whole discussion didn't change my mind. I still support the idea of flagging them as bad exit. regards Olaf ***

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

Thus spake morphium (morph...@morphium.info): > So, with everything said, could we now please Un-BadExit the nodes > that were affected? Sure, dude. Since you've read everything that was said, I take it you're volunteering to contact the other node operators and ask them to give reasons for why t

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

So, with everything said, could we now please Un-BadExit the nodes that were affected? Thanks! morphium *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul.o

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

> I never made the claim this was safer. Of course, not quoted as such. Plaintext anywhere is risky. Yet this entire thread is about sniffing. How plaintext-only exits somehow equate to sniffing. And how badexiting plaintext-only exits somehow equates to reducing that risk. Both are weak premises.

Re: Scroogle and Tor

scroo...@lavabit.com wrote: I've been fighting two different Tor users for a week. Each is apparently having a good time trying to see how quickly they can get results from Scroogle searches via Tor exit nodes. [snip] As the person who (recently) raised the question about the availability of

Re: Scroogle and Tor

Thus spake Matthew (pump...@cotse.net): > On 13/02/11 19:09, scroo...@lavabit.com wrote: > >I've been fighting two different Tor users for a week. Each is > >apparently having a good time trying to see how quickly they > >can get results from Scroogle searches via Tor exit nodes. > >The fastest I'

Re: Scroogle and Tor

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote: > I've talked to a few services that do one of the following: > > - Run a Tor exit enclave, which would only allow exit through Tor to >  your webservers.  There are a few services that run a tor client and >  simply block every IP in the conse

Re: or-talk list migration Feb 19, 2011

A reminder that this migration occurs this week. On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:05:03 -0500 Andrew Lewman wrote: > Hello or-talk subscribers, > > On February 19, 2011, we are migrating or-talk from or-t...@seul.org > to tor-t...@lists.torproject.org. We will migrate your e-mail > address's subscriptio

Re: Scroogle and Tor

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:09:56 -0500 (EST) scroo...@lavabit.com wrote: > I've been fighting two different Tor users for a week. Each is > apparently having a good time trying to see how quickly they > can get results from Scroogle searches via Tor exit nodes. I've talked to a few services that do o

Re: Scroogle and Tor

> Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > As far as performance goes, you can download a list of nodes which can > reach a particular address at > https://check.torproject.org/cgi-bin/TorBulkExitList.py?ip=1.2.3.4 > but, these results have the same problem with omitted nodes that I > mentioned. That's the torp

Re: Sent e-mails going into spam folders.

On 13/02/11 21:03, Karsten N. wrote: Am 13.02.2011 00:54, schrieb Matthew: Incidentally, in http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/ gpfTOR4 is listed as being in the Czech Republic while gpfTOR5 and gpfTOR6 are in Netherlands. Is this correct? Yes, coorect. In the last years we see much less trouble

Re: Scroogle and Tor

On 13/02/11 19:09, scroo...@lavabit.com wrote: I've been fighting two different Tor users for a week. Each is apparently having a good time trying to see how quickly they can get results from Scroogle searches via Tor exit nodes. The fastest I've seen is about two per second. Since Tor users ar

Re: Sent e-mails going into spam folders.

Am 13.02.2011 00:54, schrieb Matthew: > Incidentally, in http://torstatus.blutmagie.de/ gpfTOR4 is listed as > being in the Czech Republic while gpfTOR5 and gpfTOR6 are in > Netherlands. Is this correct? Yes, coorect. In the last years we see much less trouble by using non-German ISPs for our To

Re: Scroogle and Tor

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:09 PM, wrote: [snip] > I'm getting to the point where I'm tempted to offer my two > exit node lists (yesterday plus today, and previous six days > plus today) to the public. If I had more confidence in the > lists currently available to the public, I wouldn't be > tempte

Re: Yet another UDP / DNS quiestion...

On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 11:04 -0800, Robert Ransom wrote: > That's a process ID, not a user ID. Arrrgh! My brain is slowly melting. I think what I will do now is to give up on Tor and attempts to understand it. I will explore more how to properly and effectively use Linux. Then I shall delve some mo

Re: Yet another UDP / DNS quiestion...

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:50:19 + Tomasz Moskal wrote: > > I wonder why your uid should be different everytime you reboot, but you > > can also use the name of the user instead of the numerical value. > > > Well I can't tell you why but that how it is. To double check I rebooted > twice just no

Re: Yet another UDP / DNS quiestion...

