As I understand, this is not really a good idea for a couple of reasons:
1. If it takes off, then it places a large amount of Tor's capacity in
the hands of one organization (Amazon), which is a not so good idea
because that's the prime vector by which Tor can be attacked: control of
a
Alec Muffett:
> In my previous e-mail I suggested removing Tor from Debian precisely
> because of this future-staleness problem.
>
> I still believe that this is a decent idea, because stale code sucks.
>
> Another possible solution would be creation of a "Tor Server Bundle" -
> designed and
Andreas Krey:
> Hi there,
>
> is there anybody else using tweetdeck via tor?
>
> I have the strange phenomenon that I get a
> '... Something went wrong. Please try again.'
> on the initial tweetdeck.twitter.com screen,
> and, while I can log into twitter.com, tweetdeck
> itself won't work. The
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Karsten N. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am 05.01.2017 um 05:23 schrieb grarpamp:
No, what you're replying to was written by someone else, not me.
> Ohhh my dear - have a look at the website of TorProject.org and look at
> "Who is using Tor":
> using
Jason Long:
> 01/02/2017 19:54:16.700 [WARN] Our clock is 11 hours, 5 minutes
> behind the time published in the consensus network status document
> (2017-01-03 15:00:00 UTC). Tor needs an accurate clock to work
> correctly. Please check your time and date settings!
This. Set the correct time
Hello,
Am 05.01.2017 um 05:23 schrieb grarpamp:
> Ultimately the weaponization and militarization of the Tor network by
> Russian cyber aggressors
Ohhh my dear - have a look at the website of TorProject.org and look at
"Who is using Tor":
> Militaries and law enforcement use Tor to protect
Maybe blind but I'm not really seeing much if any difference,
nor in your illuminated version.
The Govt reports and the games behind them have many issues.
Micah's article in defense of Tor is appropriate and shared.
And the point of movrcx's article clearly lies elsewhere.
Hopefully people don't