On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 08:14:08AM -0400, Nathan of Guardian wrote:
If you want to make plain old telephone calls through a service like
Callcentric, I think you can also find a workeable solution for the NAT
issue, but I don't have it documented exactly.
The other aspect of this setup is
Quoth Nathan of Guardian:
I've talked about this before, but the use of a MiFi portable
network device providing wifi to a tablet/phablet running VoIP
software on a clean ROM, provides the best of all worlds - telephony,
portability and security.
I lived life this way for awhile in New
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:07:10PM +0100, Nick wrote:
Sorry for coming late to the party. This is an interesting idea,
that I hadn't thought of before. I also like that it can allow one
I'm glad that nobody sees a massive flaw in the scheme.
to stop disclosing location data in a way that's
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
Many mobile networks operate with carrier grade NAT, so with
MiFi your WLAN devices are already behind two layers of NAT
or more.
So far stock solution for VoIP has been SIP, but SIP is a terrible
protocol to tunnel through NAT. So far the only contender I'm
Blibbet blib...@gmail.com writes:
I don't think so -- unless you have a laptop flashed with a free
software BIOS / boot firmware that you can inspect and modify. There are
a handful of dated possibilities out there like that (Thinkpad x60
models that support coreboot, Lemote Yeelongs), but
(We call the bad version of Secure Boot, where the user does not have
the ability to modify the set of trusted keys or disable the system,
Restricted Boot.)
We have discussed the idea of trying to become a root key holder for
Secure Boot, working with OEMs to by default trust GNU/Linux distro
Micah Lee mi...@micahflee.com writes:
I completely disagree. Ubiquitous end-to-end encryption will help
protect against *dragnet* surveillance. The fact that smartphones are
imminently pwnable doesn't change this fact. Even if you're using a
Carrier IQ-infested/baseband backdoored device,
On 09/12/2013 04:14 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb wrote:
Stefan: Why not?
For verification, OpenPGP on smartphones is *possibly* ok. For
a device used to sign or encrypt smartphones are totally
inappropriate regardless of the potential convenience.
No such agency and
Blibbet blib...@gmail.com writes:
(We call the bad version of Secure Boot, where the user does not have
the ability to modify the set of trusted keys or disable the system,
Restricted Boot.)
We have discussed the idea of trying to become a root key holder for
Secure Boot, working with OEMs
I don't think so -- unless you have a laptop flashed with a free
software BIOS / boot firmware that you can inspect and modify. There are
a handful of dated possibilities out there like that (Thinkpad x60
models that support coreboot, Lemote Yeelongs), but not the vast
majority of laptops. The
Erik de Castro Lopo mle+l...@mega-nerd.com writes:
Compare this with a laptop. If you buy a new laptop and are sufficiently
paranoid you can use widely available software tools to monitor all
network connections from that laptop to the wider internet.
I don't think so -- unless you have a
Firstly: I agree with you in principle but these tools need to be available to
all.
Technology is not used in a sterile, hygienic environment, it is used on the
streets, by people who can't write, who use it for their purposes, not
necessarily the purpose it was invented for.
Hence I
Bernard Tyers wrote:
Firstly: I agree with you in principle but these tools need to be
available to all.
Technology is not used in a sterile, hygienic environment, it is used on
the streets, by people who can't write, who use it for their purposes,
not necessarily the purpose it was
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:39:35PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Yes, but Firefox OS and Cryanogenmod only control the user facing part
of the smartphone. Loading eg Cryanogenmod onto a android phone leaves
the software running the radio part of the phone untouched (otherwise
the phone
Il 9/13/13 10:39 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo ha scritto:
Yes, but Firefox OS and Cryanogenmod only control the user facing part
of the smartphone. Loading eg Cryanogenmod onto a android phone leaves
the software running the radio part of the phone untouched (otherwise
the phone would never have
On 13 Sep 2013, at 09:39, Erik de Castro Lopo mle+l...@mega-nerd.com wrote:
Bernard Tyers wrote:
Firstly: I agree with you in principle but these tools need to be
available to all.
Technology is not used in a sterile, hygienic environment, it is used on
the streets, by people who can't
On 13 Sep 2013, at 10:04, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:39:35PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
Yes, but Firefox OS and Cryanogenmod only control the user facing part
of the smartphone. Loading eg Cryanogenmod onto a android phone leaves
the software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/09/13 10:04, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Baseband processors leave the system wide open to all kind of
attacks. Countermeasure would be running the 2G/3G/4G stack in an
open source SDR radio, or using an open source VoIP device that
connects by WLAN
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:14:27AM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
No such agency and the like are almost certainly able (with the
help of carriers and manufacturers) backdoor and exploit all
the major smartphone brands and models [0].
Smartphones are horrendously complex, rely heavily on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/2013 05:56 AM, Michael Rogers wrote:
The Samsung Galaxy Player (Samsung Galaxy S WiFi in some countries)
is essentially an Android phone without a baseband. I believe you
can run CyanogenMod on it.
So is the Nexus 7 (non-GSM/LTE) version
On 09/13/2013 01:19 PM, Matt Johnson wrote:
I would assume the quality of the voice calls would be pretty bad
through this kind of setup. How did that work for you?
The reality is we have gotten used to terrible voice quality with our
GSM and CDMA voice networks. You would be surprised what is
I would assume the quality of the voice calls would be pretty bad
through this kind of setup. How did that work for you?
--
Matt Johnson
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Nathan of Guardian
nat...@guardianproject.info wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/13/2013 05:56
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/2013 06:06 PM, Stefan wrote:
But... PGP/GPG on a smartphone? Are you sure, that you want that?
There is enough demand for it that Symantec has published some mobile
apps (though they require Symantec's encryption infrastructure
software to
Stefan: Why not?
Fabio, this sounds really interesting. Thanks for sending it. Now I need to go
and sub to another list…
On 12 Sep 2013, at 23:06, Stefan 2...@2904.cc wrote:
But... PGP/GPG on a smartphone? Are you sure, that you want that?
Am 09.09.13 00:56, schrieb Fabio Pietrosanti
But... PGP/GPG on a smartphone? Are you sure, that you want that?
Am 09.09.13 00:56, schrieb Fabio Pietrosanti (naif):
I forward this inquiry to Liberation Tech, considering the very good
impact it will have in the near future.
Fabio
Messaggio originale
Oggetto:
Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb wrote:
Stefan: Why not?
For verification, OpenPGP on smartphones is *possibly* ok. For
a device used to sign or encrypt smartphones are totally
inappropriate regardless of the potential convenience.
No such agency and the like are almost certainly able (with the
help of
26 matches
Mail list logo
