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

Re: Proposal of a new hidden wiki

I appreciate the concern, but I think that while freenet is a viable
option and certainly there should be a backup on it, tor users need a
central link cache (so they can use the tor hidden network). I think
that tor is the right network for unbreakable hidden website,
especially if we use redundant services (through RAID-over-network?).
The reason we can do this on the "real internet" is that it would get
censored. Really quickly. Many countries have laws banning such
activities or linking to certain sites, like cryptography sites, which
is why tor links must be linked to from a hidden wiki.
Comrade Ringo Kamens

On 8/8/07, vikingserver@xxxxxxxxx <vikingserver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Karsten, Ringo and Eduardo,
> Feel free to experiment, it's fun... But:
> In my opinion it's MUCH easier to:
> -have one well known hidden wiki
> -have one or more well known backups of the hidden wiki, with the edit
> function disabled
> If the primary server is down, people can just go to a backup.
> If the primary server goes permanently down, a backup can become the new
> primary server.
> If you want to create unbreakable hidden websites, tor isn't today the
> right network, but might become in the future. It might be better to use
> a network with a distributed cache system like freenet or such. Or to
> help develop Tor by creating a distributed cache system for Tor. But
> experimenting is fun, so I don't want you not to try. You might discover
> a bug or security vulnerability by doing something that isn't supposed
> to be done.
> Every network has it's differences. Freenet is ultra slow, is known for
> hosting child porn, doesn't allow exits to the internet, and isn't
> actively developed. Tor has the world's most hated and feared army as a
> sponsor/initiator of the project, but on the other hand it's fast and
> does it job. Freenet has a slow but working system for creating almost
> unbreakable web sites, Tor has a simpler, faster but more vulnerable
> system to hide websites.
> With Tor it's very easy to detect if a tor server and a tor service go
> down at the same time. Showing on what server a hidden service runs.
> And by the way, why is there a need to have a hidden wiki, when it's
> going to get detected soon enough who runs it? Why not a public wiki
> with .onion links? Why not add .onion links to the public wiki that
> already exists?
> Blessed are thee who stay hidden inside Tor, for the hiddenness from the
> evil internet bestoeth them! ;-)