Hi,
Jacob Appelbaum wrote (14 Feb 2016 13:46:45 GMT) :
> I was specifically replying to this bit:
>>> A conservative change to the tails config would be to keep an RELATED
>>> rule but limit it to known good ICMP messages.
Thanks for explaining. Now I'm lost and still don't understand if your
co
On 2/14/16, intrigeri wrote:
> Jacob Appelbaum wrote (14 Feb 2016 13:04:58 GMT) :
>> I feel a bit sad to see this rehashed. Please just drop all packets on
>> the floor?
>
>> People who use Tails and expect it to keep them safely torified are
>> likely still vulnerable to things we wrote in our pa
Jacob Appelbaum wrote (14 Feb 2016 13:04:58 GMT) :
> I feel a bit sad to see this rehashed. Please just drop all packets on
> the floor?
> People who use Tails and expect it to keep them safely torified are
> likely still vulnerable to things we wrote in our paper (vpwned).
> Allowing users by def
On 2/12/16, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jurre van Bergen wrote (11 Feb 2016 16:46:47 GMT) :
>> Forwarding e-mail.
>
> Thanks :)
>
>> Date:Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:28:35 +0100
>> From:Cornelius Diekmann
>
>> A conservative change to the tails config would be to keep an RELATED
>> rule bu
Hi,
Jurre van Bergen wrote (11 Feb 2016 16:46:47 GMT) :
> Forwarding e-mail.
Thanks :)
> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:28:35 +0100
> From: Cornelius Diekmann
> A conservative change to the tails config would be to keep an RELATED
> rule but limit it to known good ICMP messages.
Ye
Forwarding e-mail.
Forwarded Message
Subject:Re: Fwd: Re: [Tails-dev] Reducing attack surface of kernel and
tightening firewall/sysctls
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:28:35 +0100
From: Cornelius Diekmann
To: Jurre van Bergen
Hi Jurre,
On 11.02.2016 01:24, Jurre
