and...@torproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:11:55AM +, my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote
2.3K bytes in 61 lines about:
: So if Tor is using usual development practice then why does the
: stable version manual
: (http://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en) have
:
Roger Dingledine wrote:
This is interesting. I tried it.. and both seem to work for me on my
0.2.2.10-alpha on win2k.
But.. when I tried - WarnUnsafeSocks 0
I get..
Nov 25 17:50:03.015 [Warning] Failed to parse/validate config: Unknown
option 'WarnUnsafeSocks'. Failing.
Nov 25
Matthew wrote:
I think I am correct to say that StrictExitNodes has been negated in
favour of StrictNodes.
However, when I use StrictExitNodes 1 I have no problems.
When I use StrictNodes 1 and have viable ExitNodes then Vidalia gives
the error: Vidalia detected that the Tor software exited
Kyle Williams wrote:
Coderman sent this to me, and I'm a little upset because the extra
$60.00/month for 0 bitcoins is very annoying. I have since stopped
trying to generate bitcoins, because it's just wasting electricity.
More comment inline below debating this point.
For those who are
Geoff Down wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:28 +, Anon Mus
my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote:
Using vidalia 0.2.7, Tor 0.2.2.10-alpha (Qt 4.5.3)
I am not seeing any location in the left box (or anywhere else) against
Tor relays, just a ? in a white box.
Is anyone else seeing
Geoff Down wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:28 +, Anon Mus
my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote:
Using vidalia 0.2.7, Tor 0.2.2.10-alpha (Qt 4.5.3)
I am not seeing any location in the left box (or anywhere else) against
Tor relays, just a ? in a white box.
Is anyone else seeing
and...@torproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:20:08PM +0100, my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote
2.3K bytes in 55 lines about:
: Well, well, well suddenly the problem fixes itself... after
: 20+ disconnects and 10+ You are using a proxy which is changing
: your data... refusing
Mike Perry wrote:
Thus spake Anon Mus (my.green.lant...@googlemail.com):
Well, well, well suddenly the problem fixes itself... after 20+
disconnects and 10+ You are using a proxy which is changing your
data... refusing connection.. over the past 3 days.
Must be just another co
Jim wrote:
Anon Mus wrote:
These were added because, as I already said, they were repeatedly (5+
times on 5 different circuits) unable to resolve DNS and so failed
page access,. this is a standard privoxy message.
FYI, when you get that Privoxy message while using Tor (or any other
Geoff Down wrote:
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:37 +0200, Olaf Selke olaf.se...@blutmagie.de
wrote:
On 09.10.2010 11:38, Anon Mus wrote:
Prior to end August 2010, if this kind of message was received I just
used to close the circuit and try again. Usually it would resolve by the
3rd try. I
Fabian Keil wrote:
Your Privoxy version is from 2006, you might want to consider updating it.
With a more recent version I get:
| f...@r500 ~ $lynx --dump http://www.cobblers.za/
|503
|
|This is [1]Privoxy 3.0.17 on Privoxy-Jail.local (10.0.0.1), port 8118,
|enabled
|
|
Fabian Keil wrote:
If you are using a Privoxy version more recent than 3.0.9
(released in 2008), you can use SOCKS5 which will allow Tor
to provide Privoxy with a more detailed problem description.
My mistake, I assume that means that v3.0.16 does indeed do this DNS
reporting.
With a
Fabian Keil wrote:
And Tor says:
Oct 09 14:00:19.571 [notice] Have tried resolving or connecting to address
'www.cobblers.za' at 3 different places. Giving up.
Fabian
Ahh, I have those but they only say,
Oct 09 15:31:32.109 [Notice] Have tried resolving or connecting to
address
Fabian Keil wrote:
Anon Mus my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote:
and...@torproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:20:08PM +0100, my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote
2.3K bytes in 55 lines about:
: Well, well, well suddenly the problem fixes itself... after
: 20
TorOp wrote:
On 10/9/2010 11:14 AM, Anon Mus wrote:
Fabian Keil wrote:
And Tor says:
Oct 09 14:00:19.571 [notice] Have tried resolving or connecting to
address 'www.cobblers.za' at 3 different places. Giving up.
Fabian
Ahh, I have those but they only say,
Oct 09 15:31:32.109 [Notice] Have
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:05 PM, kalitnik...@privatdemail.net wrote:
Hello everyone.
I found a fork (?) of tor software with GUI named Advanced Tor. I was
surprised of its features, but found just nothing about it in web,
though it has opened source placed in sf.net.
