On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 03:21:15PM -0400, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Sebastian Hahn
> wrote:
>
> >> Is tortunnel evil since it maybe hacks Tor-cirucits to reduce the number
> >> of relays ?
> >
> > Yes, unfortunately quite a few people use it.
> > It hurts the ne
>> By the way, Paypal is the most widely used paypent processor
> Well, in the open social networking space, sure.
> There's all sorts of traditional commercial processors such as:
> https://www.authorize.net/solutions/merchantsolutions/pricing/
Yes, I was implicitly talking about projects that l
> By the way, Paypal is the most widely used paypent processor
Well, in the open social networking space, sure.
There's all sorts of traditional commercial processors such as:
https://www.authorize.net/solutions/merchantsolutions/pricing/
**
On 12.05.2010 18:56, Anders Andersson wrote:
> A thought: Currently there is a "Donate!" section on torproject.org,
> that doesn't mention what the money is used for or how much money that
> comes in.
By the way, Paypal is the most widely used paypent processor, but also
the most expensive. Espec
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:50:00PM +0200, bacardic...@gmail.com wrote 1.1K
bytes in 28 lines about:
: Would it be possible for my to include myself in the MyFamily line?
Yes. When I ran 10 nodes, this is what I did. One config for all 10
was easier to maintain than 10 unique configs.
--
And
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote 4.7K bytes
in 91 lines about:
: including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
: from perfect-privacy.com. He did *not* propose, for example, any equivalent
: to #include statements. He did *not* prop
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 02:36:01PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:12:38 -0400 Paul Syverson
> wrote:
> >
> >Your interpretation of what Bruce said makes sense. But it is not
> >how I parsed, "BelongToFamily xyz" in his message. I read it the same
> >way it see
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:12:38 -0400 Paul Syverson
wrote:
>On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
>> Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
>> discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
>> incl
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
> discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
> including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
> f
Hey Andrew,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 13:44, wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, t...@wiredwings.com wrote 0.9K
> bytes in 19 lines about:
> : >From what I understand, yes, at the moment both "partners" have to list
> : each other. That's what the fuss is all about, because this be
On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:31:17 +0200 Moritz Bartl
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
Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
from perfect-privacy.com. He did *not* propose, for example, any equiva
> [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.
>
>
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 20.05.2010 13:28, Oguz wrote:
>> I too do not understand this. Already an evil entry node can list all
>> nodes that it does _not_ control in its family option to try to force
>> circuit through the nodes it controls, though it would obviou
On Thursday May 20 2010 09:39:00 Flamsmark wrote:
> On 20 May 2010 07:44, wrote:
> > If Mallory lists Alice
> > and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
> > Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
> > screw everyone.
>
> Why would this screw e
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 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 both declare t
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 li
On May 20, 2010, at 08:39 AM, Flamsmark wrote:
> On 20 May 2010 07:44, wrote:
> If Mallory lists Alice
> and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
> Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
> screw everyone.
>
> Why would this screw everyone?
On 20 May 2010 07:44, wrote:
> If Mallory lists Alice
> and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
> Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
> screw everyone.
Why would this screw everyone? I admit that I don't fully understand how
families ar
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:44:51AM -0400, and...@torproject.org wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, t...@wiredwings.com wrote 0.9K
> bytes in 19 lines about:
> : >From what I understand, yes, at the moment both "partners" have to list
> : each other. That's what the fuss is all abou
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, t...@wiredwings.com wrote 0.9K bytes
in 19 lines about:
: >From what I understand, yes, at the moment both "partners" have to list
: each other. That's what the fuss is all about, because this becomes hard
: to manage when you run a lot of nodes.
Yes, thi
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 h
On 20.05.2010 13:28, Oguz wrote:
> I too do not understand this. Already an evil entry node can list all
> nodes that it does _not_ control in its family option to try to force
> circuit through the nodes it controls, though it would obviously be a
> dead give away listing many unrelated nodes as w
On 5/20/10, Moritz Bartl 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 influencing t
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 i
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
Organiza
On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:37:17 + The23rd Raccoon
wrote:
>On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
>> =A0 =A0 On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:40:42 -0400 =3D?utf-8?Q?Jerzy_=3DC5=3D81og=
>iewa?=3D
>> wrote:
>>>I apologize for altering the nature of this thread, but can someone =3D
>>>pl
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:40:42 -0400 =?utf-8?Q?Jerzy_=C5=81ogiewa?=
> wrote:
>>I apologize for altering the nature of this thread, but can someone =
>>please summarize what this discussion is about? Who is =
>>perfect-privacy.com and why a
28 matches
Mail list logo
