> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 15:13, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 02:52:50PM +1100, teor wrote:
>> You could also run Tor 0.2.7 or earlier, where the fingerprint is never
>> checked, as long as you use the DirPort.
>
> I don't think this is true?
>
> 1) bridge
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 02:52:50PM +1100, teor wrote:
> You could also run Tor 0.2.7 or earlier, where the fingerprint is never
> checked, as long as you use the DirPort.
I don't think this is true?
1) bridge lines in your torrc do not say a DirPort, so how would the
client accidentally try to
> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 14:50, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
> There are still some missing pieces to my theory though. The biggest one
> is: how would your Tor client proceed past the fingerprint complaint?
> That is, Tor will never get to actually fetching a bridge descriptor,
>
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 06:23:55PM -0700, David Fifield wrote:
> The claim is that if tor has already cached a descriptor with
> fingerprint 3C3A6134E4B5B7D1C18AD4E86EE23FAC63866554, then it will make
> a direct connection for the purpose of making a one-hop circuit. "it's
> about one hop tunnel
> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 13:38, teor wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 12:23, David Fifield wrote:
>>
>> Someone on #tor-project IRC reported that you can bypass your pluggable
>> transport if you use the fingerprint of an ordinary relay already known
> On 2 Nov. 2016, at 12:23, David Fifield wrote:
>
> Someone on #tor-project IRC reported that you can bypass your pluggable
> transport if you use the fingerprint of an ordinary relay already known
> to Tor in your bridge line. I would file a ticket but I haven't been
>
Someone on #tor-project IRC reported that you can bypass your pluggable
transport if you use the fingerprint of an ordinary relay already known
to Tor in your bridge line. I would file a ticket but I haven't been
able to reproduce it.
The example the IRC user gave was this, meant to be pasted
David Goulet writes:
> [ text/plain ]
> On 17 Oct (13:35:24), George Kadianakis wrote:
>> George Kadianakis writes:
>>
>> > [ text/plain ]
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > we've reached the point in prop224 development where we need to pin down
>> > the precise
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi nusenu,
should be resolved now. Turns out one of the CollecTor modules
silently died. It's back now.
If you notice similar problems in the future, be sure to let us know!
We do have a few checks in place, but this issue slipped through
Hello all,
I've updated OnionPy!
In the last 12 months, it has gotten some clean-up work and an interface
to the Django cache layer thanks to @ad-m on Github.
This apparently also marks the first serious consumer of OnionPy! Woo! [1]
Signed builds are on PyPI. [2]
OnionPy is a pure-python
10 matches
Mail list logo