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

Re: perfect-privacy.com, Family specifications, etc.

     On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:37:17 +0000 The23rd Raccoon
<the.raccoon23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> =A0 =A0 On Thu, 20 May 2010 00:40:42 -0400 =3D?utf-8?Q?Jerzy_=3DC5=3D81og=
>> <jerzyma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>I apologize for altering the nature of this thread, but can someone =3D
>>>please summarize what this discussion is about? Who is =3D
>>>perfect-privacy.com and why are they of concern to Tor users? I am =3D
>>>having a difficult time following the threads.
>> =A0 =A0 If you subscribed to this list after the start of the thread, jus=
>> go to the list archives, and look for my original message. =A0It should
>> all then become clear.
>This suggestion, coming from you, is especially hilarious. You haven't
>yet successfully preserved a single thread you are present in. You
>really need a mail client from this millennium. STFW for 'In-Reply-To

     As anyone who has been around long enough is aware, the "thread" is
the content of the Subject: header, not the content of any USENET newsreader-
derived, latecoming header.  The only times I have failed to preserve the
content of the Subject: have been on other lists, where I receive messages
in digest form and have made an error in editing.
     Now, having stated that again, I just went to the archives page and
found it in seconds, so it certainly wasn't difficult at all.

>(Sorry for the noise or-talk, I was obliged to comment at that
>hypocrisy. I'll go back to rummaging through the trash for delicious
>snacks and discarded research papers now.)

     Your comment is misplaced, given that I have repeatedly stated on
this list that I am *not* the system administrator of this system and 
that I do *not* install or delete software on this system.  I have nothing
at all to do with it.
>P.S. I too had a bit of a problem following exactly why MyFamily has
>to be this cumbersome. If Tor clients are already doing pair-wise

     Ah.  I see.  You wait until your post script to discuss the subject
at hand.

>checking anyways, why can't all nodes just refer to a 'mother' node's
>descriptor that lists a family key that can be used to sign a simpler
>family statement. Or, just limit the number of families a node can be

     Yes, that was essentially the suggestion of Bruce from

>a part of to just one, specified by a UUID, to limit the damage they
>can do.

     Also, I still fail to see why having extra nodes (i.e., nodes *not*
under the control of a given node's operator) creates any real problem.
I suppose in a tiny, experimental network, one could pretend that such a
threat might exist, but in the real world, I just don't see it.
     Further, Bruce's suggestion avoids the issue entirely by requiring
each node to subscribe *itself* to a Family by specifying only the key/
name/other type of identifier of that Family.  Sebastian's "attack" could
not be done.

                                  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/