On 12.04.2013 19:40, Steve Snyder wrote:
> I thinking the sticking point is documentation.
>
> From what repository do I get the obfs3 code? How do I build obfs3?
> How do I specify its use in my Tor config file (i.e. config syntax)?
>
> If obfs3 use is so important, then why is there so littl
On 12.04.2013 19:16, Matt Joyce wrote:
> It would help a lot if we used versioning and stopped sending almost
> unchanged data constantly and instead only providing the changes
I doubt that this is easy to do in a privacy-preserving way. You don't
want to be able to discriminate relays based on w
> Bittorrent may be an exception to the above but the performance cost
> would be at the clients end and for one bittorrent is hardly a realtime
> protocol a little delay making each connection would not make much
> difference, two it performs poorly if you insist on running it over tor
> anyway an
In some work I've done, limitations would follow as such...
a) Advertising non-desire for traffic (exit policy) is the same as
packet filtering with the same rules locally.
b) You can filter whatever you want at any inspection
level you want, for whatever reason, or random/no reason, ***so
long as
> tor could easily be made to efficiently use a similar mechanism, if it
> doesn't already in order to perform the lookups to compute the answer to
> "What is the subset of exit nodes allowing exit to IP addr X on port Y?"
The answer may lie with the client polling some exits and computing
the ans
On 05/04/13 12:34, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:37:51AM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:
>> And do obfs3 bridge help that are run on IPs
>> also used for regular relays?
> Right now, it is important to get more obfs3 bridges for China since obfs2 no
> longer works [0]. In general, i
On 05/04/13 12:34, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:37:51AM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:
>> And do obfs3 bridge help that are run on IPs
>> also used for regular relays?
> Right now, it is important to get more obfs3 bridges for China since obfs2 no
> longer works [0]. In general, i
On 12/04/13 15:03, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 12.04.2013 13:33, Matt Joyce wrote:
I assume you mean firewall-based blocking? You could have simply rejected
those IPs via ExitPolicy (see "man tor"). That's a clear-cut way to tell
the
network you don't accept connections to those I
On 12.04.2013 13:33, Matt Joyce wrote:
>>> I assume you mean firewall-based blocking? You could have simply rejected
>>> those IPs via ExitPolicy (see "man tor"). That's a clear-cut way to tell the
>>> network you don't accept connections to those IPs, and no risk of being
>>> labeled a BadExit.
>>
On 08/04/13 18:41, Andreas Krey wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:47:56 +, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
> ...
>> Now, it's entirely possible I'm missing something big here; or that the
>> code changed and now does something different; or that it used to do
>> something different, etc. Andreas, can you p
On 11/04/13 20:00, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 11.04.2013 12:15, t...@caber.nl wrote:
>> If we want to avoid the packet-dropping problem: We could also reject
>> the IP-addresses of those sites with torrc. What is your opinion about
>> that Moritz? And, would it ok for the authorities and users with l
On 04/12/2013 11:35 AM, Troy Arnold wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:00:42AM +0200, bartels wrote:
On 04/12/2013 10:06 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
On 11.04.2013 22:17, bartels wrote:
I don't see the legal issue, though. Maybe it is there, but I don't see
how rejecting sites via Exit Policy ;) wou
On 09/04/13 20:46, krishna e bera wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 22:59:06 +0600
> Roman Mamedov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:50:09 -0400
>> krishna e bera wrote:
>>
>>> So at the risk of being labelled a BadExit (or at best a non-net-neutral
>>> exit) i
>>> blocked all of ThePirateBay's ip add
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:00:42AM +0200, bartels wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 10:06 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> >On 11.04.2013 22:17, bartels wrote:
> >>I don't see the legal issue, though. Maybe it is there, but I don't see
> >>how rejecting sites via Exit Policy ;) would trigger any one of (1)
> >>thro
On 12.04.2013 11:00, bartels wrote:
>>> I don't see the legal issue, though. Maybe it is there, but I don't see
>>> how rejecting sites via Exit Policy ;) would trigger any one of (1)
>>> through (5).
>> Yes, rejecting via exit policy should not, but direct
>> filtering/tampering via iptables migh
On 04/12/2013 10:06 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
On 11.04.2013 22:17, bartels wrote:
I don't see the legal issue, though. Maybe it is there, but I don't see
how rejecting sites via Exit Policy ;) would trigger any one of (1)
through (5).
Yes, rejecting via exit policy should not, but direct
filteri
On 11.04.2013 22:17, bartels wrote:
> I don't see the legal issue, though. Maybe it is there, but I don't see
> how rejecting sites via Exit Policy ;) would trigger any one of (1)
> through (5).
Yes, rejecting via exit policy should not, but direct
filtering/tampering via iptables might.
--
Mor
17 matches
Mail list logo