Have you people discussed
Nick Mathewson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Anon Mus
my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:05 PM, kalitnik...@privatdemail.net wrote:
Hello everyone.
I found a fork (?) of tor software with GUI named Advanced Tor. I was
surprised of its features
Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
While I do think it's good to see the funding there are two points that
are important to remember.
1) this is a freesoftware project the code is there for all to see,
hopefully clueful people other than the US Government are reading it.
Unfortunately, whilst there
Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Anon Mus wrote:
It looks like 90% of the funding is from the US, nearly all US government.
If you know any funders outside the US who care about privacy, anonymity,
or circumvention, we're all ears. :)
I am certain
Andrew Lewman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 12:26:57 +0100
Anon Mus my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote:
It looks like 90% of the funding is from the US, nearly all US
government.
Internews Europe - France $183,180 (35.6%)
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Internews
07:26 AM, Anon Mus wrote:
Jimmy Dioxin wrote:
Hey Folks,
Cryptome has posted the Tor Project 2008 Tax Return available at:
http://cryptome.org/0002/tor-2008.zip
As many know, all US non-profit corporation returns are available upon
request by the public.
Firstly, people need to look
Jimmy Dioxin wrote:
Hey Folks,
Cryptome has posted the Tor Project 2008 Tax Return available at:
http://cryptome.org/0002/tor-2008.zip
As many know, all US non-profit corporation returns are available upon
request by the public.
Firstly, people need to look through these returns in the same
Paul Syverson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:30:27PM +0100, Anon Mus wrote:
Paul Syverson wrote:
Tor doesn't do any batching or delaying. This is just another way you
could be identified by timing attacks. Tor provides no resistance to
timing attacks, and so far
Platform:
Win2000 Pro SP4
TOR - Upgraded from several dev. versions ago to Tor 0.2.10-alpha
(git-81b84c0b017267b4) package last week. (Vidalia 0.2.7).
Recently, since the TOR upgrade, have noticed that 80+ of the relay
locations in View the Network are missing.
Is anyone else seeing this?
Andrew Lewman wrote:
On Thursday May 13 2010 07:45:03 Anon Mus wrote:
Recently, since the TOR upgrade, have noticed that 80+ of the relay
locations in View the Network are missing.
Everyone will be seeing this soon. The SSL cert changed/renewed. The
forthcoming Vidalia 0.2.9
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 03:58:50PM -0400, Michael Holstein wrote:
(basically, all the OP on Rededit was saying, was he's the guy that
writes the microengine code) .. the processors themselves aren't
Not quite -- he explicitly claimed they used custom hardware.
Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Hello, Anon!
You wrote to or-talk@freehaven.net on Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:44:12 +0100:
Of course, websites organizations have the right to choose which ports
they use for which services and open/close. Anyone trying to inflict
that kind of system on any internet
Zinco wrote:
Matej Kovacic wrote:
Hi,
this seems an interesting issue:
http://www.making-the-web.com/misc/sites-you-visit/nojs/
bye, Matej
Anon Mus Wrote:
Been to this site and it dont work on my firefox.3.0.8 browser... (with
NoScript, QuickJava, Better Privacy
Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Hello, Scott!
You wrote to or-t...@seul.org, scr...@nonvocalscream.com on Sun, 14 Jun 2009
01:15:43 -0500 (CDT):
Now, another person on this list has argued that the RFC's should be
ignored and that IANA should be ignored. I remain unconvinced that doing
Zinco wrote:
-Original Message-
From: owner-or-t...@freehaven.net [mailto:owner-or-t...@freehaven.net] On
Behalf Of Anon Mus
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:09 AM
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Subject: Re: Stealing browser history without JavaScript
Matej Kovacic wrote:
Hi,
this seems
Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:51:25PM -0700, Kyle Williams wrote:
I think snooping and statistical information should be treated
differently. Take Scott's case here. He is making a claim that by using
the exit policy outlined above, it would reduce the amount of
- Original Message -
From: Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu mailto:a...@mit.edu
To: or-talk@freehaven.net mailto:or-talk@freehaven.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: another reason to keep ExcludeNodes
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 08:08:19PM +0100, Lexi Pimenidis wrote:
Scott Bennett wrote:
Well, technically speaking, I guess that's true. However, unless I'm
greatly mistaken, the exit end of a circuit will compress any data coming into
it to be relayed back to the client and will uncompress anything arriving from
the client to be sent out from the
sean darcy wrote:
I have firefox 3.0.1, tor button 1.2, tor-0.1.2.19-1.fc9.i386 ,
privoxy-3.0.8-2.fc9.i386
flash won't play with tor enabled. tor disabled it works fine.