> Could you describe your use case + thread model? I'm terrible sorry for chaos I'm causing but right now I'm a very small and confused person :-) Let me start from the beginning... I'm using Privoxy + Tor combination. For Privoxy to properly handle TCP/HTTP requests and send them over Tor networ

Re: Yet another UDP / DNS quiestion...

On 02/13/2011 05:21 PM, Tomasz Moskal wrote: > OK, so to wrap it all up last (hopefully!) couple of questions... > > iptables script/rules set: > > #!/bin/sh > > # the UID Tor runs as > TOR_UID="109" > > iptables -F > iptables -t nat -F > > # Redirects DNS traffic to the local port 53 > iptabl

Re: Excluding exit nodes

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Tomasz Moskal wrote: [snip] > Would you recommend using not Tor connection when one is forced to use > unencrypted protocols? I think I'm safer using Tor even with unencrypted > traffic that using "regular" connection but again I can be gravely wrong > here. What

Re: Excluding exit nodes

On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 11:17 -0500, Aplin, Justin M wrote: > I think it's worth mentioning that as an end-user you might be focusing > on the wrong issues here. While there *may* be some nodes (exactly which > is perpetually unknown) that record unencrypted traffic, it's more > important to make

Re: Yet another UDP / DNS quiestion...

On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 15:41 +0100, tagnaq wrote: > On 02/13/2011 03:20 PM, Tomasz Moskal wrote: > > Do I have to use AutomapHostsOnResolve 1 as well? Seems to be pointless > > without defining AutomapHostsSuffixes. > > No it is not pointless because also if you do not use > AutomapHostsSuffixes in

Re: Excluding exit nodes

On 2/13/2011 10:19 AM, Tomasz Moskal wrote: [snip] How someone can recognise if an exit node *might* be doing something suspicious - like sniffing traffic for passwords? As far as I can tell (with my limited knowledge that is!) it's by checking which ports the node in question is making available

Re: Excluding exit nodes

On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 17:07 +0100, tagnaq wrote: > https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#KeyManagement > (Coordination section) > > General Design Document: > https://www.torproject.org/docs/documentation.html.en#DesignDoc > https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.htm

Re: Excluding exit nodes

On 02/13/2011 04:19 PM, Tomasz Moskal wrote: > Now I'm even more confused! What is "DirectoryAuthorities"? > Could you point me somewhere I can > find more informations about matters relating to exit nodes? https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#KeyManagement (Coordination section) General D

Re: Excluding exit nodes

On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 15:51 +0100, tagnaq wrote: > No you do not need to exclude them because your client will not use > nodes with the BadExit flag as an exit node anyway. The torstatus > website does not flag them, it just shows you that they have this flag > because the DirectoryAuthorities flag

Re: Excluding exit nodes

On 02/13/2011 03:43 PM, Tomasz Moskal wrote: > Now, it's a little bit confusing for a novice, let me explain why. > People both on this mailing list and else where on the Internet are > often referring to excluding "bad/evil" exit nodes (I'm aware that it's > a bit ambiguous concept) and yet there

Re: Yet another UDP / DNS quiestion...

On 02/13/2011 03:20 PM, Tomasz Moskal wrote: > Do I have to use AutomapHostsOnResolve 1 as well? Seems to be pointless > without defining AutomapHostsSuffixes. No it is not pointless because also if you do not use AutomapHostsSuffixes in your config ".exit" and ".onion" are AutomapHostsSuffixes pe

Re: Yet another UDP / DNS quiestion...

> Yes if you redirect DNS requests to Tor's DNSPort you should be safe > against DNS leaks. Do I have to use AutomapHostsOnResolve 1 as well? Seems to be pointless without defining AutomapHostsSuffixes. > I guess you are talking about a local setup without a "middlebox" > involved. If my assumpti

Re: "Cookie Mismatch" when using Gmail.

Thus spake Matthew (pump...@cotse.net): > >>extensions.torbutton.regen_google_cookies;false > >>extensions.torbutton.reset_google_cookies;false > >>extensions.torbutton.xfer_google_cookies;true > >Try changing this last setting > >(extensions.torbutton.xfer_google_cookies) to false. It is designed

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Gregory Maxwell wrote: So back to the case in question: We must look at the cost of excluding an infinitesimal piece of flexibility (the conceivable uses of four non-exit flagged exit nodes, is I believe what this policy would impact today), vs a tiny piece of social policy

Re: Sent e-mails going into spam folders.

