Re: [tor-talk] CloudFlare blog post

[Greg Norcie <gnorcie@xxxxxxx>]

So the post seems to weigh heavily towards proof of work in Tor Browser,
rather than running .onion sites. (Which apparently attract less malicious
traffic? Interesting tidbit)

My question: why not simply move to using SHA-256? The main point in the
blog seemed to be that that using .onion sites is not workable due to the
use of SHA-1. Since the Tor Project has limited resources, it seems like
switching hashes and asking websites to use .onion addies would create less
work for the devs but have a similar effect to a proof of work module in
Tor Browser.

However, I may be missing something important, and if so please feel free
to enlighten me :)


/********************************************/
Greg Norcie (norcie@xxxxxxx)
Staff Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
District of Columbia office
(p) 202-637-9800
PGP: http://norcie.com/pgp.txt



*CDT's Annual Dinner (Tech Prom) is April 6, 2016.  Don't miss out!learn
more at https://cdt.org/annual-dinner <https://cdt.org/annual-dinner>*
/*******************************************/

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Andreas Krey <a.krey@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:27:24 +0000, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> ...
> > >What I wonder is how they want to make a difference using .onion
> addresses
> > >for their customers - tor crawlers can take that redirect just so.
> > Andreas, sorry - don't understand part of your comment.
> > "It would be quite a lot of effort to do... *what?*... this way... -
> > sorry, it won't work any better."
>
> They said that automatically providing cloudflared sites with
> onion addresses would make it easier to detect nonmalicious
> tor use, but I wonder why they expect that the bad guys don't
> immediately use the onion instead of the plain site as well.
>
> ...
> > I've seen Cloudflare on low value target sites, like wood screw mfg info
> > sites & similar.  Unless other screw mfgs are sabotaging them, I doubt
> > much malicious activity is directed at such sites.
>
> This is simply the default setting, I guess. CF isn't just
> a abuse shield, it is first a CDN. There are sites where
> there is nothing relevant to harvest, and there are sites
> where there is, but they all use couldflare for different
> reasons, and get the scraper protection for free, and not
> necessarily on their intention.
>
> > 94% is saying essentially ALL Tor traffic / requests are "per se"
> > malicious or use inordinate amt of resources.  That leaves me & 6% of
> > users that aren't.
>
> Users != Traffic.
>
> > Maybe ? he's counting crawler *individual* requests - page by page - as
> > malicious?  They might make many more requests than real users, thus the
> > 94% claim?
>
> Quite probably.
>
> ...
> > His statement(s) & reasoning about blocking Tor still seem strange.  As
> > they say, "follow the money trail."  "Money trumps all other reasons /
> > motives."
>
> Tell that the authors of the software this mailing list is for.
>
> > I still say trackers aren't going to pay sites for TBB traffic. Don't
> > say, "You're using Tor - get lost" - bad for public relations.  Instead,
> > play dumb & covertly discourage (some) Tor users  - so they access the
> > site w/ unhardened browsers.
>
> Tracking is not cloudflare's business, it's the business of the site owner.
>
> > Can't sites tell the difference in actions of crawlers & real users?
>
> Not as easily as just using cloudflare as a front. Heck, my colleague
> has cloudflare in front of one of his sites, even though there was
> probable more traffic for setting that up than the site on a good day.
>
> > I'm sure some use browsers other than TBB for crawling & malicious
> > activity.  Can't sites block / time-out crawlers from continuing to
> > access entire site, once it becomes apparent - regardless of which
> browser?
>
> Yes. That would lock out the entire exit, and with the crawling
> density this apparently basically never gives tor users access.
>
> This is also what cloudflare does, just over longer time, and
> giving a captcha instead of an reject.
>
> > I get "time outs" from making 2 very narrow term searches in < 2 min. or
> > so, on some sites I'm registered on & participated - for a long time.
> > Why can't sites do the same w/ crawlers' rapid, repeated requests?
>
> Crawlers would immediately get smart and stretch their requests out?
>
> Andreas
>
> --
> "Totally trivial. Famous last words."
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
> --
> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
>
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk