On 8/5/2011 3:37 PM, bertagaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Nor for I. I may be way off, but perhaps they should have used the term "unwitting ISPs," vs friendly. Workable or not, their concept seems to be that friendly ISPs are any that would rout users' traffic to *any* allowed (non forbidden) site / service. If I understood, a friendly ISP would think the Telex user was going to Disney.com, but after passing the ISP, on the way to Disney, Telex diverts the traffic to "Death To (your dictator's name here).com" - the Telex user's real destination. It is a variation on how Tor works. The ISP only sees you're connecting to a Tor node.On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Joe Btfsplk wrote:I think their concept is that the "friendly" ISPs will not know the true destination, therefore would not be complicit in allowing users to access forbidden sites. Apparently, after passing through the ISP to the "apparent" destination, Telex diverts the traffic to the "real" destination, based on tags inserted into the request on user's computer. In concept."We envision that friendly ISPs would deploy Telex stations on paths between censorsâ networks and popular, uncensored Internet destinations. Telex stations would monitor seemingly innocuous flows for a special âtagâ and transparently divert them to a forbidden website or service instead."Yes, I'm aware of that, I was just saying that "friendly ISP" isn't an easy and so obvious concept to me. :) bert. _______________________________________________
I don't pretend to be an expert on Telex - just the opposite. But, it seems their concept is similar, except w/ Telex, the ISP thinks you're going to an acceptable site, like "Long Live (your dictator's name here).com", but after leaving the ISP, the traffic is diverted to another site, of which the ISP is unaware.
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk