[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Help Iranian dissidents by collecting and posting Bridge addresses? (here?)
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Help Iranian dissidents by collecting and posting Bridge addresses? (here?)
- From: Ted Smith <teddks@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:36:40 -0400
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:36:48 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to :references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=+yWcjGqO6C6lhlIPMxdJfHUW9mEsnRkzcnD9DBqqmuY=; b=kWz/VIYDXk+E1KPWrnDZlFjpBbi2OeypB9npw8viVXG0sHMV8vPjuTn71hTpaMzsIN ysqzPbSkmAgnyLLkPXCN13fOpxImWCe3y0bU77WlAZTkShR4DliTH896QfHFNVaywXW4 8aMZqwxz1K8/fZ8IgYc4aMeQuWAVKlH7URTw4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer; b=hYBI8i48S60eIGikflM0C6Kgc2OWLvVpaOp1GNd8XSs7ghMPz7ZCgsBJwLm+zGNIKy RnL2FB2+7WoE96mLULanXPdGAln3O7S9zixJ6xbejnAgTEBny3tHPqi/IxJru4Yxt8lE i+P3w1rI/so9CpX5jN9K8tTqhIUxf5hQG3/nA=
- In-reply-to: <20090618021111.GH4630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <642859.27849.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090618021111.GH4630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:11 -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 06:26:43PM -0700, Chris Humphry wrote:
> > Please help...without proxies (ie. Bridges) the Iranian dissidents have no
> > voice!
>
> Yeah, see, I'm not sure whether this is true. If ordinary bridges are
> working, then probably ordinary Tor relays are working too. Or said
> another way, if ordinary Tor relays aren't working, probably ordinary
> bridges won't work either.
>
> We've heard rumors they're blocking all encrypted traffic. Does this
> mean everything that does an SSL handshake no matter the port? Or does
> it mean the blocked port 443?
>
> If the former, an automated system like Tor is going to have a tough time
> keeping up -- at least without the tweaks we've been pondering over the
> past few days. ;)
>
> If the latter, then setting up a bunch of bridges on port 80 (even
> though everything's still encrypted) might be the ticket.
>
> Lots of misinformation going around, and not so much information.
If things get really bad, people can just resort to setting up DNS or
even ICMP tunnels.
Internet censorship is probably the largest-scale game of whack-a-mole
ever played.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part