On 09/02/11 09:06, Karsten N. wrote: Am 07.02.2011 20:00, schrieb Matthew: I am wondering to what degree people on this list have problems with e-mails going into spam folders because they are using tor nodes. Many Tor nodes are listet in some anti-spam DNSBL. We have had a discussion here ab

Re: Yet another UDP / DNS quiestion...

On 02/12/2011 05:30 AM, Tomasz Moskal wrote: > I was reading Transparently Routing Traffic Through Tor > > and although I don't need to run Tor as transparent proxy I like the > idea of routing the UDP/DNS requests to

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:35 PM, John Case wrote: > That's fair. > > Instead of stressing the boundless set of "pros", I will discuss a single, > specific "pro", and that is the idea that open, arbitrary systems provide a > foundation upon which to build surprising and unexpected combinations. > >

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Andrew Lewman wrote: In my opinion, judging a relay based on exit policy is a slippery slope we don't want to go down. We never claim to make using Tor alone safer than using the Internet at large. Whether the creep is at Starbucks sniffing the wifi or running a relay is

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

Hi Geoff, On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Geoff Down wrote: There are a small number of easily identifiable "cons" to letting an exit run like this, and there are an unlimited number of unknown "pros" to letting an exit run like this. You should know this. Leaving aside the original question of whethe

Re: Tor raid [was: "cease and desist" from my vps provider...]

Il 07/02/2011 09:47, Marco Predicatori ha scritto: > morphium, on 02/04/2011 03:08 PM, wrote: > >> Oh and yes, they took only my hardware @ home, not the Server in >> the data center that actually DID run Tor and that the "bad" IP >> belonged to. > That's interesting, because it means that running

Re: I wish to see one video on you tube

Il 12/02/2011 15:32, Karsten N. ha scritto: > Am 12.02.2011 13:27, schrieb Martino Papesso: >>> I say MAY because if they use flash to check your location, sidestepping >>> tor, then you will get the same restricted message. > If you location was checked with Flash you can use a proxifier like > P

Re: I wish to see one video on you tube

Am 12.02.2011 13:27, schrieb Martino Papesso: >> I say MAY because if they use flash to check your location, sidestepping >> tor, then you will get the same restricted message. If you location was checked with Flash you can use a proxifier like ProxyCap or Widecap to redirect all traffic from the

Re: Problem with downloading attachments in torbrowser for osx

Thus spake M (moeedsa...@gmail.com): > > It would be helpful if you can add information such as your > > - Operating system version > > - Tor version > > - Polipo or Privoxy version > > - Torbutton version > > - Firefox version > > - Torbrowser or Vidalia bundle version. > > ok It sounds like yo

Re: I wish to see one video on you tube

Il 08/02/2011 23:08, Praedor Atrebates ha scritto: > The video is from Silent Hill 2 OST. You MAY be able to play it if 1) you > enable flash in your firefox browser and 2) you select an exit from a country > not restricted (like Romania). I say MAY because if they use flash to check > your lo

Re: Can't Contact Scroogle

On 2011-02-12 11:01, Jim wrote: > I currently cannot reach https://ssl.scroogle.org:443/ via Tor. Me too. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seu

Re: Problem with downloading attachments in torbrowser for osx

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:40 AM, M wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:48 AM, krishna e bera wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 06:23:12AM +, M wrote: >> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:57 AM, krishna e bera >> wrote: >> > And what about this (and also the link provided by Roger: https:// >

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:30:20 -0500 Andrew Lewman wrote: >In my opinion, judging a relay based on exit policy is a slippery slope >we don't want to go down. We never claim to make using Tor alone safer >than using the Internet at large. Whether the creep is at Starbucks >sniffing the wifi or

Re: Problem with downloading attachments in torbrowser for osx

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:57 AM, krishna e bera wrote: > Bugs tend to get fixed faster and/or more efficiently > when they are entered into the bug tracking system. > I copied this email into a new one at > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/2542 > thanks > > It would be helpful i

Re: Problem with downloading attachments in torbrowser for osx

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 05:08:17AM +, M wrote: > > I thought i would bring this to the attention of those concerned in case > > they already did not know. I am still unable to download any attachments, > > whether yahoo or gmail, when

