For basic anonymity for bit torrent leeching try this https://www.relakks.com/
TOR doesn't have the bandwidth to spare.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of a a
Sent: 19 February 2007 19:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Security concerning
Thus spake Watson Ladd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hello!
Tor currently uses RSA encrypted DH exchanges. This requires that the
server and client both make 3 exponentiations: Two for DH, One for RSA.
But we can reduce this significantly. I've already presented this
before, but now I think I can
Oh, excuses. I do not (at least not after the distinct replies) intend
to use this either to leech torrents or to leech Tor. Anyways, after
testing this for approximately three minutes, my ol' pa went totally
nutters on the realisation that this might circumvent the firewall (and
yes, he's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I can't give you a technical answer to that but rest assured you would
not like the result if all worked the way you want it to be. That's
because using P2P with anonymous networks such as Tor will be much too
slow, it will heavily decrease your P2P
Mike Perry wrote:
Thus spake Watson Ladd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hello!
Tor currently uses RSA encrypted DH exchanges. This requires that the
server and client both make 3 exponentiations: Two for DH, One for RSA.
But we can reduce this significantly. I've already presented this
before, but now I
that's not really a problem. all computations are done in the group
ZZ_p. 1/k really means the inverse of k modulo the order of g in ZZ_p.
So b/k does not have to be an integer.
putting the security of the scheme aside, one question that comes to
mind is how Alice (the OP) is going to get
On 2/19/07, a a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
A more accurate question on my behalf would therefore be: Can Tor (if
you use it without (or with, for that matter) port forwarding the
firewall, create holes in the firewall by allowing incoming
connections through the Tor proxy. The µTorrent case
Thus spake a a ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Oh, excuses. I do not (at least not after the distinct replies) intend
to use this either to leech torrents or to leech Tor. Anyways, after
testing this for approximately three minutes, my ol' pa went totally
nutters on the realisation that this might
Um, as I said, I am not really interested in BitTorrent specifically
(although using BT (or any other application) behind a firewall without
having to port forward and creating security exposure is something to
wish for, but apparently not possible without bad exploitation). About
the P2P,
On 2/19/07, Mike Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
One alternate way your firewall could be broken is that it is allowing
UPNP (or Apple's equivalent.. forget its name).
zeroconf fortunately doesn't do the UPnP port forwarding stuff.
filtering multicast is an easy way to halt zeroconf
putting the security of the scheme aside, one question that comes to
mind is how Alice (the OP) is going to get an authentic copy of Ricky's
DH public key, y. One way to do this is to include it in the router
descriptors. But then we have to ask if it's worth adding a new public
key for each OR
Thus spake James Muir ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Mike Perry wrote:
Thus spake Watson Ladd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Well, one immediate problem is that b/k has to be an integer.. So b=rk
for some random r and b is thus not completely random.. To clarify the
effects of this, you should rewrite your
Problem is: (g^X)^k = g for some given k. Find X equivalent to 1/k.
Rewrite as (g^k)^X = g
Seems like you need to take the Discrete Log of both sides to get your
X=1/k value. This is hard.
Since we are working modulo p and we know that g is a generator of ZZ_p
its order is p-1. So, to find
James Muir wrote:
putting the security of the scheme aside, one question that comes to
mind is how Alice (the OP) is going to get an authentic copy of Ricky's
DH public key, y. One way to do this is to include it in the router
descriptors. But then we have to ask if it's worth adding a new
Few days ago I've successfully combined Tor and PHP and am utilizing them now.
Regarding Tor nodes... where is that list stored on a computer.
I am currently harvesting http://belegost.mit.edu/tor/ and using regular
expression to put each node in a DB by its name, uptime, IP...etc.
This makes me
We already distribute different keys for the current protocol. But the
one I proposed is insecure so we might as well forget about it. Schnorr
signatures are secure and are intended for this purpose, but we can only
use them after 2008.
the way things are done now, each OR has two public keys
James Muir wrote:
You may already know that the current scheme has a security reduction
(Goldberg, PET 2006), so I imagine there would have to be a comparable
argument before the powers that be would consider a new scheme.
Out of curiosity, what is it about your scheme that makes you say
Thus spake Watson Ladd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
James Muir wrote:
You may already know that the current scheme has a security reduction
(Goldberg, PET 2006), so I imagine there would have to be a comparable
argument before the powers that be would consider a new scheme.
Out of
18 matches
Mail list logo
