Hello everyone,
I've pretty much completed a proof of concept of my SIM4Things project (an
IP6 overlay for the Internet of Things running on top of Tor with
persistent secure cryptographic identities tied to physical SIM cards).
I've developed against the current hidden service infrastructure and
Hi,
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Rob van der Hoeven wrote:
> Hi Georg,
>
> I think the behavior you see can be explained by an overloaded download
> server. From the initial downloads graph you can see that there are on
> average 80.000 downloads a day. From the update pings and update
> requests
Thank you Ivan! I still dont see a very good reason to _replace_ the
current HS system with the one in Prop224 and not run the two in parallel.
Why not let the client decide what format and security features it wants
for its services?
Razvan
On 13 Sep 2016 00:37, "Ivan Markin"
Hi Razvan,
Razvan Dragomirescu:
> I've developed against the current hidden service infrastructure and it
> appears to work like a charm, but I'm a bit worried about Prop224. That
> will break both the OnionBalance-like service re-registration that I'm
> using _and_ the OnionCat HS to IP6
Hi Folks,
There have been some technical reports about how to deal with the problem when
a botnet uses Tor as its primary C channel. In this case, the CPU of some
relays is exhausted, causing circuit creation failure.
I am wondering currently how a client reacts when its circuit creation
> On 13 Sep 2016, at 01:51, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> On 9/12/16 11:20 AM, David Fifield wrote:
>> Oh, thanks for finding that source code link. I looked for that code and
>> didn't find it.
>>
>> But that's exactly what I'm saying: once someone has downloaded an
>> update,
On 9/11/16 3:45 PM, David Fifield wrote:
>> * We don't know what (8) or (9) is but it seems to us we are losing
>> users over time and are only getting them back slowly if at all. A
>> weekday/weekend pattern is visible there as well.
>
> Does Tor Browser continue checking for further updates in
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:12:15AM -0400, Mark Smith wrote:
> On 9/11/16 3:45 PM, David Fifield wrote:
> >> * We don't know what (8) or (9) is but it seems to us we are losing
> >> users over time and are only getting them back slowly if at all. A
> >> weekday/weekend pattern is visible there as
On 12 September 2016 at 03:37, Rob van der Hoeven
wrote:
> One thing bothers me. The update requests graph never touches zero. It
> should, because that would mean that all Tor browsers have been updated.
> 100.000 seems to be the lowest value.
I'm not surprised by this