The latest meek user graph shows two recent large increases. The first
increase from 2000 to 3000 is around April 9. The second from 3000 to
5000 is all on April 15. The first increase makes sense; it corresponds
with the removal of a bottleneck on meek-azure:
Why not simply onion service?
Because we have already started using onion service to cover what we
previously called hidden services”
Right.
My latest thinking about the terminology is that we should call them
something like client side onion service (CSOS, suggested
pronunciation
Following on Aaron's suggestion, and further pushing my own wee agenda,
what about PS? it works because even if someone confused the acronym for
something else, it still works. And it matches well with HS/OS.
- Public (Onion) Service
- Peeled (Onion) Service
- Pseudo (Onion) Service -- I like this
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:04:24AM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote:
Thanks George!
On 04/09/2015 08:58 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
- We really really need a better name for this feature. I decided to
go with Direct Onion Services which is the one [...]
Why not simply onion service?
On Jan 7, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Mike Perry mikepe...@torproject.org wrote:
I think regardless of our current entry guard choice (which is governed
by the consensus and subject to relatively easy change, btw), having a
datapoint on how traffic splitting affects Website Traffic
Fingerprinting
Hi Marc,
your plans for the wfpadtools framework sound really interesting.
An evaluation framework of website fingerprinting defenses would be really
useful! I would be happy to use it to evaluate the splitting/padding approach.
Like you and Mike said, I have to implement the splitting in Tor
Following on Aaron's suggestion, and further pushing my own wee agenda,
what about PS? it works because even if someone confused the acronym for
something else, it still works. And it matches well with HS/OS.
- Public (Onion) Service
- Peeled (Onion) Service
- Pseudo (Onion) Service -- I
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 08:51:59AM -0400, A. Johnson wrote:
Why not simply onion service?
Because we have already started using onion service to cover what we
previously called hidden services”
Right.
My latest thinking about the terminology is that we should call them
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:05:16PM -0400, A. Johnson wrote:
The problem with fast, direct, and maybe bare is that they
describe some property we're trying to provide with these. Like
hidden, I think the chance that they will evolve or be applied in some
way for which these terms won't
Whether it's public/fast/direct or hidden, they are both Must-Tor
services. You can't get away from that basic requirement.
Tor Services, being either Fast/Direct/Public or Hidden/Onion, could be
the generic term for either. It would get away from any possibility of
what OS is - Onion Service vs.
On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Paul Syverson paul.syver...@nrl.navy.mil wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:05:16PM -0400, A. Johnson wrote:
This is another reason why [modifier] onion service is
problematic; it will almost certainly get shortened in use, just
as location-hidden service did.
I think new users might not appreciate the difference between similarly named
terms and then choose the wrong one to their detriment. It seems better that
they should later learn of shared technology that's not clear from the naming
differences than be surprised by differences in security
12 matches
Mail list logo
