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
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
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
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
[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
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
In the meantime, perfect-privacy.com should advise this list as soon as
its torrc files are in compliance, while the rest of us should feel free to
use the NodeFamily information I posted earlier with, apparently, the addition
of 17 more node fingerprints that I missed when I grepped the
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 ad...@perfect-privacy.com
On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:25:33 -0400 Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu
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
Hi,
What I did was just file a report at the company's website. It took them
only minutes to get back to me.
Scott, I don't know why, but you probably didn't get their response in
the first place.
Original Message
Subject: Re: - Medium - Tor servers, Tor community wants to
14 matches
Mail list logo
