hi, (Let's kill this old stalled discussion, and free some mental space of ours.)
intrigeri wrote (24 Sep 2012 10:11:59 GMT) : > anonym wrote (06 Feb 2012 14:24:31 GMT) : >> [...] It turned out that if we want a long, stable Tor session with >> a time only handled by tordate (like when htpdate fails), then the >> only really safe thing to do is to *always*, no matter what, set the >> time to fresh-until. >> [...] >> **Conclusion:** The safest seems to be to set `V = N = W = >> fresh-until`, which effectively removes "*good enough* time" check -- >> no matter what, `tordate` should make sure a consensus is fetched and >> we should always set the time to its `fresh-until`, no more, no less. > More than seven months have passed, and nobody has taken the time to > verify this analysis theoretically, so I seriously doubt anyone will > ever do that. Therefore, I propose we implement anonym's proposal, > merge that into experimental, test it in extreme conditions, play with > it for a while, and see what happens. > In case we go this way, anonym, do you want to handle this? >> This problem is partially based on Tor's extreme sensitivity to >> clocks that are behind, for which a potential fix is discussed in >> the end of the analysis. If you agree with my analysis I'm gonna >> send a bug report with the relevant parts. > Well, I suggest you do send this bug report without waiting for input > from us any further. Tor developers will be much better than us to > review your suggestions. Sorry not to be that helpful, the best I can > do about that right now is: Be bold! :) Ping? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
