On 9/3/12, adrelanos wrote:
> Nick Mathewson:
>> Failing that, torsocks is indeed a way pretty good option.
> I don't think so. It's only a hack. Doesn't work on Windows.
APT doesn't work on Windows either.
Robert Ransom
___
tails-dev mailing list
t
Nick Mathewson:
> On Sep 3, 2012 2:21 PM, "adrelanos" wrote:
>>
>> intrigeri:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Nick Mathewson wrote (30 Aug 2012 15:10:52 GMT) :
or using some kind of iptables trickery?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how doable it is to use iptables to convert HTTP proxying
>>> to SOCKS, but I'd be happ
intrigeri:
> Hi,
>
> Nick Mathewson wrote (30 Aug 2012 15:10:52 GMT) :
>> or using some kind of iptables trickery?
>
> I'm not sure how doable it is to use iptables to convert HTTP proxying
> to SOCKS, but I'd be happy to learn :)
Iptables can not translate from one protocol to another.
The clo
Hi,
Nick Mathewson wrote (30 Aug 2012 15:10:52 GMT) :
>> * Pidgin
> Not too scary, I think. You'd typically wind up with one destination
> per chat, or one per chat protocol?
Typically, per chat account.
>> * Liferea RSS feed reader
> This one is a little scary. Do I understand correctly
Hi,
Nick Mathewson wrote (29 Aug 2012 13:22:36 GMT) :
> I'd need an actual list of applications to think about
> IsolateDestAddr. Which ones did you have in mind?
Thank you for having a look.
The main network applications shipped in Tails, that would get
IsolateDestAddr according to our plan, a
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:33 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> While I'm at it, we wanted to ask whether it is reasonable for Tails
> to ship with IsolateDestAddr enabled by default (but for the web
> browser) as described in our plans, or if it is doomed to put too high
> a load on the Tor network. (Not tha
Hi,
Thank you for having had a look.
adrelanos wrote (28 Aug 2012 23:53:01 GMT) :
>> Consider Pidgin with several accounts configured for different
>> identities. If you connect with all of the accounts at the same
>> time, they'll all get the same circuit, so the identities can be
>> correlated.
Thus spake Robert Ransom (rransom.8...@gmail.com):
> On 8/28/12, adrelanos wrote:
>
> > I really think before you activate IsolateDestAddr/Port for web, Nick's
> > or Roger's option is required.
>
> Nick or Roger would say no. But they are planning to specifically
> leave those options disable
On 8/28/12, adrelanos wrote:
> I really think before you activate IsolateDestAddr/Port for web, Nick's
> or Roger's option is required.
Nick or Roger would say no. But they are planning to specifically
leave those options disabled for the web browser. (That's what
“enabled by default (but for
intrigeri:
> Hi,
>
> we are told that Tor 0.2.3.x is good enough for Tails,
> so a bunch of Tails developers have eventually spent some time
> thinking what could be the initial step towards basic usage of Tor
> stream isolation within Tails.
>
> The resulting plans are waiting to be reviewed the
intrigeri:
> While I'm at it, we wanted to ask whether it is reasonable for Tails
> to ship with IsolateDestAddr enabled by default (but for the web
> browser) as described in our plans, or if it is doomed to put too high
> a load on the Tor network. (Not that there are tht many Tails
> users,
11 matches
Mail list logo
