[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: OSI 1-3 attack on Tor? in it.wikipedia
Scott Bennett wrote:
> Looks like OR-TALK has moved up in the world enough that it has
> last acquired a troll.
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:42:59 -0800 (PST) Anon Mus
> <a_green_lantern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> F. Fox wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA256
>>> Anon Mus wrote:
>>>> Not quite true.
>>>> 3. Attacker has a list of known public/private key pairs. These
>>>> generated over the years by government security service
>>>> and their own secure network computers (around the world). Such
>>>> regularly swapped between 'friendly' countries and are fro sale on
>>>> black market. Given any tor nodes public key, the attacker looks
>>>> key in the list and it returns the tor nodes genuine private key,
>>>> has it in its list. (Interesting note: here you have to imagine
>>>> there is software of out there, like the tor network itself, which
>>>> be used for generating and acquiring billions of key pairs a year
>>>> millions of networked computers world wide. You only need to store
>>>> key pairs such networked software generates after they have
>>>> with them.)
>>> Umm... unless you're talking about lists of *compromised* keys
>>> stolen, like via malware), then this is pure FUD. Trying to figure
>>> the private key by other means, is pretty infeasible.
>> ahhh ... well you don't appear to understand even the basics of
>> (private) key encryption so its not suprising you reckon its "pure
>> FYI - the keys exist in UNIQUE pairs - a public key and a private
>> They are related by mathematically and they are both prime numbers.
>> They may be calculated by software, so you don't have to compromise
>> They may be read form a file. The contents of any file may be stolen
>> Of course you may not really be than dumb.
>> Whether you are or not makes no difference. Why chip in such a
>> misleading statement?
>> I must say, I feel that 3 very deliberate and clumbsy attempts have
>> to shoot down such a VERY obvious and sound scenario.
>> Why so?
>> Are we here not interested in protecting our anonymity ? or are we
>> really here just protecting the reputation of tor?
>> IMHO - the soundness of any tor software would protects it
>> not obvious disinformation.
> Please don't feed the troll, folks!
Definitely off topic - whoops - sorry
The term /troll/ is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a
post as /trolling/, while others may regard the same post as a
legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The
term is often erroneously used to discredit an opposing position, or
proponent, by argument fallacy /ad hominem
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's
motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may
attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the
robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical,
Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective
way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because
responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts ? hence
the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll".^[/citation
Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek
redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by
claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded,
conspirators, or trolls themselves."
IMHO a troll usually adds little to the enlightenment of the group and
but much to its temperature and hot air.
Typical signs being base unfounded statements like "this is pure FUD".
And if when a troll can't shoot the message down with slander, then it
shoot's the messenger down with slanderous "pot calling the kettle
black" statements like "Looks like OR-TALK has moved up in the world
enough that it has at last acquired a troll."
But of course, a troll is someone who regularly frequents a forum, as
... someone like... ahhh....
....there's that name again... permanent member obviously... not like
occasional johnny-come- lately s.
... err maybe I shouldn't have replied... oh well he's such a
Back on topic:
I only hope that those who followed my original message were not
bamboozled by the subsequent distractions.
So hopefully, its back to it.wikipedia for more of the good advice.
A little more enlightened and lot less dogmatic.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.