I agree 100%. And yet, it's still useful for those who don't have
anything to fear from using Tor, but still want the privacy and security
from the last mile.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 23:45, Duncan Guthrie wrote:
> The problem with Facebook is that their policies on real names
> somewhat goes aga
The problem with Facebook is that their policies on real names somewhat goes
against hiding from a repressive regime. Their terms and conditions mandate
that they kick people who use pseudonyms, and make fellow Facebook users rat on
each other.
If I was an activist I would be wary of using it on
On 2016-12-07 05:41, Rana wrote:
By the way, I just checked, Gmail works without problems over Tor (both Web and
IMAPS).
Using Gmail over Tor when they already know who you are is self-defeating. Try
to register an anonymous Gmail account using Tor.
Doable. They require a phone number for v
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 22:50:39 +
Alex Haydock wrote:
> Intel ME/AMT concerns me too, especially how unavoidable it seems to be
> on modern CPUs (AMD is no escape, as they have an equivalent in the form
> of their "Platform Security Processor").
On AMD that's been implemented only after "Family
On 2016-12-07 07:20, Rana wrote:
We will never know the breakdown of the Facebook users by the reason why they
use Tor. However, surely many of them are under repressive regimes and do not
want their ass kicked for what they write on Facebook. Protecting them is fine
purpose and anyhow, Tor ha
Op 07-12-16 om 23:50 schreef Alex Haydock:
AMD is no escape, as they have an equivalent in the form
of their "Platform Security Processor"
I believe[1] the Athlon 5370 that AMD released this year is without PSP.
Suits small form factors and has good performance for the mere 25 Watt
that it us
On 07/12/16 23:15, diffusae wrote
> I am totally agree with you.
>
> One alternative would be to use coreboot on your machine. If you are
> good, than you will put your kernel into the flash chip and make it
> write protected.
As far as I know, Coreboot is merely an open source BIOS replacement and
As long as CPU hardware is closed source, perfect privacy does not exist, full
stop. Conspiracy theories are futile, the probability of microcode backdoor is
1. So there is no need to "worry" about hardware blobs. There is NO way that
processors made by US chip manufacturers do NOT contain a bac
On 07.12.2016 23:50, Alex Haydock wrote:
> On 07/12/16 21:45, diffusae wrote:
>> Hmm, interesting subject ...
>>
>> On 07.12.2016 21:35, Gumby wrote:
>>> Subject seems to have changed a bit, so not hijacking it.
>>> When thinking of any exploitation of firmware - should there be concerns
>>> of
On 07/12/16 21:45, diffusae wrote:
> Hmm, interesting subject ...
>
> On 07.12.2016 21:35, Gumby wrote:
>> Subject seems to have changed a bit, so not hijacking it.
>> When thinking of any exploitation of firmware - should there be concerns
>> of Intel's Management Engine in the CPU of any relays
Which "other parts" do you mean? The GPU blob or Raspbian?
You don't need to use the stock distribution.
On 07.12.2016 23:10, Duncan Guthrie wrote:
> What I was originally getting at was that the parts of the Raspberry Pi
> that are completely proprietary - while there is a free software
> impleme
> On 8 Dec. 2016, at 01:18, myflyrybr wrote:
>
> Trying to hide exit nodes would have little effect on censorship. I believe a
> more effective approach would be just do the same the vpngate guys did to
> beat the chinese firewall. Just mix in the published list some essential or
> high popul
What I was originally getting at was that the parts of the Raspberry Pi
that are completely proprietary - while there is a free software
implementation of the GPU blob, most people don't use that, as they are
on stock Rasbian, which includes all the nasty "other parts" - are a
great possibility
Hmm, interesting subject ...
On 07.12.2016 21:35, Gumby wrote:
> Subject seems to have changed a bit, so not hijacking it.
> When thinking of any exploitation of firmware - should there be concerns
> of Intel's Management Engine in the CPU of any relays
> running on "home hardware" in any commo
Subject seems to have changed a bit, so not hijacking it.
When thinking of any exploitation of firmware - should there be concerns
of Intel's Management Engine in the CPU of any relays
running on "home hardware" in any common unused pc or laptop?
Should that be a concern on ANY newer Intel ha
> On 8 Dec. 2016, at 06:40, Univibe wrote:
>
> >> I had a thought to publish it on my relay's DirPort (using
> >> DirPortFrontPage
> >> and a simple html doc containing the public key). Then I could just
> >> provide a
> >> link to the DirPort in ContactInfo.
