Hi! intrigeri: > If bridge mode (or whatever the censorship circumvention / Tails > detection protection option is called) is enabled, then yes. Would you > be willing to prepare a patch to our design/implementation doc that > makes this clear?
I am happy to look at it. >> Apart from this, I also made the suggestions, if Tails wanted to have to >> have a good portion of more clearnet traffic instead of having only Tor >> traffic, Tails could run an untorified mainstream Linux distribution in >> chroot or in a VM. > > It's unclear to me how useful this is in practice. > Any pointer to reasoning / research on this topic? A conclusion I got from "[tor-talk] Research paper "The Parrot is Dead: Observing Unobservable Network Communications", was: "if you want to look like http/https/ssh/etc. the only feasible method is, use the implementation itself, not trying to mimic it". I conclude, if Tails wants to look like Debian, the most promising approach is to use Debian. This makes a very bold assumption: censors care not to ban anything looking like a Debian fingerprint, unless white listed (companies), just to make sure. Other than that, I am not aware of any research on using operating system fingerprints to censorship-evading/anonymity tools. It just seems to one of the natural next steps a censor could take. Faking a Windows fingerprint would be even more problematic, implementation wise and the legal stuff doesn't make it any easier. Its an arms race, easy to loose. Not to say, most of it is lost already anyway. If you look at Tor metrics, how many users came from one country before censoring the Tor network and how many users connect using bridges after censoring the Tor network... It's just a friction, even if you imagine that others now use other circumvetion tools or aren't all correctly counted as bridge users. Cheers, adrelanos _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
