/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





Nanonymous No.7403 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>7410 >>7454 >>7572 >>7616 >>7735
File: d43037ce70f5ac3632fb5a1f4cb2b01bd95296b561800387549352dcf315d91b.jpg (dl) (345.01 KiB)
Tor is no protection if your enemy is the United States government (i.e. if you're a White Nationalist or pro-BDS, two political positions the USA has already partially criminalized).

In 2014 as part of his research for his book on big tech and government surveillance, Yasha Levine wrote an article critical of tor's funding sources and flaws. The article can be read here:
https://yashalevine.com/articles/tor-spooks
In it he shows that the claim that "tor used to be funded by the US government but is now independent" is false thanks to organizations like the BBG, a previous CIA front group that worked to project USA policy by shaping propaganda.

In 2015 Levine acquired 2500 pages of correspondence between tor and the us government through the FOIA. The full documents are here: https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/projectid:37206-The-Tor-Files-Transparency-for-the-Dark-Web
We're talking monthly training and planning sessions between the CIA, NSA, DOJ, FBI and so on. Levin's article with further links to his findings in the FOIA documents via the Tor: Fact Check series is here:
https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/fact-checking-the-tor-projects-government-ties

Here is further reporting in RT:
https://www.rt.com/usa/420584-tor-bbg-fbi-doj/

What is it all for? Levine and people like Bill Binney make the case that the tor project is a method to provide privacy to radicals in nations the USA wants to destabilize (Iran, Venezuela) but in a way that would not work against the USA due to their vast surveillance capabilities. In other words, "tor only works if you're trying to subvert a government the US hates."

The only defense I've encountered is the smug "huehue the Tor devs themselves say Tor is no defense against a 'global passive observer' lelelel!1" But if that's true, then what is the point of tor in the first place? From the viewpoint of a white nationalist worried about being slapped with "domestic terrorism" charges just for saying mean things on the internet (see: Johnny Logan Spencer who did prison time for writing a poem about shooting Obama) tor seems worthless.

Read over the FOIA documents yourself and tear my argument apart. I'd love to keep using a supposedly unbreakable and independent tool, especially considering where I live. But it's not looking good.

Nanonymous No.7404 [D] >>7449
>tor project is a method to provide privacy to radicals in nations the USA wants to destabilize
I thought this was common knowledge?

Let's assume it's completely NSA and some spookbot pops up "John Q. Shitposter at Wignat Lane" every time you sign on. How can they charge you with anything you say without compromising the perception of TOR? Over some retard edgelord, no less.

Nanonymous No.7410 [D] >>7449 >>7450
>>7403
>(((Yasha Levine)))
Oy vey, goyim, stop using Tor!
>https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/projectid:37206-The-Tor-Files-Transparency-for-the-Dark-Web
Site doesn't work without js. Cute.
>https://www.rt.com/usa/420584-tor-bbg-fbi-doj/
Here's an exchange from that article:
>RT: What kind of influence and control do you think the BBG and its bosses have over the Tor browser?
>AM: I think not as much as people might suspect. As soon as people hear that the Tor project is being funded by propaganda organizations in the US or military groupings in the US, people are bound to become very paranoid and very suspicious about how it is being developed. But I think we need to recognize that the Tor project is using open source software and has had access to that license for well over a decade. And that means that all the source code is available for everyone to see. So even if these groups were trying to influence it and try and to put in backdoors, others working on the project with very pure motives would be in a very strong position to see any backdoors that were built into the code and to eradicate them.

>That is the strength of open source software. That doesn’t negate the possibility that these organizations from the establishment side in America may not have encouraged people to come employees to work at Tor, potentially as sort of infiltrators. But I think the very democratic, very open nature of open sources software will in the long term mean that Tor remains a viable tool.
Did you even read it?
>Bill Binney make the case that the tor project is a method to provide privacy to radicals in nations the USA wants to destabilize (Iran, Venezuela)
This is one of the purposes of Tor, yes, and it's not news to anyone.
>but in a way that would not work against the USA due to their vast surveillance capabilities.
In the Snowden leaks, there were NSA documents describing their difficulty deanonymizing Tor users. It's not impossible for an organization with their reach and resources to deanon some people, some of the time, but they're not omnipotent.

