Hi, Looking at my flagged emails, I found that thread that seems unfinished. Is it still relevant?
Cheers On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:12:44 +0100 intrigeri <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
