Re: [tor-bugs] #24432 [Obfuscation/BridgeDB]: The meek<->moat tunneling isn't set up correctly

["Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki" <blackhole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

#24432: The meek<->moat tunneling isn't set up correctly
----------------------------------+--------------------------
 Reporter:  isis                  |          Owner:  isis
     Type:  defect                |         Status:  reopened
 Priority:  High                  |      Milestone:
Component:  Obfuscation/BridgeDB  |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                |     Resolution:
 Keywords:  moat bridgedb-dist    |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:  #24689                |         Points:  2
 Reviewer:                        |        Sponsor:  SponsorM
----------------------------------+--------------------------

Comment (by dcf):

 Replying to [comment:16 mcs]:
 > Replying to [comment:14 isis]:
 > > Google appears to want the passport of someone named "Tor Bridges" and
 the bank statement of the prepaid credit card that I gave, and I have
 neither of these things. Perhaps we can transfer the account ownership to
 TPO? Hopefully? Otherwise we'll need to make a whole new account and do
 #16650 all over again.
 >
 > I hope so. I guess the reflector is still running even though Google has
 suspended the Tor Bridges account? Strange terminology on their part.

 I used prepaid cards for Google and Amazon through 2014 and 2015 (until I
 set up a dedicated bank account for it). I didn't run into this problem,
 but maybe something has changed in their payment processing since then.
 Azure never let me use a prepaid card; it got rejected as such as soon as
 I tried to enter the number.

 If the app works even though the billing is messed up, I would guess that
 the project is running on the 1 GB daily free quota?

 > I also remember that we had to drop meek-google within Tor Browser as a
 PT due to some kind of service violation. If that is likely to happen
 again with the Moat reflector we should switch to Amazon or Azure now I
 suppose.

 The real reason wasn't a ToS violation per se, even though that's what the
 notice said. It was actually because of misuse by a hacking group:
 https://www.bamsoftware.com/papers/thesis/fifield-thesis.pdf#page=63. The
 ToS item that we were unsure about (which is currently
 [https://cloud.google.com/terms/service-terms#20-additional-restrictions
 20.2]), to me, wouldn't apply to Moat: "Customer will not ... use the
 Services to provide a service, Application, or functionality of network
 transport or transmission...".

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/24432#comment:18>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online

_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs