All that would do would be to say to all clients, Don't include
this node in the same circuit as any of the blutmagie nodes. How would
that be an attack?
I can list all the nodes I don't control...
***
To unsubscribe,
On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:23:34 +0200 (CEST) Sebastian Hahn
m...@sebastianhahn.net wrote:
All that would do would be to say to all clients, Don't include
this node in the same circuit as any of the blutmagie nodes. How would
that be an attack?
I can list all the nodes I don't
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Scott Bennett benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:40:42 -0400 =?utf-8?Q?Jerzy_=C5=81ogiewa?=
jerz...@interia.eu wrote:
I apologize for altering the nature of this thread, but can someone =
please summarize what this discussion is about? Who is =
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:37:17 + The23rd Raccoon
the.raccoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Scott Bennett benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote:
=A0 =A0 On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:40:42 -0400 =3D?utf-8?Q?Jerzy_=3DC5=3D81og=
iewa?=3D
jerz...@interia.eu wrote:
I apologize for altering
Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:44:21PM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Re: - Medium - Tor servers, Tor community wants to disable your
nodes - General
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 13:46:04 +0200
From: Perfect Privacy Administration
On 20.05.2010 06:25, Roger Dingledine wrote:
The trouble here is that if we make family declarations one-sided, then
I can tell everybody that I'm in blutmagie's family (and X's family and
Y's family and Z's family and ...), and suddenly I'm influencing the
path selection of other clients in a
On 5/20/10, Moritz Bartl t...@wiredwings.com wrote:
On 20.05.2010 06:25, Roger Dingledine wrote:
The trouble here is that if we make family declarations one-sided, then
I can tell everybody that I'm in blutmagie's family (and X's family and
Y's family and Z's family and ...), and suddenly I'm
On 20.05.2010 13:28, Oguz wrote:
I too do not understand this. Already an evil entry node can list all
nodes that it does _not_ control in its family option to try to force
circuit through the nodes it controls, though it would obviously be a
dead give away listing many unrelated nodes as
Though I appreciate Jim's signature proposal, that could become difficult
and convoluted to implement quite quickly. I think that perfectprivacy's
initial suggestion was actually quite compelling: allow ``#include'' type
statements to be used in a torrc.
Currently, an operator of multiple relays
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, t...@wiredwings.com wrote 0.9K bytes
in 19 lines about:
: From what I understand, yes, at the moment both partners have to list
: each other. That's what the fuss is all about, because this becomes hard
: to manage when you run a lot of nodes.
Yes, this
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:44:51AM -0400, and...@torproject.org wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, t...@wiredwings.com wrote 0.9K
bytes in 19 lines about:
: From what I understand, yes, at the moment both partners have to list
: each other. That's what the fuss is all about,
On 20 May 2010 07:44, and...@torproject.org wrote:
If Mallory lists Alice
and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
screw everyone.
Why would this screw everyone? I admit that I don't fully
On May 20, 2010, at 08:39 AM, Flamsmark wrote:
On 20 May 2010 07:44, and...@torproject.org wrote:
If Mallory lists Alice
and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
screw everyone.
Why would this
The trick is that both parties need to list each other as family for this to
work. As per the man page..
When two servers both declare that they are in the same 'family'...
The attacker would need to be listed in every other relay's torrc for the
attack you described to work. I'm pretty sure
Oops, apologies - didn't realize this had already been answered. (a pox upon
thread forking...)
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Damian Johnson atag...@gmail.com wrote:
The trick is that both parties need to list each other as family for this
to work. As per the man page..
When two servers
On Thursday May 20 2010 09:39:00 Flamsmark wrote:
On 20 May 2010 07:44, and...@torproject.org wrote:
If Mallory lists Alice
and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
screw everyone.
Why would
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Moritz Bartl t...@wiredwings.com wrote:
On 20.05.2010 13:28, Oguz wrote:
I too do not understand this. Already an evil entry node can list all
nodes that it does _not_ control in its family option to try to force
circuit through the nodes it controls, though it
[snip]
The trouble here is that if we make family declarations one-sided, then
I can tell everybody that I'm in blutmagie's family (and X's family and
Y's family and Z's family and ...), and suddenly I'm influencing the
path selection of other clients in a way I shouldn't be able to.
We
Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
from perfect-privacy.com. He did *not* propose, for example, any
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:31:17 +0200 Moritz Bartl t...@wiredwings.com
wrote:
On 20.05.2010 06:25, Roger Dingledine wrote:
The trouble here is that if we make family declarations one-sided, then
I can tell everybody that I'm in blutmagie's family (and X's family and
Y's family and Z's family
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
from
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:12:38 -0400 Paul Syverson
syver...@itd.nrl.navy.mil wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
discussion descends into total confusion because a number of
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 02:36:01PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:12:38 -0400 Paul Syverson
syver...@itd.nrl.navy.mil wrote:
Your interpretation of what Bruce said makes sense. But it is not
how I parsed, BelongToFamily xyz in his message. I read it the
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote 4.7K bytes
in 91 lines about:
: including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
: from perfect-privacy.com. He did *not* propose, for example, any equivalent
: to #include statements. He did *not*
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:50:00PM +0200, bacardic...@gmail.com wrote 1.1K
bytes in 28 lines about:
: Would it be possible for my to include myself in the MyFamily line?
Yes. When I ran 10 nodes, this is what I did. One config for all 10
was easier to maintain than 10 unique configs.
--
On 12.05.2010 18:56, Anders Andersson wrote:
A thought: Currently there is a Donate! section on torproject.org,
that doesn't mention what the money is used for or how much money that
comes in.
By the way, Paypal is the most widely used paypent processor, but also
the most expensive.
By the way, Paypal is the most widely used paypent processor
Well, in the open social networking space, sure.
There's all sorts of traditional commercial processors such as:
https://www.authorize.net/solutions/merchantsolutions/pricing/
By the way, Paypal is the most widely used paypent processor
Well, in the open social networking space, sure.
There's all sorts of traditional commercial processors such as:
https://www.authorize.net/solutions/merchantsolutions/pricing/
Yes, I was implicitly talking about projects that live
28 matches
Mail list logo
