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] Intel ME / AMT + NSL vs Tor Nodes

podmo: > I'm going to rely on Intel not wanting to sabotage their own company but > still wish they would provide better documentation and while I'm at it, an > easily accessible jumper or BIOS switch to disable it. Meanwhile, I'll > focus on standard security practices such as OS hardening,

Re: [tor-talk] Massive Bandwidth Onion Services

Alec Muffett: > What _could_ happen in the future, is. > > 1) the 72 workers could each set up an IP but *not* publish it in a > descriptor, and then > > 2) the master daemon could poll the 72 workers for their list of current > IPs via a backchannel, and then... > > 3) construct the "master

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] How hard would it be to copy an onion address?

On 22 December 2016 at 16:20, wrote: > Anyway. The GPU's are just getting stronger these days! And people can have > quad-SLI too, with 4 hardcore GPU's working in unison. Like 4 x TitanX. > So how hard would it be, more like how LONG would it take, to duplicate an > onion

[tor-talk] How hard would it be to copy an onion address?

There's a program out there that utilizes the GPU in your system to create a custom, kind of, onion address. At least the few first characters at the beginning of the address. So you can create an onion address like googleja6vbnyma6.onion. I've seen people being able to create a 7 character

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