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

Re: Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

     On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 11:17:27 +0100 morphium <morphium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>2011/1/31 Olaf Selke <olaf.selke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> I disagree Morphium's position mainly for the same reasons Mike and Jake
>> already pointed out. If the operators really care about their nodes
>> they'll certainly contact Tor admins. Damaging Tor's reputation in the
>> public due to exit sniffing imo is much more worse than loosing some
>> bandwidth.
>Sniffing is worse than loosing bandwidth, right. But sniffing still
>occurs, we just don't know where. And we can't tell wether they did.
>I think concluding "only 80: he is sniffing" is wrong (and even would
>be "80 and 443: he is a good guy").
>And if those nodes really are ran by "the bad guys", I don't think
>it's a problem for them now to setup a new node on a new subnet that
>allows their old ports + 443 and continue sniffing.

     Exactly, on all points.
>I can not see the Tor project won _anything_ with this decision.
     Well, they've made clear that they know what's good for exit operators
better than those exit operators do.  Perhaps they should arrange ISP choices,
contracts, and bill payment methods for those exit operators next?

                                  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         *
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/