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

Re: [OT] another proxy, but not open source :-(

On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 14:36 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:33:23 -0400 Ted Smith <teddks@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 01:45 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> >> I don't know who "Censorship Research Center" might be, but they claim
> >> to have a development project going for another encrypted proxy service.
> >> However, they say it will be free software, but *not* be open source, so =
> >no
> >> one can examine what they have done in order to look for bugs, design fla=
> >ws,
> >> etc. :-(  There isn't much real information at the web site,
> >>=20
> >> 	http://www.haystacknetwork.com
> >>=20
> >> but what little there is looks very much like an attempt to sucker people
> >> who don't understand much about security.
> >>      Oh.  I almost forgot.  Their FAQ page mentions tor, complaining abou=
> >t
> >> tor's publicly available directory and arguing that their method is bette=
> >r,
> >> while not mentioning bridges.
> >
> >I saw this a while ago. From what I could get from their website, it
>      What drew my attention to it was a small newspaper column in yesterday's
> _Fib_ (a.k.a. _Trib_ a.k.a. _The_Chicago_Tribune_) that I saw at a coffee
> shop.  The author was all ga-ga about it, praising Austin Heap as if he
> should be canonized ASAP for his wonderful work for freedom of speech.
> Being somewhat of a skeptical nature, I looked up the web site referred to
> in the article when I got back to my apartment last night.  I couldn't figure
> out why the author, Kurt Knutson of WGN TV, was so taken in by something that
> isn't even available yet and about which there is so little publicly available
> information.
Maybe Tor Project should talk to his publicist ;-)

> >looks like they'll be running single-hop proxies from various hosts, and
> >distributing that list inside the proprietary software they distribute
>      That's more than I managed to extract from it, but that certainly
> looks very bad if that is indeed what they are doing.
They're just trying to tunnel traffic out of the "oppressive" countries,
not provide actual anonymity (though they're very unclear about
admitting this and should probably say it in big flashing red letters).
They admit that tunneling Tor through their system would be a "good"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part