Nanonymous No.7444 [D][U][F] >>7454
File: b9391b9db7166158b71d9a74e06cba648458c672f4ab012055db978fb07e7b03.jpg (dl) (434.32 KiB)
Tor is susceptible to timing attacks and to i-own-all-the-nodes attacks.

Maybe a lot of Tor nodes are owned by 3-letter agencies. But honestly I just use Tor to escape the passive surveillance from my provider and from sites I visit. If sometimes NSA can see my packets then fine, so be it, I ain't even American.

Nanonymous No.7449 [D] >>7463
>>7404
>How can they charge you with anything you say without compromising the perception of TOR? Over some retard edgelord, no less.
Ever heard of Parallel Construction? Police use it with Stingray towers all the time. The big three letter agencies are just more subtle than "we got it from an unnamed informant."

>>7410
>Name sounds jewish, didn't read a thing
The jews have a genetic tendency to subvert, tear down and disrupt. It's why jews like David Cole create documentaries where they wander around Auschwitz in a Yarmulke while tearing down the official story. Jews should always be treated with caution, but the kneejerk reaction of "joo, didn't read lmao" is stupid. I say this as a National Socialist that believes every last jewish gene needs to be purged from this planet.
Also, jews who are "in" on the inner circle conspiracies don't tend to use the FOIA to attain entirely new documents. Jews prefer misdirection rather than the fleeting sense of legitimacy that might be gained by shining a light on all their dirty work.
>Potentially compromised Tor member claims Tor is not compromised
Do you form your opinions based on the last person you spoke to?

So in other words, you read none of it and remain utterly immovable in your opinion?

Nanonymous No.7450 [D][U][F] >>7452 >>7465
File: 461ec3cfe9175b91e4ceaf667e659dcc706e8bb2f961d1ef8aefaa9a67eb0831.gif (dl) (691.75 KiB)
>>7410
>Muh Snowden
Very odd that Snowden constantly pushes programs like Signal which require your phone number and run off (((Amazon)))'s cloud servers. Or how he seems to support an atomized lolbertarian "politics and collectivizing isn't the solution gaiz" approach I'm not saying politics IS a solution, it's not.

Or how he slanders Julian Assange in his memoirs. Or that he refused to publish through wikileaks.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/edward-snowden-julian-assange-unfamiliar-permanent-record/262103/
>Snowden distinguishes himself from Assange a second time, in his explanation for why he chose not to publish the NSA disclosures through WikiLeaks. Describing the WikiLeaks of 2010—which he claims “operated in many respects like a traditional publisher”—Snowden praises Assange’s organization for partnering with The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel in its reporting on the documents leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Praising (((mainstream media)))?
>According to Snowden’s history, however, WikiLeaks lost its way after publishing the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and the U.S. State Department Cables. “Due to government backlash and media controversy surrounding the site’s redaction of the Manning materials, WikiLeaks decided to change course and publish future leaks as they received them: pristine and unredacted.” Because Snowden had already resolved to make sure his NSA documents were redacted to protect sensitive information, he concluded that WikiLeaks’ “switch to a policy of total transparency meant that publishing with WikiLeaks would not meet my needs.”
"How dare you get in the way of Israel's wars! And you won't allow me to redact information? Oy gevault!"
>Assange generally opposes redacting documents for two reasons. On the one hand, Assange views redaction as a form of censorship, “a rather dangerous compromise” and “a very, very dangerous slippery slope.” He observes that corporate news media frequently redact documents not to minimize harm but to either protect people in power from embarrassing revelations or protect themselves from government backlash. In Assange’s view, such self-censorship is the main problem with contemporary news media, and he does not want WikiLeaks to go down that path.
>Snowden, of course, sides with mainstream journalism against Assange on this issue. As he explains in one interview: “I was very careful when I came forward to make sure that I never revealed a single secret. This I believe quite strongly is the role of a free press in our society. This is why the First Amendment is first. They’re charged with making these decisions about what we should know, when, and how. They should contest the government’s monopoly on controlling information, particularly in classified spaces.”
>There are two problems with Snowden’s view. The first problem is the assumption that journalistic prerogative to decide “what we should know, when, and how” is sanctioned by the First Amendment. It isn’t. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with journalists’ work, but it does not give them the power to determine what the public should know, when, and how. Though Snowden suggests otherwise, there is nothing in the First Amendment that favors his emphasis on journalists over Assange’s emphasis on whistleblowers.
>The second problem with Snowden’s position is that he doesn’t seem to actually believe it. If Snowden truly accepted the principles that journalists were empowered to decide “what we should know, when, and how,” then he would support the decision of Bill Keller, the former New York Times editor who covered up the NSA spying program STELLARWIND in 2004. But he doesn’t. In fact, Snowden cites Keller’s decision as the very reason he did not contact the Times when blowing the whistle in 2013.
Snowden very consistently sides with (((mainstream media))) and (((journalism))). After GamerGate, I don't think I need to tell you how rotten and incestuous journalism is. Read the full articles, Whitney Webb has been doing an amazing expose on a bunch of surveillance and spying stuff Epstein and Peter Thiel have been running. Her work is gold.

