[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: another seeming attack on my server's DirPort
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: another seeming attack on my server's DirPort
- From: "F. Fox" <kitsune.or@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:27:02 -0800
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:27:24 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DflA026hLGj7rqSSHS7GHIsUpZGKgJNQdCtu7zo5R4g=; b=nLrE+6/VRVTSRq0+Muj0F8hCq06LBDphipk5bI2otQXStn0q1p+AUHijr1QLvqOsf1OBVYBJf9KMDY5OIyxpYiFlrwCNlLCefR2nppx9Zj4RF7PTNCu/n3LirKSSg1IzmxVw2ODdXzYTYYzw5oyJAY1h22PscwAwBXzNKiwLf1I=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=gN0WhFEd8j09BzIzsJnnYmZy6yCMQqffP74nWMWn/9/7gwuQ6ZMCnKNEsNjymmIs0Z8hQa/H1Dz3bDQzmrf9sj2h+MdI80wvagB1voPg1WJSomvvtofkaJwrMuLKS0WBetMqVjupfA+7gCxti1JBdrx4RjtvgvA4ofzaVnWWcl8=
- In-reply-to: <20071219154656.GU20802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <200712190846.lBJ8k4ql008543@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071219154656.GU20802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Roger Dingledine wrote:
(snip)
> My first guess is that it's a runaway Tor client, or a runaway cache
> between the Tor client and you, rather than any intentionally abusive
> behavior. (It's amazing what can go wrong on the Internet when you have
> enough participants.)
True. If you think about it conceptually - that Tor is an extra layer
(or two) on top of the normal Internet, with routers of its own - it
would very likely be subject to many of the pitfalls of normal routing.
And of course, the larger a set of routers gets, the more likely
something's going to go wrong. =:o)
- --
F. Fox: A+, Network+, Security+
Owner of Tor node "kitsune"
http://fenrisfox.livejournal.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHaWJ1bgkxCAzYBCMRCKQsAJ0SVy44IwoA4y4MDIW9zKvjOBCD+wCgj+cY
46QfVMxjhfr2t3qp+PMZcPc=
=JLQR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----