>
> > It's better to just use a
>> I had a thought to publish it on my relay's DirPort (using DirPortFrontPage
>> and a simple html doc containing the public key). Then I could just provide a
>> link to the DirPort in ContactInfo.
> It's better to just use a fingerprint. I don't know how efficient or useful
> that would be. It i
On 07.12.2016 01:36, Duncan Guthrie wrote:
> if some flaw was exploited in the various nasty proprietary bits that
> make up the Pi, much of the network might be compromised - due to large
> similarities across the different models, this would affect considerable
> numbers of devices. So using man
:-)
Does anyone needs a P4 with 300 Watts power supply. In idle mode it's
only 100 ...
On 07.12.2016 06:32, Rana wrote:
> I can just imagine someone panting while dragging a sub-$35 old desktop
> computer up the stairs after physically searching for it in a nearby
> junkyard. A considerable lev
You're seriously going to play the "be polite" card after this entire
thread happened? I give up.
Fuck this, unsubscribed. If you need me, I'll be hiding in my cold dark
corner.
On Dec 7, 2016 10:02 AM, "Ralph Seichter" wrote:
On 07.12.16 15:44, Tristan wrote:
> Stop it, both of you. This is
On 07.12.16 15:44, Tristan wrote:
> Stop it, both of you. This is not the place for a flame war. If this
> were a forum, the topic would be locked.
It is not a forum, it is not a flame war, and you'd do well to be a lot
more polite before you try to take the moral high ground and presume to
tell
-Original Message-
> From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf
> Of heartsucker
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 5:11 PM
> : tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Is there a reason for all exit nodes being public?
>
> As one of
Another option is sigaint which can only be accessed through TOR but can receiver mails from "clear"net.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 07. Dezember 2016 um 16:11 Uhr
Von: Rana
An: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Betreff: Re: [tor-relays] Anonymous email (was: Is there a reason for all exit nodes bei
-Original Message-
From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Syverson
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 4:34 PM
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Is there a reason for all exit nodes being public?
On Wed, Dec 07, 201
This is exactly why I use Tor.
I imagine a lot of people use Tor to bypass network restrictions, like
school/University firewalls or counties like China and Pakistan.
On Dec 7, 2016 9:11 AM, "heartsucker" wrote:
> As one of the Tor users who connects to services where I have to use my
> real na
>
>Protonmail supports receiving a verification code by email. Use a disposable
>email provider that isn't blocked to receive the code. I _just_ made a
>protonmail account to test.
>
>https://10minutemail.net/ worked for me just now.
>
>https://10minutemail.com did not work as protonmail recogniz
As one of the Tor users who connects to services where I have to use my
real name (e.g., my banks), I think it's not helpful to make assumptions
about everyone's use case. Part of why I use Tor is to keep my ISPs from
snooping on what I'm doing, and it's possible some of these millions of
facebook
Stop it, both of you. This is not the place for a flame war. If this were a
forum, the topic would be locked.
Can we just have a normal conversation and get back to what this mailing
list is actually used for?
On Dec 7, 2016 5:29 AM, "Rana" wrote:
There's an alternative interpretation but ment
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:15:55PM +0200, Rana wrote:
> >How would that work? First of all, the clients need to know which exit nodes
> >exist, so that they can build circuits. That list, as well as that of the
> >middle nodes, is public, otherwise you'd >have to manually request exits by
> >ema
I get abuse reports like that - my exit is not yet officially recognised as an
exit so is curretly seen as the source of the attack - its unlikely your server
is infected its just the traffic from your exit - especially as you using port
443 - just send standard abuse template to them if its a p
Trying to hide exit nodes would have little effect on censorship. I believe a
more effective approach would be just do the same the vpngate guys did to beat
the chinese firewall. Just mix in the published list some essential or high
popularity IPs (ex. DNS servers...) as if they were relays. Tha
Lucky me, i signed up in the early beta state and got everything for free without phone number.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 07. Dezember 2016 um 15:06 Uhr
Von: "Matt Traudt"
An: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Betreff: Re: [tor-relays] Anonymous email (was: Is there a reason for all exit nodes being pu
hey folks.
i got an abuse-information from my provider, please see details attached.
could this propably be caused by some malware on my tor exit?
Any ideas on this?