Did you know 90% of the Snowden documents haven't been released? Hmm, I wonder why that might be?
https://www.mintpressnews.com/edward-snowden-to-address-audience-in-israel-will-he-take-on-israels-surveillance-state/250571/
>In 2014, journalist Glenn Greenwald – who received the full cache of the documents leaked by Snowden — told Israel’s Channel 10: "There were an enormous number of very important stories that have not yet been reported. There definitely remained stories related to the Middle East and Israel.”
Really activates the almonds.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/fbi-whistleblower-on-pierre-omidyar-campaign-to-neuter-wikileaks/236414/
>The Intercept was founded in 2014 with some $250 million in seed money from Omidyar. Its first hires were Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the only journalists in possession of the full Snowden cache.
>Pierre Omidyar, prior to the founding of The Intercept, was known not for any commitment to journalism or free speech but rather for his connections to the U.S. government and his role in the financial blockade of WikiLeaks that began in 2010. Indeed, publicly available records reveal Omidyar’s close connections to the U.S. political establishment. For example, Omidyar made more visits to the Obama White House between 2009 and 2013 than did Google’s Eric Schmidt, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. He has also donated $30 million to the Clinton global initiative. He directly co-invested with the State Department, funding groups – some of them overtly fascist – that worked to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically elected government in 2014. He continues to fund USAID, particularly its overseas program aimed at “advancing U.S. national security interests” abroad.
>Omidyar has a vested interest in advancing the interests of the U.S. political establishment for a variety of reasons. Sibel Edmonds, who was among the first to note Omidyar’s background upon The Intercept’s founding, noted that the PayPal executive “has been in bed with the CIA and NSA” and even the Department of Defense — further noting that the Snowden documents that The Intercept, and thus Omidyar, controls “contain information about PayPal’s direct partnership not only with the Treasury Department but also the CIA.”
So the fellow in charge of the people that publish Snowden's documents is a glownigger that worked on the US led coup in Ukraine and has his fingers in the same pies as the NSA. Read the whole article, you'll be horrified.

I could go on and on, but a simple way to tell if there's glowniggery afoot without pointless paranoia and mumbling about illuminerdy lizard masons is this: Look for who is against Israel's wars (Iraq, Afganistan, Libya) and US/CIA "regime changes" like the Ukraine debacle or the ongoing mess in Venezuela. Another way is to look at who is having the more miserable life. Assange has been in a constant fight to keep funding and keep his freedom by juggling appeals and paperwork from within an embassy. Meanwhile Snowden fled to Russia, and from what little we know he's mostly free within Russia. A lot of westerners think that Russia is this "liberated territory" outside the reaches of NATO and thus ZOG. This is not the case, not in the slightest.

Too many people think Snowden is some sort of blameless hero because he's the darling of (((silicon valley))) and various leftist tech outlets. But if you follow the money, you start to see a much different picture. Read all the links I've posted, read the links on those articles for proof, then get back when you can refute a point about the monetary connections between the BBG and Tor. If your only response is "hurr ur a joo" then I will be even more disappointed in my fellow /pol/acks.

Nanonymous No.7452 [D] >>7456
>>7450
I recall Julian Assange playing a part in Snowden escaping Hong Kong. Ever since he vocally supported him. I would also wonder why Russia would allow Snowden freedoms if he were currently working for the US government. Think this got past all these players that have considerable resources and wouldn't allow this?

Nanonymous No.7454 [D] >>7456
>>7403
>Tor weakness
What I'm primarily concerned about is Zero-days and Node selection. The rest are things Mixnets have been trying to solve for years now, problems such as traffic analysis or consensus attacks.

