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

Re: [tor-talk] tor project website change

On 03/29/2019 08:36 AM, dns1983@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Excuse my bad English, probably I'm not writing correctly.
> In the mail of 28 March 2019 11:06:07 CET, from grarpamp, I read:
> "...
> "
> a 501(c)3 US nonprofit.
> "
> With rather curious amounts of potentially highly
> user adversarial funding sources.
> ..."

He means the US government, I think.

> Il 29/03/19 14:36, Mirimir ha scritto:
>> On 03/29/2019 06:07 AM, dns1983@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> I'm not in the position to talk about the architecture or other
>>> technical aspects because I'm not expert enough. I don't say that the
>>> network doesn't have problems.
>>> But i think that some things you said are a bit of stretch; for example,
>>> why adversaries should finance tor project and publicly it if they have
>>> a malicious intent?
>> Where do you see that? I've reread his post several times, and see
>> nothing about "adversaries should finance tor project". It is true that
>> some criticize Tor because it was originally a US Navy project, and
>> still gets funding from US governmental entities. But that's not an
>> argument that I recall grarpamp ever making. Unless he's juan, anyway.
>>> It would be interesting to me to know what other people think about what
>>> you said.
>> The main thrust of his criticism, as I interpret it, is that Tor
>> explicitly doesn't protect against global passive adversaries. Let alone
>> global _active_ adversaries, such as the NSA. As I understand it, that
>> reflected both "it would be too hard to do that, without unacceptable
>> latency and traffic overhead" and "they don't likely exist, or if they
>> do, they're our friends".
>> Some systems have been proposed that use padding and chaff to make
>> traffic analysis harder. But as grarpamp says, it'd be hard for the Tor
>> Project to implement stuff like that in the existing Tor network. Much
>> harder than the v3 onion upgrade, anyway. And the other side of it is
>> that Tor works well enough that implementing one of the newer designs
>> seems unlikely. Given that potential volunteers are working on Tor.
>>> Il 29/03/19 03:08, grarpamp ha scritto:
>>>> On 3/28/19,dns1983@xxxxxxxxxx  <dns1983@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>>>>> I think you are affected by cognitive bias.
>>>> Tor is effected by lack of external thought.
>>>>> You are blindly looking only for bad things.
>>>> Your adversaries are assuredly looking at those things and more.
>>>> If you are not looking at them, you're done in mate.
>>>>> Of course the network is not perfect, but is the best we have
>>>> That's apologist talk to avoid clean slate researching
>>>> and creating better architectures, even to the
>>>> then at that point possibly legit point of being
>>>> able to actually make that declaration.
>>>>> and we should make our best to improve it.
>>>> Tor is and will always be 20 year old architecture
>>>> from time before current adversary models were
>>>> say matured if not known. Tor's relatively
>>>> simple and effectively static with only marginal
>>>> improvements left. And has outright traded off
>>>> and/or discarded design models that others
>>>> might not today.  (And obviously Tor arch cannot
>>>> be substantially changed while still calling itself Tor.)
>>>> Before declaring Tor sufficient against today threats
>>>> you need to analyse it against today threats
>>>> vs new networks being research and deploy
>>>> against today threats.
>>>>> trying to delegitimate everything.
>>>> Those concerned with messengers vs
>>>> messages are prone to miss some dead canaries.
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to