Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 23 Dec (00:03:00), Ivan Markin wrote: > David Goulet: > > On 20 Dec (23:38:43), hi...@safe-mail.net wrote: > >> I just think that this new single-hop system should have been reserved for > >> a > >> different Tor source/installation, dedicated only to non-anonymous hidden > >> services, not

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:52 PM, grarpamp wrote: > And I wouldn't set downstream or embedded stuff > like GlobalLeaks to ship with it on by default. Of course including SecureDrop et al, because not all of these are big houses on clearnet...

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Mirimir wrote: > OK, so that's doable? Better than nothing, I guess. You mean configureable now, no, though adding it is simple. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 12/22/2016 10:52 AM, grarpamp wrote: > A separate branch for this is dumb... if you really care > ./configure --(enable|disable)-single-hop-onions . OK, so that's doable? Better than nothing, I guess. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 12/22/2016 07:13 AM, Alec Muffett wrote: > On 22 Dec 2016 1:44 p.m., "Mirimir" wrote: > > By default, users will be installing a version of Tor which can be > configured to run single-hop onion services. Alternatively, there could > be separate versions. Perhaps someone

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

David Goulet: > On 20 Dec (23:38:43), hi...@safe-mail.net wrote: >> I just think that this new single-hop system should have been reserved for a >> different Tor source/installation, dedicated only to non-anonymous hidden >> services, not merge it with the regular Tor software. And this for

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

The default is off so there's no problem as I see it. Resonating SJL and others on this re onionland opsec we've observed since day one. And if someone gains write access to your torrc, you're done anyways (btw, torrc should also be possible to compile in static). I would not make it a controller

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 06:25:18 -0700 Mirimir wrote: > On 12/22/2016 06:00 AM, laurelai bailey wrote: > > Then i completely misread the previous threads. That happens sometimes o_o > > Well, you didn't _completely_ misread the thread. > > By default, users will be installing a

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 22 Dec 2016 1:44 p.m., "Mirimir" wrote: By default, users will be installing a version of Tor which can be configured to run single-hop onion services. Alternatively, there could be separate versions. Perhaps someone could explain why that option was rejected. Perhaps

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 12/22/2016 06:00 AM, laurelai bailey wrote: > Then i completely misread the previous threads. That happens sometimes o_o Well, you didn't _completely_ misread the thread. By default, users will be installing a version of Tor which can be configured to run single-hop onion services.

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

Then i completely misread the previous threads. That happens sometimes o_o On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Alec Muffett wrote: > On 22 December 2016 at 11:21, laurelai bailey > wrote: > > > > Which is exactly why you should have this feature

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 22 December 2016 at 11:21, laurelai bailey wrote: > > Which is exactly why you should have this feature as it is. You say its > insulting to users, we say the actual reality of the situation is that > people use TOR who arent computer experts and sane defaults are a

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

> Which is exactly why you should have this feature as it is. You say its insulting to users, we say the actual reality of the situation is that people use TOR who arent computer experts and sane defaults are a needed thing, to help keep people safe. You mean the default where it's off, and you

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

This is the most people unaware, human behavior unaware feature to come out of programming since they made logging default on for OTR+Pidgin. This is just begging for sites to be even more insecure than they are already. >People do stupid stuff. Which is exactly why you should have this feature

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 22 December 2016 at 05:50, Jim wrote: > Alec Muffett wrote: > > Otherwise, go work out how to ban "rm -rf /" - first. >> > > That has actually been addressed in a number of places. > > Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rm_(Unix) > > Sun Microsystems introduced

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

Alec Muffett wrote: Otherwise, go work out how to ban "rm -rf /" - first. That has actually been addressed in a number of places. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rm_(Unix) Sun Microsystems introduced "rm -rf /" protection in Solaris 10, first released in 2005. Upon

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 12/21/2016 07:57 AM, David Goulet wrote: > On 20 Dec (23:38:43), hi...@safe-mail.net wrote: >> I just think that this new single-hop system should have been reserved for a >> different Tor source/installation, dedicated only to non-anonymous hidden >> services, not merge it with the regular

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 23:38:43 -0500 hi...@safe-mail.net wrote: > I just think that this new single-hop system should have been reserved for a > different Tor source/installation, dedicated only to non-anonymous hidden > services, not merge it with the regular Tor software. And this for security.

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 20 Dec (23:38:43), hi...@safe-mail.net wrote: > I just think that this new single-hop system should have been reserved for a > different Tor source/installation, dedicated only to non-anonymous hidden > services, not merge it with the regular Tor software. And this for security. > > I once

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 21 December 2016 at 14:01, Allen wrote: > Alex, Typo. > that is inappropriate language and behavior for a public > discussion list. You have demeaned yourself greatly with that > outburst, and only succeeding in damaging the Tor project. Please > stop. > For

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

Alex, that is inappropriate language and behavior for a public discussion list. You have demeaned yourself greatly with that outburst, and only succeeding in damaging the Tor project. Please stop. Second, as someone who firmly believes in Murphy's Law, I share the concerns that have been

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

On 21 December 2016 at 09:40, Cannon wrote: > Good point. > I believe the new single-hop is a great option for some situation such as > if a website does not need to be anonymous but yet would still like to have > a .onion address so users can still remain anonymous or

Re: [tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 12/21/2016 04:38 AM, hi...@safe-mail.net wrote: > I just think that this new single-hop system should have been reserved for a > different Tor source/installation, dedicated only to non-anonymous hidden > services, not merge it with the regular