Thanks Lunar for bringing this into discussion. See below.
David Goulet wrote:
> On 06 Dec (17:23:10), Lunar wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Sorry to be late to the party. I still haven't seen UX concerns fully
>> addressed, and I think we should not create a specification that will
>> make the life of our
On 06 Dec (17:23:10), Lunar wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry to be late to the party. I still haven't seen UX concerns fully
> addressed, and I think we should not create a specification that will
> make the life of our users harder if we can avoid it.
I believe it can be addressed by a good UI in TBB
Hi!
Sorry to be late to the party. I still haven't seen UX concerns fully
addressed, and I think we should not create a specification that will
make the life of our users harder if we can avoid it.
s7r:
> George Kadianakis wrote:
> > I have a more mature torspec branch now for your eyes and
George Kadianakis writes:
> Nick Mathewson writes:
>
>> [ text/plain ]
>> Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
>> could be used as an alternative method to the current proposed client
>> authentication mechanism. We
Hello,
George Kadianakis wrote:
> Nick Mathewson writes:
>
>> [ text/plain ]
>> Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
>> could be used as an alternative method to the current proposed client
>> authentication mechanism. We could implement
Nick Mathewson writes:
> [ text/plain ]
> Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
> could be used as an alternative method to the current proposed client
> authentication mechanism. We could implement both, or just this, or
> just the other.
>
>
> - I feel that the max settings imposed by the 50k max size limit, will satisfy
> most crazy hidden service use cases that someone might have wrt scalability
> or number of authed clients. It can support up to 350 authed clients, and 20
> intro points. We should increase the max size limit,
David Goulet writes:
> [ text/plain ]
> On 15 Nov (16:29:33), George Kadianakis wrote:
>> Nick Mathewson writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I worked some more on prop224 client authorization. I have a draft
>> torspec patch at prop224_client_auth_3 in
> On 18 Nov. 2016, at 09:20, David Goulet wrote:
>
> On 18 Nov (08:27:53), teor wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Nov. 2016, at 03:52, David Goulet wrote:
>>>
I ended up using the x25519 scheme described above by Nick.
I also ended up dodging the
On 18 Nov (08:27:53), teor wrote:
>
> > On 18 Nov. 2016, at 03:52, David Goulet wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I ended up using the x25519 scheme described above by Nick.
> >>
> >> I also ended up dodging the UX questions raised on this thread, by only
> >> specifying the Tor
> On 18 Nov. 2016, at 03:52, David Goulet wrote:
>
>>
>> I ended up using the x25519 scheme described above by Nick.
>>
>> I also ended up dodging the UX questions raised on this thread, by only
>> specifying the Tor protocol level details, and leaving the out-of-band
>>
On 15 Nov (16:29:33), George Kadianakis wrote:
> Nick Mathewson writes:
>
> > [ text/plain ]
> > Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
> > could be used as an alternative method to the current proposed client
> > authentication mechanism. We
Nick Mathewson writes:
> [ text/plain ]
> Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
> could be used as an alternative method to the current proposed client
> authentication mechanism. We could implement both, or just this, or
> just the other.
>
>
George Kadianakis writes:
> Also, it means that clients need to _securely_ send credentials to the
> HS operator and then they need to _wait_ till the HS operator adds
> those creds to Tor, before they are able to visit the HS.
One thing that might help here is Brian
Regarding the API / interface for communicating client-keys for hidden-
services .. I thought we were encouraging ADD_ONION based services?
Personally, I think using the filesystem as "an API" isn't very
good. From a controller standpoint, it's *way* simpler to use ADD_ONION
properly than
> On 12 Nov. 2016, at 03:41, George Kadianakis wrote:
>
> teor writes:
>
>> [ text/plain ]
>>
>>> On 11 Nov. 2016, at 04:18, George Kadianakis wrote:
>>>
>>> George Kadianakis writes:
>>>
[
teor writes:
> [ text/plain ]
>
>> On 11 Nov. 2016, at 04:18, George Kadianakis wrote:
>>
>> George Kadianakis writes:
>>
>>> [ text/plain ]
>>> Nick Mathewson writes:
>>>
[ text/plain ]
Hi! I
> On 11 Nov. 2016, at 04:18, George Kadianakis wrote:
>
> George Kadianakis writes:
>
>> [ text/plain ]
>> Nick Mathewson writes:
>>
>>> [ text/plain ]
>>> Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
George Kadianakis writes:
> [ text/plain ]
> Nick Mathewson writes:
>
>> [ text/plain ]
>> Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
>> could be used as an alternative method to the current proposed client
>> authentication
Nick Mathewson writes:
> [ text/plain ]
> Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
> could be used as an alternative method to the current proposed client
> authentication mechanism. We could implement both, or just this, or
> just the other.
>
>
Hi! I thought I'd write this up while it was fresh in my mind. It
could be used as an alternative method to the current proposed client
authentication mechanism. We could implement both, or just this, or
just the other.
My description here will be a bit terser than we'd want in a proper
21 matches
Mail list logo