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

Re: another reason to keep ExcludeNodes

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:54:51PM CET, Mitar wrote:


> >     I just read Roger's message from July 2006 on playing down the use of
> > ExcludeNodes and maybe eventually eliminating it.  I encountered a reason
> > to use it not long ago that doesn't seem to have been mentioned.  I noticed
> > that certain image files that are frequently updated and that I look at many
> > times a day were getting truncated at random points in the files.  After a
> > little bit of investigation it turned out that one particular relay was
> > always in a circuit that truncated those files, so I added it to my
> > ExcludeNodes list.  And voila' complete images from then on.
> Would not it be better if you would report this node so that its
> problem can be fixed?

This could possibly be used to identify anonymous surfers: imagine an $evil
exit node trying to identify somebody surfing on $evil-site1 (which isn't
very popular and only a very small subset of people use it). It just needs
to modify the output a bit and then wait for somebody to complain about it.

Chances are, the one complaining might give away enough info to identify himself..?

Just my 2c,


Lfgj.-Fcbqax. Judf Gfxucflfs, Juvapuaufyv brua FM-Sfyvuavufm
Aorx: VY 8325, Vqujluajfcsma. 3, Sfutuc, Muj: +49-271-740-3043
| Vopu crc, oyv! Gvfjqsqgvfu, Hrafsmuauf rcl Xulfzfc,
| Rcl juflua oryv Mvuqjqtfu!  Lrayvors smrlfuam, xfm vufssux Puxruvc.
| Lo smuv fyv crc, fyv oaxua Mqa!  Rcl pfc sq ejrt ojs ifu zrwqa;