On Sun, December 10, 2006 5:25 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 10:07:18PM +0100, Dexter Filmore wrote: >> Umm, TOR routes traffic through a kind of mix cascade, but it's only >> useful >> for web and mail traffic as of now plus a couple of apps that can >> be "toryfied", most noticably BitTorrent, whose p2p mechanism already is >> similar to TOR but you can route tracker traffic thru TOR hence give it >> a >> certain anonymity. > > tor.eff.org claims Tor is golden for any TCP traffic > >> A runtime analysis probably could be promising, > > What do you mean? traffic analysis? *That* is precisely what Tor > was designed to thwart. > >> Freenet has more issues than Win95, both technically and in how the >> project is >> run. The old version performs shoddy, the new version performs barely >> better >> and has serious usability issues plus its easy to breach anonymity there >> by >> social engineering. See "opennet" vs "darknet" in the ongoing 0.7 >> discussion. >> Freenet is to perish, my 2 cents. > > I agree. Thanks to Ian C. for coming up with the idea. Looks like others > will > carry it across the finish line. > >> The next big thing is so you got your totally superanonymous network but >> your >> neighbour spied on you and bears a grudge against you. >> So beyond anon p2p you need strong crypto covered by plausible >> deniability. > > Tor has strong crypto already. Why don't you think it gives plausible > deniability? What does that mean anyway? anonymity? That is what Tor > gives > you!? > > cs
Tor sounds yummy. I'm one of those guys who has few, if any, secrets, but who believes that being able to have secrets is part of freedom. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