For instance, http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/welcome/
Do I need some new setting?
Thanks for any help.
sean
Hello
Can someone in this list admin reply to this email below please.
-K-
Original Message
Subject:[Fwd: Not getting copied my posts to or-talk]
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:56:37 +0100
From: Anon Mus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, I'd appreciate
coderman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Anon Mus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I've now 3 posts to or-talk which all appear to have got through but I don't
get copied the post as a list member.
I'm pretty sure I used to get them with my old addy
[EMAIL PROTECTED
slush wrote:
Hi to all again,
because it looks like conference did not receive emails with
attachments, Im resending my initial email about problem I found.
Attachments from original email are here:
http://www.slush.cz/centrumyahoo.png
http://www.slush.cz/centrum.png
slush wrote:
At first sight this appears to be an exit node problem but then, as I
read it, you say it occurs with more than one exit node and only
at this
higher level of throughput.
I can repeat this problem (I could do it yesterday) by opening large
amount of circuits
Ben Wilhelm wrote:
Anon Mus wrote:
Ben,
Yes you are right factorising this is hard, but thats not what I've
been suggesting. What if every time you generated a pair of keys you
stored the result somewhere!
Say you owned a huge network of say mil/gov computers which
communicate
securely
Ben Wilhelm wrote:
Anon Mus wrote:
Ben,
I think you are using the purely theoretical numbers and applying
them
to the problem as if they were reality.
As I remember the problem with the selection of primes for PKE is,
1. the seeding of the pseudo-random number generator
e.g
switching or MPLS labeling is just the lower-layer network
protocol/method, many IP networks operate over these, its common place,
so don't be confused by that.]
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:42:59PM -0800, Anon Mus wrote:
F. Fox wrote:
Anon Mus wrote:
3. Attacker has a list
Ben Wilhelm wrote:
Anon Mus wrote:
A fully global networked array of prime number testers, prime
numbers
being the underlying basis for your public key encryption
technology.
1 million decimal digit long primes achieved, the search for 10
million
digit primes underway.
http
Jan Reister wrote:
Il 14/02/2008 13:36, Anon Mus ha scritto:
A. Attacker obtains genuine private keys by,
1. Attacker sets up a number of genuine tor servers
2. Attacker infects genuine tor nodes with spyware
Setting up rogue (or compromised) nodes won't work for getting the
directory
Andrew wrote:
Jan Reister schrieb:
Il 14/02/2008 13:36, Anon Mus ha scritto:
A. Attacker obtains genuine private keys by,
1. Attacker sets up a number of genuine tor servers
2. Attacker infects genuine tor nodes with spyware
Setting up rogue (or compromised) nodes won't work for getting
F. Fox wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Anon Mus wrote:
(snip)
Not quite true.
(snip)
3. Attacker has a list of known public/private key pairs. These are
generated over the years by government security service
supercomputers
and their own secure
Scott Bennett wrote:
Looks like OR-TALK has moved up in the world enough that it has
at
last acquired a troll.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:42:59 -0800 (PST) Anon Mus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
F. Fox wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Anon Mus wrote:
(snip
Watson Ladd wrote:
Anon Mus wrote:
This question is for those with the knowhow.
A while back I got a number of emails from the same source where the
emails were sent in pairs a minute or less apart.
The first of each of the email pair were large (over
700characters), the second were
This question is for those with the knowhow.
A while back I got a number of emails from the same source where the
emails were sent in pairs a minute or less apart.
The first of each of the email pair were large (over 700characters),
the second were small (under 50 characters). On the face of
Thanks, I have some comments that may help...
Max Berger wrote:
Am Freitag, den 11.01.2008, 09:44 -0800 schrieb Anon Mus:
This question is for those with the knowhow.A while back I got a number of
emails from the same source where the emails were sent in pairs a minute or
less
Whoops - off topic - but helps Tor servers in UK.
FYI.. if you are in the UK then sign up for this if you feel able.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Unlimited-ADSL/
Then email it to all your friends.
Bored
Nick Mathewson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 07:24:10AM
-0800, Anon Mus wrote:
[Reformatted: lines wrapped. You might want to see if you can get
your mailer to wrap lines to 72 characters.]
***Yes, it was set to 99.
(v0.1.1.26 client on Win2Ksp4+)
I have
51 matches
Mail list logo
