peer-reviewed venues, etc. So please as
much as possible explain how what you offer is an improvement over
existing designs described e.g. in papers in the anonbib.
aloha,
Paul
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark McCarron
>
> > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:00:59 -0400
> > From: pa
On 7/2/14, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Alex,
>
> You must be living in a fantasy land. The problem still remains, Tor is
> vulnerable to a global view and that global view exists according to
> Snowden. Further, it would appear that Tor was designed to fit into that
> global view and provide US intel
t;> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:55:18 -0400
>> From: grif...@cryptolab.net
>> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
>> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor
Security andAnonymity
>>
>> Mark McCarron wrote:
>>> Tor was designed to f
: grif...@cryptolab.net
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> Mark McCarron wrote:
> > Tor was designed to fit into that global view and provide US intelligence
> > with the locations
Mark McCarron wrote:
> Tor was designed to fit into that global view and provide US intelligence
> with the locations of both users and hidden services, whilst pretending to
> provide anonymity.
[citation needed]
> I don't see anyone denying it. Do you? Its been 6 days already.
There's also
talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:31:00PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> [snip]
> > Eliminating this correlation attack is trivial.
>
d and what is being done about
it.
That will tell everyone what they need to know.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:26:04 -0400
> From: paul.syver...@nrl.navy.mil
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Sec
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:41:30PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:36:08 -0400
> Paul Syverson wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> >It's hard to imagine what would satisfy you at this point but
> > perhaps this will help: I designed Tor with Roger and Nick. At all
> > times we designed it to be as se
: juan@gmail.com
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2014 18:32:27 +0100
> Mark McCarron wrote:
>
> > Alex,
> >
> > You must be living in a fantasy
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:31:00PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Paul,
>
[snip]
> Eliminating this correlation attack is trivial.
So you keep saying. Everybody who has worked on this who has responded
has said that they don't know how and that they find this a hard
problem. But your response is
infer too much to the
> fact that I have responded to all this in a mere 6 days.
>
> aloha,
> Paul
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mark McCarron
> >
> > > From: fuersch...@gmail.com
> > > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 18:39:13 +0200
> > > T
your reply are little more than Fud.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:36:08 -0400
> From: paul.syver...@nrl.navy.mil
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Tue, Ju
nalysis as tor
is?
J
>
> Its been 6 days already.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark McCarron
>
> > From: fuersch...@gmail.com
> > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 18:39:13 +0200
> > To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
&
ple I say please do not infer too much to the
fact that I have responded to all this in a mere 6 days.
aloha,
Paul
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark McCarron
>
> > From: fuersch...@gmail.com
> > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 18:39:13 +0200
> > To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> &
tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> Please Mccarron,
>
> The discussion is dead. You killed it yourself by not adding anything
> meaningful as far as I have seen. You just repeat yourself again and again as
> if it's a mantra. You
Please Mccarron,
The discussion is dead. You killed it yourself by not adding anything
meaningful as far as I have seen. You just repeat yourself again and again as
if it's a mantra. You got statistics to back up your claims? Good - show them!
You got the script you used to track the onions? A
Krishna,
Please. You are a PC repair guy who can install Linux.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:10:28 -0400
> From: k...@cyblings.on.ca
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Ano
On 06/30/2014 09:14 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:> Mick,
>
> I would be very careful what you claim in your emails. I have the
capability of suing you into oblivion, that email constitutes
defamation. Nothing like that was ever said, either retract it or I
will take you for everything that you've
From: m...@rlogin.net
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:05:06 -0400
> t...@t-3.net allegedly wrote:
>>
>> I have a hard time believing that you've
to.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:32:24 -0700
From: cb...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
Anonymity
To: mark.mccar...@live.co.uk
Please do us all a favor and send this only to the relevant subscriber, instead
of sending them two
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:15 AM, coderman wrote:
> 1) compute the cost of global traffic analysis. we have big data mark
> specifically UPSTREAM model collection at backbone peering points.
> this is just one part of a series of costs; how much raw DPI capacity
> (it is finite)? how much memory
On 6/28/2014 10:01 AM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Anyway, we have a simple solution to this global view and hidden services.
> We just implement a distributed hosting solution within the Tor system and
> end-to-end visibility is gone.
