On 09/29/2015 12:19 AM, Jeff Burdges wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 16:26 -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:20:47PM +0200, Jeff Burdges wrote:
>>> I proposed that Tor implement NameService rules using UNIX domain
>>> sockets, or ports, since that's how GNUNet works, but
Name of Tor
/title
author fullname=Christian Grothoff initials=C.G. surname=Grothoff
organizationINRIA/organization
address
postal
streetEacute;quipe Deacute;centraliseacute;e/street
streetINRIA Rennes Bretagne Atlantique/street
street263
On 05/23/2015 06:26 PM, OnioNS Dev wrote:
My design also assumes
that there is no dynamic compromise of Tor routers (there's no
incentive for an attacker to target Tor routers because of OnioNS)
I can live with explicitly stated design assumptions, but the claim that
there is no incentive for
Please write an IETF draft asking for .tor to be reserved for Tor
under RFC 6761 referencing your documentation. Should take no time if
you base it on Jake's .onion draft. Send it to dnsop, they really
love to discuss this topic and alternative DNS protocol ideas right now.
^_^.
Also, GNS is
Hi all,
some of you might remember a project called Knock, which implements
a variant of port-knocking in the Linux kernel that can be used to
check the authenticity of arbitrary TCP connections and even can do
integrity checking of the TCP payload by using a pre-shared key. Knock
started as a
Dear all,
Andrey Uzunov's Master's thesis on Speeding Up Tor with SPDY
is now available at https://gnunet.org/content/speeding-tor-spdy
My personal conclusions are that SPDY PUSH should not be used with
Tor, and that modest performance gains with SPDY are attainable
for typical websites. Aside
On 01/30/2012 07:59 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:13:19PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
But I think the right design is probably something like allowing
clients to request more DNS info via exit nodes' nameservers, and get
more info back. We should think of ways to do