Re: Problem with downloading attachments in torbrowser for osx

Bugs tend to get fixed faster and/or more efficiently when they are entered into the bug tracking system. I copied this email into a new one at https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/2542 It would be helpful if you can add information such as your - Operating system version - Tor version

Re: Problem with downloading attachments in torbrowser for osx

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 05:08:17AM +, M wrote: > I thought i would bring this to the attention of those concerned in case > they already did not know. I am still unable to download any attachments, > whether yahoo or gmail, when running tor. The message which appears is > > "[JavaScript Appli

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:44 +, "John Case" wrote: > There are a small number of easily identifiable "cons" to letting an exit > run like this, and there are an unlimited number of unknown "pros" to > letting an exit run like this. You should know this. Leaving aside the original questio

Re: Macports tor broken?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:25:51 +0100, Jerzy Łogiewa wrote: > Updated my ports and see this: Maybe you can give a try to the Homebrew [1] package manager. [1]: http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/ -- Nicolas Pouillard *** To unsubscr

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 01:47:45 -0500 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Why are you not outraged about the hundreds and hundreds of bridge > operators who are getting no use _at all_ because their identities are > being held in reserve in order to build up decent pools of bridges for > use with differentiate

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

Hello Gregory, On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Gregory Maxwell wrote: As far as I can tell this is a completely spurious strawman argument. Where is this person with a legitimate reason why they can allow :80 and not :443? What is their reason? I am trying to suggest two things here: 1) We cannot kn

Re: Feedback and Suspicions about Tor...

> You may like: As I look through them, I think I've found at least one answer with these so far. Thanks. *** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talkin the body. http://archives.seul

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:58 AM, John Case wrote: > > I think these reasons should be worked around or ignored. > > I think you, and others on that side of this argument have a very, very > myopic view of the constraints and non-technical decisions that go into > running a particular node - exit

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:58 AM, John Case wrote: > No, there is no _technical_ reason to operate an exit in this fashion. There > is no reason, from a myopic, borderline autistic view of the externalities > involved, to run an exit in this fashion. > > However, I can think of many, many reasons t

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Mike Perry wrote: Exit policy is currently at the operator's pleasure, need and design. If exit policy mandates will help solve some Tor scalability or attack vector issues, in a substantive way, from an engineering standpoint, fine. But please, don't claim it makes users a

Re: advice on using accounting...

On Thursday 10 February 2011 21:02:15 Aplin, Justin M wrote: > I've been meaning to ask about this for awhile. Is it more helpful to > the network to have (using this example) a node running at 100KB/s for > 12 h/d, or limit it to 50KB/s and have it run 24/7? At what point does > speed outweigh upt

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

Thus spake grarpamp (grarp...@gmail.com): > Exit policy is currently at the operator's pleasure, need and design. > If exit policy mandates will help solve some Tor scalability or > attack vector issues, in a substantive way, from an engineering > standpoint, fine. But please, don't claim it make

Re: advice on using accounting...

On 2/10/2011 6:34 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 06:19:27PM -0500, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: I run a no-exit relay that can sustain about a hundred KB/s but I need to limit to about 4 GB/day to stay under bandwidth caps. I have accounting set up but what happens now is that

Re: advice on using accounting...

Thanks, Roger! I appreciate the clarification... if there is an effort to write a "relay operator's manual" I'd contribute to that. I've had a series of questions like this that could be answered by something less intense than having to look at the C/specs but more detailed than the current manual

Re: advice on using accounting...

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 06:19:27PM -0500, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > I run a no-exit relay that can sustain about a hundred KB/s but I need > to limit to about 4 GB/day to stay under bandwidth caps. I have > accounting set up but what happens now is that it blows through that > in 12 hours and th

Re: Feedback and Suspicions about Tor...

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 05:34:51PM -0500, grarpamp wrote: > Tor seems to be doing a good job indicating the usefulness and > application of anonymity to a wide variety of potential users. > Moreso than before. But it does hesitate from suggesting that it > can be used as a check and balance within

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

Been a fencesitter on this since posting the note about recording traffic that helped send this thread over the top. For once, I'm in agreement with Scott :) (and others) Badexiting based on exit policy seems rather silly as it will prevent nothing. And because of that, doing so is security theatr

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 23:23:55 -0800 Mike Perry wrote: >Thus spake Eddie Cornejo (corn...@gmail.com): > >> > I believe that allowing these nodes sends a message that we are OK >> > with people monitoring plaintext traffic, because it is anonymized. We >> > have never been OK with this. >>=20 >>

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >