On 07/19/2016 03:34 PM, juan wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:31:09 -0600 > Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 07/18/2016 03:39 PM, juan wrote: >>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:45:19 -0600 >>> Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable >>>> by design. >>> >>> >>> keep sucking mirimir - your friend syverson isn't fully >>> satisfied yet. >> >> He's not my friend, Juan. He works for the fucking US Navy, after all. >> >> But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US >> military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure >> communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders >> and their enemies. > > Oh come on Mirimir. As 'we' know, they did the only thing they > could have done. > > The only way for them to be able to exploit their users as > cover is by making the system 'public' and 'free'. They didn't > do it because of ANY altruistic and humanitarian motivation. > They had no other choice, and it was good propaganda to boot!
I didn't say that there was anything altruistic or humanitarian about it. And yes, they did what they had to do. > So, > > 1) They need human shields, their abused 'users' Yes, they do. All Tor users do, actually. > 2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the > system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. I can't imagine how you know. I do agree that it's prudent to be suspicious. But no better alternatives have been implemented. So the best option that I see is layering stuff. Route Tor through nested VPNs. Route Mixmaster, Pond, Bitmessage, etc through Tor. Encrypt private stuff with GnuPG. >> It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US >> military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's >> intentionally designed to be vulnerable. > > The distinction looks rather subtle. It's actually invisible and > non-existent from my point of view... Maybe so. >> There's also the fact that >> nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to >> global adversaries. > > Hardly surprising cosidering how powerful the US government is > and how far its control over 'industry' and 'academy' goes. It > includes the 'community' of sold out 'hackers' too. If your assessment is correct, we are truly fucked :( > Also, it should be obvious that having bad and *subsidized* > systems like tor fucks up the 'market' for security. Yes, it does :( >> So it seems unlikely that he had such a design >> that he put aside as unsellable. >> > >
