On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:52 AM, Fernan Bolando wrote:
Thanks, Actually openbsd seems to defaults this to
ReachableAddresses *:80,*:443
Did you (or does openbsd) set the FascistFirewall option
by chance?
How did you learn that openbsd defaults to
ReachableAddresses *:80,*:443?
Thanks
Sebastian
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Sebastian Hahn m...@sebastianhahn.net wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:52 AM, Fernan Bolando wrote:
Thanks, Actually openbsd seems to defaults this to
ReachableAddresses *:80,*:443
Did you (or does openbsd) set the FascistFirewall option
by chance?
How did you
hi there,
just for your entertainment here are the IOS interface stats for the
Debian box hosting the four blutmagie Tor routers. I'll try to
maintain Tor support after leaving my current employer this summer.
regards Olaf
foobar#show interfaces gi 9/9 counters
PortInOctets
- Original Message -
From: tagnaq tag...@gmail.com
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] SMTP POP3 Email over Tor.. Anonymity breaking?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/02/2011 06:55 PM, Anon Mus wrote:
On Thursday 2 June, 2011 17:04:27 Martin Fick wrote:
--- On Thu, 6/2/11, cac...@quantum-sci.com cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
I looked at containers in depth. They are simply not
secure.
Could you be more specific?
It's been a long time since I looked into this, but I came across some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/03/2011 03:03 PM, Anon Mus wrote:
Great thats just what I wanted.
Also if these few settings seam to be what you wanted, please keep in
mind that they cover only the most obvious information leaks and there
might be a lot of other vectors
Great thats just what I wanted.
tagnaq wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/02/2011 06:55 PM, Anon Mus wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a mail client source code out there that I
could modify to create a client that would send settable/random values?
You
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 06:45:47AM -0700, cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
Could you be more specific?
It's been a long time since I looked into this, but I came across some fairly
damning evidence which caused me to eliminate containers out-of-hand and look
for other options. I don't have
On Friday 3 June, 2011 07:16:03 Eugen Leitl wrote:
I've personally see Linux vserver patch prevent privilege
escalation and preventing hosts becoming compromised from
within its guests. There's, of course, GRSEC and other
patches available to lock down the machine further.
Are you sure
--- On Fri, 6/3/11, cac...@quantum-sci.com cac...@quantum-sci.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 6/2/11, cac...@quantum-sci.com
cac...@quantum-sci.com
wrote:
I looked at containers in depth. They are
simply not
secure.
Could you be more specific?
It's been a long time since I looked into
tagnaq wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/03/2011 03:03 PM, Anon Mus wrote:
Great thats just what I wanted.
Also if these few settings seam to be what you wanted, please keep in
mind that they cover only the most obvious information leaks and there
might be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 03/21/2011 01:58 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
I've spent some time working with the EFF recently to build a
distributed version of the SSL Observatory
(https://www.eff.org/observatory) to be included with HTTPS
Everywhere. The draft API and design
12 matches
Mail list logo
