On 18/03/14 17:29, perezza.manuel wrote: > Hi, > > My argument is first based on the fact that the entry point (firefox > outdated version) is vulnerable > http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=firefox.
Tor uses the Firefox ESR releases, which Mozilla backports security patches to. Every seventh Firefox release is an ESR release (10, 17, 24, ...). More information on ESR releases from Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/ > Second, I used to use Tor when it took about 10 second to load a > simple text page. It doesn't usually take ten seconds to load a simple text page these days, although 'heavy' webpages can take ten seconds or longer. > Trust me it was camped 24/7 years ago. Back then you could count the > number of nodes... Any "fast" node would be suspicious because at > that time bandwith was expensive. The Tor project has asked organisation, universities etc. to host Tor nodes. These institutions have very fast network access as they are located much closer to the internet backbone, unlike typical home broadband connections. This is also a historical fact, as universities were among the first institutions to participate in the global Internet. There is nothing suspicious about the performance of the Tor network, IMO. > Third, simple things such as freedom of speech is denied in a lot of > places. Indeed (but preventing censorship is only one of the many purposes of Tor). > Tor might be necessary in some cases where the pressure is too heavy > and people don't have enough time/money. Instead they could simply > download a bundle and upload their files. Denying will take multiple > forms, you go check it out. The users we got here are apparently not > under any pressure, don't you think ? I don't entirely understand, can you rephrase this? Andrew.