Best,
volker
https://unity.abusehq.net/share/gFraliWxA_A-0uCFJvSxAkPRxYn536JoReAkl2MNUuCq3TNWJ8f4uXJVypwWAn
On 12/7/16 08:41, Rana wrote:
Protonmail is exactly the same thing, if you want to register a free account you need to
provide your phone number. You can register "anonymously" in ProtonMail only
for paid account, and even if you are willing to pay for anonymity, you need to pay in
bitcoin w
>>> By the way, I just checked, Gmail works without problems over Tor (both Web
>>> and IMAPS).
>> Using Gmail over Tor when they already know who you are is self-defeating.
>> Try to register an anonymous Gmail account using Tor.
>Doable. They require a phone number for verification, but that's
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 02:25:03PM +0200, Rana wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:51:34AM +, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:25:59PM +0200, Rana wrote:
> >> > I mean, why aren't some exit nodes kept hidden, at least partially
> >> > and temporarily, like bridges? This
>> How would that work? First of all, the clients need to know which exit nodes
>> exist, so that they can build circuits. That list, as well as that of the
>> middle nodes, is public, otherwise you'd >have to manually request exits by
>> email/web service/… As a result you'd be limited to a few
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:51:34AM +, Matthew Finkel wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:25:59PM +0200, Rana wrote:
>> > I mean, why aren't some exit nodes kept hidden, at least partially
>> > and temporarily, like bridges? This would mitigate web services
>> > denying service to Tor users
>How would that work? First of all, the clients need to know which exit nodes
>exist, so that they can build circuits. That list, as well as that of the
>middle nodes, is public, otherwise you'd >have to manually request exits by
>email/web service/… As a result you'd be limited to a few exits,
How would that work? First of all, the clients need to know which exit
nodes exist, so that they can build circuits. That list, as well as that
of the middle nodes, is public, otherwise you'd have to manually request
exits by email/web service/… As a result you'd be limited to a few
exits, which mi
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:51:34AM +, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:25:59PM +0200, Rana wrote:
> > I mean, why aren't some exit nodes kept hidden, at least partially and
> > temporarily, like bridges? This would mitigate web services denying service
> > to Tor users (Gmail
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 01:25:59PM +0200, Rana wrote:
> I mean, why aren't some exit nodes kept hidden, at least partially and
> temporarily, like bridges? This would mitigate web services denying service
> to Tor users (Gmail is the most recent example), plus would increase
> security.
I'll simpl
There's an alternative interpretation but mentioning in reply to your message
would be... rude :-)
-Original Message-
From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Seichter
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 12:59 PM
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.
I mean, why aren't some exit nodes kept hidden, at least partially and
temporarily, like bridges? This would mitigate web services denying service
to Tor users (Gmail is the most recent example), plus would increase
security.
___
tor-relays mailing list
t
On 07.12.2016 10:56, Rana wrote:
> Calling "rude" people who, to make a point, use a bit of obvious and
> harmless humor, is rude.
Your getting on other people's nerves must *obviously* be the fault of
other people. Welcome to Trump World. :-)
-Ralph
_
Calling "rude" people who, to make a point, use a bit of obvious and harmless
humor, is rude.
-Original Message-
From: tor-relays [mailto:tor-relays-boun...@lists.torproject.org] On Behalf Of
Duncan Guthrie
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:41 AM
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
S
On 07/12/16 05:32, Rana wrote:
I can just imagine someone panting while dragging a sub-$35 old desktop
computer up the stairs after physically searching for it in a nearby junkyard.
A considerable level of destitution and a commendable commitment to the cause
of Tor would be required.
This is
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:13:54 +0200
"Rana" wrote:
> But is it possible to tell Tor on which cores to run? I mean, install a 2nd
> instance of Tor and tell it to run on the two cores not used by the first
> instance?
The Linux kernel will sort it out automatically. Deciding optimally which
programs
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:02:59 +0200
"Rana" wrote:
> >> Wow nice bandwidth you are pushing through Paul! You mean two Raspi 2's
> >> sharing an Internet connection, each relaying 27 Gbytes per day at 5.4
> >> Mbit/s on the average?? Total 10.8 Mbit/s?? Or 2.7 Mbit/s each?
> >
> > It is just 1 sin
>> Wow nice bandwidth you are pushing through Paul! You mean two Raspi 2's
>> sharing an Internet connection, each relaying 27 Gbytes per day at 5.4
>> Mbit/s on the average?? Total 10.8 Mbit/s?? Or 2.7 Mbit/s each?
>
> It is just 1 single Rasp2 - running 2 tor instances on 1 IP, details
> here
50 matches
Mail list logo