I'm nowhere near done sifting through this thread however Freenet
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:11:50 +0100
From: m...@rlogin.net
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
Anonymity
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:05:06 -0400
t...@t-3.net allegedly wrote:
>
> I have a hard time believing that
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:05:06 -0400
t...@t-3.net allegedly wrote:
>
> I have a hard time believing that you've been effectively tracking so
> much 'child porn, rape, snuff videos' content that you can
> conclusively say that all such content has suddenly disappeared from
> Tor. My knowledge abou
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 19:30:35 +0100
Mark McCarron allegedly wrote:
>
> Congratulations, so you found someone with a similar name what are
> the odds of that.
So. Can I take that as a "no" then? You are not that same Mark McCarron?
Mick
--
This is wrong in so many ways.
Edward Snowden's info, hand-in-hand with Prism's details, shows how
NSA/GCHQ hates Tor because they can't break it very well. They have to
exploit browser flaws and/or go around Tor to get what they want. If
they owned Tor from the network perspective there woul
.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:19:43 +, Mark McCarron wrote:
> ...
> > Then we also have Snowden, who informs of us PRISM.
>
> You mean the Snowden that also delivered an i
On 6/30/14, Mark McCarron wrote:
...
> Tor appears to be...
Mark, you may be right;
but you have provided NO THING to enable me to
verify ANY THING that you have said in THIS thread!
> no one makes any moves to correct the situation
So Mark, make a move already!!
Your finger pointing IS offe
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:19:43 +, Mark McCarron wrote:
...
> Then we also have Snowden, who informs of us PRISM.
You mean the Snowden that also delivered an internal slide of NSA,
stating that they are unable to break tor generally, only with some
success for specific targets? Since that is wron
Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> OK, I'll bite :)
>
> On 6/30/14, Juan wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:31:20 -0400
> > Roger Dingledine wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark M
OK, I'll bite :)
On 6/30/14, Juan wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:31:20 -0400
> Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
>> > Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
>> >sock puppet for an intelligence agency who has
On 06/30/2014 12:29 AM, grarpamp wrote:
>> McMark wrote:
>> I have been examining the number of what would normally be deemed as illegal
>> sites sites on Tor.
>
> Even though I take certain issues with it, particularly the call to cease
> development of anonymity platforms, a more formal exami
On 29 June 2014 21:45, Michael Wolf wrote:
>
> How do Snowden and the NSA slides titled "Tor Stinks" fit into your
> little conspiracy theory?
Conspiracy theory aside, I'm curious about these. I mean, p12: "How
does TOR handle DNS requests?...still investigating".
That seems remarkably clueless
On 29 June 2014 20:30, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Mick,
>
> Congratulations, so you found someone with a similar name what are the odds
> of that.
Probably fairly good odds, I guess - it can't be that unusual a name.
But just so we're clear: are you definitely not the same Mark McCarron
who designed
> McMark wrote:
> I have been examining the number of what would normally be deemed as illegal
> sites sites on Tor.
Even though I take certain issues with it, particularly the call to cease
development of anonymity platforms, a more formal examination is here:
“A Review of the Available Content
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:29 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> ...
> Even though I take certain issues with it, particularly the call to cease
> development of anonymity platforms, a more formal examination is here:
>
> “A Review of the Available Content on Tor Hidden Services: The Case
> Against Further Dev
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> ...
> We already know from the Snowden releases that the physical infrastructure
> for this is in place. That it spans at least 33 nations covering all major
> fiber links. Within the US, all traffic is copied verbatim at major
> exchang
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Mirimir wrote:
> On 06/28/2014 01:31 AM, grarpamp wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM, coderman wrote:
>>> "From a Trickle to a Flood: Active Attacks on Several Mix Types"
>>> http://freehaven.net/doc/batching-taxonomy/taxonomy.pdf
>>
>> Pending a second rea
l.com
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Juan wrote:
> > ...
> > You´ve been officially threatened by one of the ´leaders´ of the
> >
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:14 PM, coderman wrote:
> ...
> 1) compute the cost of global traffic analysis. we have big data mark
> to put a ball park on it, but the point is: the cost is non zero and
> non trivial.
specifically UPSTREAM model collection at backbone peering points.
consider both la
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Juan wrote:
> ...
> You´ve been officially threatened by one of the ´leaders´ of the
> ´tor family´ for (unlike me) politely point out tor´s obvious
> flaws.
