[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:56 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Instead, I think that nodes which exit _only_ to the unencrypted
> version of a service (e.g. 80 but not 443) should be excluded from
> operating as exits entirely (except as enclaves).  In this way these
> nodes would be force to "pay their way".  We can't stop them from
> sniffing, but at least we can make them carry traffic they can't sniff
> as part of the cost of doing their evil business. They could do things
> like severely throttle encrypted traffic, but that is activity that
> testing could detect.

Where I can read what it means "a bad exit"? Earlier I thought that it
is and exit which works wrong in something. And I thought that them
excludes from routing.
But I pereodically can see that my client establish connections through
bad exits.
Have I to need do something from preventing it for protection of my
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/