[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] Many more Tor users in the past week?
krishna e bera:
> On 13-09-05 03:58 PM, mirimir wrote:
>> On 09/05/2013 03:05 PM, Robert G wrote:
>>> Could there be an initial, one time, human test for for access? Unique
>>> tokens could be granted after a CAPTCHA, or something similar, and
>>> exchanged for initial handshakes between routers and clients. Of course
>>> then you'd have the problem of who to trust to sign these "is-human" tokens
>>> without centralizing. There could be something similar to a web of trust.
>>> This would be a huge headache for people that operate a large number of
>>> routers, but maybe that's also a good thing?
>> That might help. Doing a few 1e+6 CAPTCHAs would be a pain. But there's
>> software for that, so you'd need rather difficult CAPTCHAs.
> Google is using reCaptcha against Tor users so that software should be
> good enough for Tor, assuming it can be integrated. You wouldnt want an
> unanonymized connection to reCaptcha before every new TBB is allowed to
> connect to the internet, for example.
Captchas are cheap. And don't work. There are commercial services
solving them, providing professional API services. And the turnover from
a botnet is high enough to spend a few pennies for the captcha solving
And also a big chunk of the owners of the infected computers will
happily solve captchas, if the malware forces them to solve the captcha
until they are allowed to what they wanted to do. They'd label it as
"Your Windows needs to verify you're a real person for your security.
Please solve this captcha so you can continue using Windows. Sorry for
the inconvenience this may cause." As long as the malware isn't too
intrusive, and making them to solve a captcha is not, most won't care
and bother to get ride of the malware.
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to