>>7444
>I ain't even American
It doesn't really matter. Getting extradited, or quid-pro-quo indicted in your home country is not something out of possibility. I hope you are just planting false leads about your origins. Stay safe.

I only hope the mixnets get better. I am so far interested in mixminion and onion mail for low-latency but am still researching. Found some mail status links on obscure sites but that can't be it, right? I've only found one or two lists to mail. Whonix wiki is pretty handy for this kind of thing. I find i2p and the upcoming LokiNet pretty cool since it wrecks Tor's centralized model.

Nanonymous No.7456 [D] >>7465 >>7478 >>7485
>>7452
>I recall Julian Assange playing a part in Snowden escaping Hong Kong.
You'd think Snowden would be more greatful then. From his memoir Permanent Record Snowden indirectly calls Assange a "speaker of lies." I think this excerpt from the article linked above (and again below, read nigger) sums it up best:
>In the end, Permanent Record offers a very strange tale of heroes and villains. Snowden’s primary nemeses are the likes of Bill Keller (who canned a 2004 story about the NSA surveillance program STELLARWIND), James Clapper (who lied to Congress about NSA surveillance programs), Michael Hayden (who was a leading critic of Snowden after the 2013 revelations), and the Bush and Obama administrations that together coordinated sixteen years of illegal wars, drone assassinations, and secret mass surveillance. From this perspective, Snowden has the same enemies as Assange.
>Nevertheless, as soon as Assange enters the narrative, the plot changes. Now Snowden—wittingly or unwittingly—takes up the same rhetoric as Keller, Clapper, Hayden, and Obama, implying that the WikiLeaks founding editor is a deceitful and irresponsible player in the geopolitical publishing game. He uses Assange as a foil in a rhetorical attempt to position himself as a responsible, honest, and humble figure.
An anti-establishment figure who takes the side and same narrative of the establishment in condemning Assange? If this were anybody else we would write him off as "untrustworthy" at best.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/edward-snowden-julian-assange-unfamiliar-permanent-record/262103/

>Ever since he vocally supported him.
Not as much as you may think. He may "support" Assange in general ways, but he consistently condemned Assanges methods and tries to set himself up as the "good" guy to Assange's "bad guy."
>I would also wonder why Russia would allow Snowden freedoms if he were currently working for the US government.
Why indeed. Remember that just it's not a false dichotomy. BOTH Russia and the USA are (((them))) but to varying degrees, just like the Democrats and Republicans are in "competition" with each other but the money at the top is unified. The only "competition" is from different factions trying to carve off their piece of the pie. There are no "bad guys" and "good guys", Snowden has simply chosen a different faction, and all the factions are funded by different groups of ZOG. Some factions compete more than others, (jews aren't a monolith) but they all seek control for themselves.

>>7454
>What I'm primarily concerned about is Zero-days and Node selection
Well on the note of Zero-days, the Tor project seems to tip off the NSA quite a bit. From Levine's work:
>In 2007, Tor developer Steven Murdoch wrote up a report on the problems and vulnerabilities connected to the way Tor encrypted its internet connection. Turned out that it did so in a very unique way, which made Tor traffic stand out from all the rest and made it easy to fingerprint and single out people who were using Tor from the background data noise of the internet. Not only did this encryption quirk make it easy for foreign countries to block Tor (at the time Tor's efforts were targeted primarily at China and Iran), but in theory it made it much easier for anyone interested in spying on and cracking Tor traffic — whether the NSA, FBI or GCHQ — to identify and isolate their target.

In his email to Tor cofounder Roger Dingledine, Murdoch suggested they keep this vulnerability hidden from the public because disclosing it without first finding a solution would make it easy for an attacker to exploit the weakness: "it might be a good to delay the release of anything like 'this attack is bad; I hope nobody realizes it before we fix it'," he wrote.
Okay, developer finds a bug, tells Dingledine, says not to tell anybody until they fix it. Seems reasonable. But what did Dingledine immediately do?
>Roger [Dingledine] forwarded his exchange with Steven to the BBG, making it clear that they would not be fixing this vulnerability anytime soon and that the public would be kept in the dark about this fact. He ended his email with ":)" — a smiley face.
>So...How long did it take for Tor to reveal this security weakness to the general public? Well, it's hard to say. But looking through Tor's "tor-dev" mailing list it appears the document Roger initially shared with the BBG in 2007 was brought to the public's attention only in 2011. That's four years after the federal government was tipped off about it!
FOUR YEARS! Yeah, I think that's plenty of time for the NSA to get their use out of that zero day.