"pointing out obvious flaws" - as in, "it's so easy to protect against
traffic an
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:31:20 -0400
Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> > Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
> >sock puppet for an intelligence agency who has started to panic about
> >the network going truly
On 6/29/2014 4:20 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the input, but this end-to-end traffic analysis is a well
> documented problem by the Tor devs themselves. Although, what is missing
> from the devs statements is more revealing, namely that it can be fixed by
> removing visibil
oject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On 6/29/2014 9:11 AM, Mark McCarron wrote:
>
> > As you mentioned, there are legitimate worries, mainly that Tor and people
> > like yourself have a conflict of in
er to that in the future versions of Tor.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:54:03 -0400
> From: a...@mit.edu
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014
On 6/29/2014 9:11 AM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> As you mentioned, there are legitimate worries, mainly that Tor and people
> like yourself have a conflict of interest. The main funding appears to come
> from the US military. It appears to many of us, that the software has been
> deliberately kep
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 07:30:35PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> I see Roger has remained quiet, so I am assuming he either does not
>want to address the issue or is subject to a National Security letter.
"Wtf dude?"
I'm working on the dev meeting that starts tomorrow. I'll get to answering
your
was an unfortunate accident.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:41:55 +0100
From: m...@rlogin.net
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
Anonymity
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:11:18 +0100
Mark McCarron allegedly
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:11:18 +0100
Mark McCarron allegedly wrote:
> Roger,
>
> I see that you were quite quiet whilst ad hominem attacks were being
> made against me. But I will put that to one side for the moment.
>
> As you mentioned, there are legitimate worries, mainly that Tor and
> peopl
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:31:20 -0400
Roger Dingledine allegedly wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> > Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
> >sock puppet for an intelligence agency who has started to panic about
> >the network go
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> > Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
> >sock p
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:19:56PM +0100, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Given the scale of this obviousness, I can only assume that you're a
>sock puppet for an intelligence agency who has started to panic about
>the network going truly dark.
>
> Deal with it.
Hi Mark,
I've tried to tolerate the conspi
ct: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On 6/29/14, Mark McCarron wrote:
> > I understand everyone's feelings here and tempers can run hot. Firstly, not
>
> I don't know that you do. In fact you continue to generalise
On 6/29/14, Mark McCarron wrote:
> I understand everyone's feelings here and tempers can run hot. Firstly, not
I don't know that you do. In fact you continue to generalise
"everyone's", which has to be false. I haven't seen much in the way of
tempers in this thread, just patient pointing out fla
to-end visibility is gone.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:19:00 -0300
> From: juan@gmail.com
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:48:27 -0
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 13:48:27 -0700
coderman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Juan wrote:
> >...
> > And so we have amusing tor lackeys like ¨coderman¨
> > parroting propaganda that not even the tor developers
> > themselves believe.
>
> this is amusing! explain
On 6/28/14, Mirimir wrote:
> On 06/28/2014 01:31 AM, grarpamp wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM, coderman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Juan wrote:
>>> traffic correlation is trivial if you can watch traffic in and
>>> out of the network.
... Tor, by design, is
On 6/28/14, Mark McCarron wrote:
> We also need to consider that some unidentified flaws exist in the code, but
> I agree with you traffic analysis is certainly the major problem at present.
> Traffic obfuscation will not work against the NSA and it would cause
> problems with the network.
>
> Th
On 06/28/2014 01:31 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM, coderman wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Juan wrote:
>> traffic correlation is trivial if you can watch traffic in and
>> out of the network.
>>> ... Tor, by design, is useless against
>>> governm
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM, coderman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Juan wrote:
> traffic correlation is trivial if you can watch traffic in and
> out of the network.
>> ... Tor, by design, is useless against
>> governments that can do traffic analysis. For instance
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Juan wrote:
> ... Tor, by design, is useless against
> governments that can do traffic analysis. For instance, the US
> government.
last but not least, passive confirmation attacks are passe; the best
attacks active.
"From a Trickle to a Flood:
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:53:46 +0100
> Mark McCarron wrote:
>
> > Well, I think this is settling down into a proper discussion. Whilst
> > the hypothesis is untested, leverag
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Juan wrote:
>...
> And so we have amusing tor lackeys like ¨coderman¨
> parroting propaganda that not even the tor developers
> themselves believe.
this is amusing! explain to me where i've said Tor resists traffic analysis? :)
my point i
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:53:46 +0100
Mark McCarron wrote:
> Well, I think this is settling down into a proper discussion. Whilst
> the hypothesis is untested, leveraging illegal activity, especially
> reviled illegal activity, as a metric for the quality of anonymity
> and security provided by Tor
Well, I think this is settling down into a proper discussion. Whilst the
hypothesis is untested, leveraging illegal activity, especially reviled illegal
activity, as a metric for the quality of anonymity and security provided by Tor
is a sound strategy.
