On 2014-11-07 16:08, Kevin de Bie wrote:
>> With that in mind, he does raise a valid point. Are there any plans to move
>> to a more decentralised model for the directory authorities? Are their any
>> plans to move the power to blacklist nodes out of the hands of the Tor
>> Project
>> and int
>With that in mind, he does raise a valid point. Are there any plans to
move
>to a more decentralised model for the directory authorities? Are their any
>plans to move the power to blacklist nodes out of the hands of the Tor
Project
>and into the hands of its users somehow.
This is pretty intere
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014, at 09:32 PM, Graeme Briggs-White wrote:
> As above
... so below.
GD
> ___
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
--
http://www.fastmail.f
> As above
Go here: https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Enter your email address in the form at the very bottom of the page titled
"Unsubscribe or Edit Options". You should be able to click an unsubscribe
button from there.
Alternatively a list operator might see yo
> How does one establish trust online though? Trust is a very delicate thing. A
> system such as this simply inherently has these challenges. Pretty sure that
> is why the tor browser for example always uses https.
Indeed, both the centralised and decentralised systems that are currently in
place
As above
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
I run a pseudonymous exit node and I'm not interested in giving up my
pseudonymity by meeting people in real life.
I don't want to end up on a special interest watch list.
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 03:26:40PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
> Is it not time to establish a node operator web of trust?
> Look
How does one establish trust online though? Trust is a very delicate thing.
A system such as this simply inherently has these challenges. Pretty sure
that is why the tor browser for example always uses https.
Op 21:26 vr 7 nov. 2014 schreef grarpamp :
> Is it not time to establish a node operator
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> ... that's .. odd.
>
> Let's poke the freebsd crypto and network stack people and ask. I
> can't imagine why this is a problem anymore and we should default to
> it being on.
I don't think there's a crypto@ list, though security@ might repres
Is it not time to establish a node operator web of trust?
Look at all the nodes out there with or without 'contact' info,
do you really know who runs them? Have you talked with
them? What are their motivations? Are they your friends?
Do you know where they work, such as you see them every day
stock
grarpamp schreef op 07/11/14 08:46:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:43 AM, David Serrano wrote:
On 2014-11-05 23:58:43 (-0500), grarpamp wrote:
The real problem below is the 96% allocation of opensource to
Linux and 4% to Other opensource.
Someone should really do an analysis of platform vs. exit
On 2014-11-07 02:46:40 (-0500), grarpamp wrote:
>
> You'd
> have to check say the top 10, 25, 50 or so relays to see to
> what extent they are part of this mess, I'm sure it's similar.
Top 200:
94.90% 2850128913 Linux
4.86% 146110227 FreeBSD
0.24%7156736 Darwin
Top 50:
93.08% 1317726797 L
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Philipp Winter wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:04:41AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
>> 173 FreeBSD
>
> FreeBSD still seems to use globally incrementing IP IDs by default.
> That's an issue as it leaks fine-grained information about how many
> packets a relay's networ
13 matches
Mail list logo
