Re: [tor-dev] Prop279 and DNS

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Jesse V: > On 04/03/2017 05:01 PM, Jeremy Rand wrote: >> Maybe this topic has already been brought up, but in case it >> hasn't, I'll do so. I notice that Prop279 (onion naming API) >> defines its own API rather than using DNS. I guess that this

Re: [tor-dev] GSoC: Support all kinds of DNS queries

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Daniel Achleitner: > On 2017-04-02 05:22, Jeremy Rand wrote: >> (Thinking out loud.) It would be interesting to have some kind >> of algorithm agility here. For example, a Tor client could send >> a request for a Namecoin domain name, and the exit

Re: [tor-dev] Rethinking Bad Exit Defences: Highlighting insecure and sensitive content in Tor Browser

On 6 April 2017 at 07:53, Donncha O'Cearbhaill wrote: > Tom Ritter: >> It seems reasonable but my first question is the UI. Do you have a >> proposal? The password field UI works, in my opinion, because it >> shows up when the password field is focused on. Assuming one uses

Re: [tor-dev] Counter-RAPTOR Paper

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Yixin Sun wrote: > Hi all, > > Our proposed defenses (Counter-RAPTOR) against active routing attacks on Tor > will soon appear at IEEE S in May. It's also available here: > https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00843 > > In short, we have two lines

Re: [tor-dev] Rethinking Bad Exit Defences: Highlighting insecure and sensitive content in Tor Browser

Tom Ritter: > It seems reasonable but my first question is the UI. Do you have a > proposal? The password field UI works, in my opinion, because it > shows up when the password field is focused on. Assuming one uses the > mouse to click on it (and doesn't tab to it from the username) - they > see

[tor-dev] Action items wrt ed25519 onion address verification in prop224 (was Re: Proposition: Applying an AONT to Prop224 addresses?)

Ian Goldberg writes: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:40:52PM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote: >> On 3 Apr 2017 3:48 p.m., "Ian Goldberg" wrote: >> >> The other thing to remember is that didn't we already say that >> >>

[tor-dev] Action items wrt prop224 onion address encoding (was Re: Proposition: Applying an AONT to Prop224 addresses?)

Ian Goldberg writes: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:02:07AM -0400, David Goulet wrote: >> Another thing about this I just thought of. This AONT construction seems wise >> to use. But it's still not entirely clear to me why we need a 1bit version >> field. Taking this: >> >>