As mentioned before, the 'canary' is dea
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:49 AM, grarpamp wrote:
>> ...
>> the original argument is based on faulty assumptions.
>
> Rather, it presents untested hypotheses. As in the past with
> these sorts of sites, the operator perhaps got vanned for reasons
> other than any particular weakness of tor itself,
In re: Mark McCarron wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 2:00 AM, coderman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mirimir wrote:
>> ...
>> As far as I know, no hidden service site has ever been compromised
>> through an inherent weakness of Tor. Am I wrong in saying that?
>
> i am only aware of on
Haleluja brothers and sisters!
Brother McCarron has step up to say something to us!
I say preach it brother!
Mark McCarron:
> I have been examining
How?
> the number
Can you say the number, oh brother?
> of what would
Would like you're not sure of the healing power of the Holy Spirit?
> no
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mirimir wrote:
> ...
> As far as I know, no hidden service site has ever been compromised
> through an inherent weakness of Tor. Am I wrong in saying that?
i am only aware of one Tor vulnerability that led to compromised
hidden services of affected instances, ba
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:28:42 +0100
Mark McCarron wrote:
> I have been examining the number of what would normally be deemed as illegal
> sites sites on Tor. Eliminating the narcotics trade, as these tend to be
> intelligence agency backed enterprises, a serious decline has been noted
> across
n inherent weakness of Tor. Am I wrong in saying that?
> Regards,
>
> Mark McCarron
>
>> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:15:26 -0600 From: miri...@riseup.net To:
>> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal
>> Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
up.net
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On 06/25/2014 03:56 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> > Basically, I keep a track of site numbers year-on-year, site
> > availability f
On 06/25/2014 03:56 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Basically, I keep a track of site numbers year-on-year, site
> availability from 3rd party monitoring and read comments on forums
> and chat. From what I can gather, most of these sites were suspected
> of being honeypots due to their tendency to remo
Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Mark McCarron
> wrote:
> > Basically, I keep a track of site numbers year-on-year, site availability
> > from 3rd party monitoring and read comments o
Anonymous is an astro-turfed cover for the CIA.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:16:48 -0300
> From: juan@gmail.com
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of Tor Security and
> Anonymity
>
> On Wed,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:
> Basically, I keep a track of site numbers year-on-year, site availability
> from 3rd party monitoring and read comments on forums and chat.
from this you draw too many unsupported conclusions.
> Whilst it may be good in some sense, it st
On 6/25/2014 4:56 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:
Basically, I keep a track of site numbers year-on-year, site availability from
3rd party monitoring and read comments on forums and chat. From what I can
gather, most of these sites were suspected of being honeypots due to their
tendency to remove a
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:28:42 +0100
Mark McCarron wrote:
> I have been examining the number of what would normally be deemed as
> illegal sites sites on Tor. Eliminating the narcotics trade, as
> these tend to be intelligence agency backed enterprises, a serious
> decline has been noted across th
best, at worst, non-existent.
Anyway, this is off-topic, so I won't be delving into this any further.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:36:06 -0400
> From: ape...@gmail.com
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metr
and Security of Tor?
The software is compromised in some fashion and we need to understand this.
Regards,
Mark McCarron
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:17:41 -0500
> From: joebtfs...@gmx.com
> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Illegal Activity As A Metric of
I think the Freedom Hosting and Silk Road arrests shook many people's
confidence greatly, so they're very hesitant to keep using illegal hidden
services. Everything else beyond that seems like conjecture, especially the
idea that all of the narcotics markets are backed by spooks. If there is a
base
On 6/25/2014 3:28 PM, Mark McCarron wrote:
I have been examining the number of what would normally be deemed as illegal
sites sites on Tor. Eliminating the narcotics trade, as these tend to be
intelligence agency backed enterprises, a serious decline has been noted across
the board.
This wo
I have been examining the number of what would normally be deemed as illegal
sites sites on Tor. Eliminating the narcotics trade, as these tend to be
intelligence agency backed enterprises, a serious decline has been noted across
the board.
This would tend to suggest that exposure is common pl
83 matches
Mail list logo
