On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:48:45AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> It's suggested and welcome that all overlay networks publicly
> review, audit, analyze, each others work and offerings. Unfortunately
> that hasn't develop much yet in a formal dedicated as responsibility
> manner among even the larger opensource community, or even
> discussion if that is a good idea. (But there is some good work in
> some projects out there lately of their own work... automated code
> linting, and the rarer procured third party audit.)
>
> Then shall we presume all our networks are equivalently secure?,
> or equivalently flawed, as each network happens to advertise now and then.
Makes sense.
> This may leave the matter of partitioning up to the user to consider
> pursuant to any note about that in the app documentation.
I agree. Giving power of choice to the users is ideal.
> The app could enable simultaneous multihome based on commandline
> options... --tor --i2p --cjdns --other, default [whatever] .
> And of course all the ports / addresses / bindings would need to
> be flexible.
>
> On equivalent networks, presence is maybe a bigger issue than partitioning.
> This includes concept to drop the network identity off the network itself,
> or use new ID, not just managing announces to buddy list entries.
Interesting! I opened an issue [0] to discuss this feature (copied
your post there). It might take a while to work on that as we have
other tasks with a higher priority, but I intend to get back to it at
some point.
Thanks,
-Felipe
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor- dev
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev