On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:17:47 +0100 Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 07:44:18PM +0100, Thomas Hluchnik wrote:
Zitat von Xinwen Fu <xinwenfu@xxxxxxxxx>:
The problem is: was the violation done through Tor? A bot may do the same
thing. Time to scan your computer?:) Maybe you can run Tor as an entry or a
middle node, not an exit node.
Cheers,
Xinwen Fu
Yes, and one pertty nice day we have 10000 middlemen and no exit node anymore.
10000 middlemen with hidden services and no exits wouldn't be all that bad, actually.
:-) Indeed, although there would undoubtedly still be the hundreds of
thousands or millions of other services that would no longer be accessible
via tor. I am also still pondering the implications/possibilities stemming
from something I had never pieced together from the tor documentation until
someone pointed it out on this list a while back: hidden services can be
offered from client-only instances of tor; relay mode is not necessary to
run a hidden service.
However, back to the OP's problem...were potential exit policy changes
suggested in the conversation(s) with Time-Warner? Others on this list have
satisfied their ISPs by rejecting exits to the ports that were attacked, in
some cases, rejecting those ports only for certain IP addresses.
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army." *
* -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 *
**********************************************************************