On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Nick Mathewson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I dig what I've heard of the Chrome architecture, but it seems clear > > that, like every other consumer browser, it's not suitable for > > anonymous browsing out-of-the-box. The real question will be how easy > > it is to adapt it to be safe. Torbutton, for instance, has proven to > > take some pretty extreme hackery to try to shut down all of Firefox's > > interesting leaks. If it turned out to be (say) an order of magnitude > > easier to extend Chrome to be anonymity-friendly, that would be pretty > > awesome. We'll see, I guess. > [snip] > > Why aren't more people using virtual machines for anonymous browsing? > > If your VM can't access the outside world except via TOR, and it has > no knowledge of the outside world information (because TOR itself is > running on the real machine) then pretty much all possible leaks are > closed and you're only vulnerable to leakage between multiple > anonymous things. Very simple, very clean. > You sir are spot on! Multiple VMs is the way to go. :)
