On 11/1/14, Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> ...
> No, we haven't done that yet apart from me trying to start this discussion
> here on the mailing list
ok. and thanks for running a relay and exit!
> ... [ OpenWRT is difficult to work with ]
this is true; i see you have tried to be accommodating
Dear admins of eugeni.torproject.org
Could you be so kind to update your system so it sends messages encrypted.
Since i updated my system, your server doesn't have the proper cipher suites to
negotiate a TLS handshake.
I know, a running system should do it's job
This would help others too.
Kind
> Why so much negative emotions? :) Dogecoin one of three most famous
> cryptocurrency. Or are you against cryptocurrency in general?
Take a much closer look. This is NOT Dogecoin. This is a completely
different altcoin which uses the name. So join my TorAnonymity network
for great privacy. Tor i
On 2014-11-01 21:50, bm-2cuqbqhfvdhuy34zcpl3pngkplueeer...@bitmessage.ch
wrote:
Please stop doing masked advertising to this mail list.
What makes a client sure that DogecoinDark software protects them
against
malicious peers feeding them scrambled data? What are the protections?
Wow! Someon
Le 02/11/2014 04:10, Lars Boegild Thomsen a écrit :
On Saturday 01 November 2014 12:39:59 Aymeric Vitte wrote:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1227374637/cloak, I would say that
the presentation is less "marketing oriented" than the anonaflop, after
a quick look, maybe the look of the box
Hi!
My biggest worries are unattended upgrades, that they have to rely on
someone (you?) to provide up-to-date packages and hardware support for
the complete life-cycle. 64MB RAM may be enough for a Tor client,
although I'm a bit skeptical whether it can scale to more than a few
concurrent users.
Hi,
Lluís:
> Hi,
>
> I've installed TorBirdy, successfully, I think.
> However, when I go to
>
> "Open TorBirdy preferences" -> "Test Proxy Settings"
>
> it complaints about I'm not using TBB, in despite it is installed
> and running.
>
> More over, if I shut TBB down, icedove stops
> sending/
Thinking about the security properties vs. performance impact of
Facebook reachable under .onion.
I'm wondering if Facebook is using Tor2web mode of Tor, including latest
experimental patches to further reduce the "amount of hops" on the
.onion-side as https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/tick
elrippo transcribed 6.0K bytes:
> Dear admins of eugeni.torproject.org
>
> Could you be so kind to update your system so it sends messages encrypted.
> Since i updated my system, your server doesn't have the proper cipher suites
> to negotiate a TLS handshake.
It's unclear what you're asking for
On Sunday 02 November 2014 13:25:18 Moritz Bartl wrote:
> My biggest worries are unattended upgrades, that they have to rely on
> someone (you?) to provide up-to-date packages and hardware support for
> the complete life-cycle.
That is of course true and like every other project that at the end o
On Saturday 01 November 2014 12:42:41 coderman wrote:
> - support robust stream isolation, beyond what may be default. perhaps
> IsolateDestAddr and IsolateByClientAddr on TransPort (this does not
> yet exist, but you could code it to the benefit of all Transparent
> proxy consumer
Doesn't this al
On 11/2/14, Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> ...
> Doesn't this already exist?
there is also the clients behind NAT issue for stream isolation,
e.g. clients[1-N...] -> WiFi Router -> Cloak -> ISP -.
it would be useful to document the list of these concerns somewhere,
perhaps on the Transparent Pr
On 11/2/14, coderman wrote:
> ... the tor ramdisk effort
at https://git.torproject.org/tor-ramdisk.git
--
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
On Sunday 02 November 2014 19:42:02 coderman wrote:
> On 11/2/14, Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> > ...
> > Doesn't this already exist?
> there is also the clients behind NAT issue for stream isolation,
What is the story with those "Isolate" configuration options. They are
documented in the T
On Sunday 02 November 2014 12:08:15 Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> 1. 100 % Automatic
>
> The device check at regular intervals if a new binary firmware is available
> and if that is the case it just updates. This one is entirely possible and
> not hard to implement. I am however not sure I lik
On Saturday 01 November 2014 12:42:41 coderman wrote:
> - support robust stream isolation, beyond what may be default. perhaps
> IsolateDestAddr and IsolateByClientAddr on TransPort (this does not
> yet exist, but you could code it to the benefit of all Transparent
I just tried with the current Cl
On 11/03/2014 07:07 AM, Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> On Sunday 02 November 2014 12:08:15 Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
>> 1. 100 % Automatic
>>
>> The device check at regular intervals if a new binary firmware is available
>> and if that is the case it just updates. This one is entirely possible
On 11/03/2014 03:44 AM, Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> On Saturday 01 November 2014 12:42:41 coderman wrote:
>> - support robust stream isolation, beyond what may be default. perhaps
>> IsolateDestAddr and IsolateByClientAddr on TransPort (this does not
>> yet exist, but you could code it to the b
On 11/2/14, Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> ...
> I just tried with the current Cloak build. And different clients use
> different circuits. However, none of the configuration options appear to
> work, so I reckon it is down to:
if each client has a a distinct address (not behind NAT) this works
On Monday 03 November 2014 07:11:48 CJ wrote:
> Well, I hope you will implement firmware signature check… this would
> prevent most of the MitM problems.
> This should be optional though, in order to let "power-users" mess with
> their own firmware if they want.
> Better: let them push their own ke
On 11/03/2014 08:00 AM, Lars Boegild Thomsen wrote:
> On Monday 03 November 2014 07:11:48 CJ wrote:
>> Well, I hope you will implement firmware signature check… this would
>> prevent most of the MitM problems.
>> This should be optional though, in order to let "power-users" mess with
>> their own
On Sunday 02 November 2014 22:18:37 coderman wrote:
> > I just tried with the current Cloak build. And different clients use
> > different circuits. However, none of the configuration options appear to
> > work, so I reckon it is down to:
> if each client has a a distinct address (not behind NAT)
22 matches
Mail list logo