If the technology was still "a little bit resistant" to the NSA I'd still try using it, but I'm worried Tor may be entirely compromised. Whenever trust breaks down with the main organizing body, so does the technology. Even if tor is open source, how can we trust that what's running on the servers is the same as the released sourcecode? How can we trust there isn't a major flaw in tor that has been intentionally ignored for years?

On the subject of node selection, here's another major flaw. Tor selects nodes based on speed. Thus you don't need to own the majority of the nodes, you just need to own the majority of the fastest nodes. Levine goes into documents showing the NSA
does
' run lots of nodes and is interested in acquiring even more. So it doesn't matter if every person runs a tor node on their laptop, a few hundred fiberoptic gigabit servers is all they need. has anybody noticed that their exit node keeps coming out in Germany about 50% of the time? Or is that just me?
https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/fact-checking-the-tor-projects-government-ties
>LokiNet
Hmm, I'll check that one out.

Nanonymous No.7457 [D]
Ah shit, fucked up the formatting. Sorry. Polite sage.

Nanonymous No.7459 [D] >>7464
even if Tor is NSA, then it's superior to clearnet

if you don't use Tor, then every action you do on the internet is instantly recorded to your name and address
clearnet sends your IP and browser fingerprint to everyone in plaintext. all IP address are registered to a person and home address

if Tor is shady and NSA we need to post it here and investigate, but do not forget that clearnet is 100% compromised

Nanonymous No.7460 [D] >>7464
even if Tor was breakable by CIA, it's not by local police, even in US

and if you want to do something really big and important, like releasing some secret documents, you shouldn't rely only on Tor, but more things, like travelling far away to use some wifi with throw away laptop and Tor
(do not carry your phone with you, unless it's in Faraday cage)

Nanonymous No.7461 [D] >>7464
>unless it's in Faraday cage
or rather many layers of tinfoil

Nanonymous No.7462 [D]
if you post that niggers should be killed, with clearnet, you will go to jail
every action with clearnet is as if you were signing it with your ID

Nanonymous No.7463 [D]
>>7449
>Name sounds jewish, didn't read a thing
No, name is definitely jewish, and I read everything that was posted that I could actually access. That didn't include the stuff at documentcloud.org, because apparently that site requires js, and I'm not stupid enough to enable it.
>the kneejerk reaction of "joo, didn't read lmao" is stupid
Yep. Good thing I didn't have that reaction.
>Potentially compromised Tor member claims Tor is not compromised
Annie Machon is not a "Tor member," whatever that is. You clearly didn't read the article, yourself. You accuse me of reading "none of it," but that's just projecting your own failure to do so.

Reminds me of an old saying. "The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you." Eh, rebbe?

Nanonymous No.7464 [D][U][F] >>7479
File: 76c935465c4b428d8eed8bf48f92b0e0b8eb246aa692ce568214a24c98dc6e28.png (dl) (20.72 KiB)
>>7459
>>7460
>>7461
Stop typing like a nigger. Learn capitalization and how to organize your thoughts.
>even if Tor is NSA, it's superior to clearnet
Then what is the point of tor? Local police and ISP can be circumvented with a simple VPN. But hosting your own website and talking about forbidden topics are still impossible.
>if you want to do something really big and important
Soon criticizing the jews, the government and non-whites will be considered tantamount to terrorism, and will have the full weight of your local law behind it. This may sound melodramatic, but if you read Whitney Webb's articles on some of the new Israeli surveillance programs Epstein and co are bringing online next year - programs developed in Israel to keep the Palestinians constantly tracked, blackmailed and demoralized to prevent an uprising - you'll see the pieces are coming together.

Like it or not, the entire world is ensnared by the same malevolent financial force that is shaping our governments into tyrannies, and Tyrants cannot tolerate any dissent.

snowden is faggot and plant Nanonymous No.7465 [D]
>>7450
>I'm not saying politics IS a solution, it's not.
Shift in politicial culture for better is partial solution.
>After GamerGate, I don't think I need to tell you how rotten and incestuous journalism is.
Journalism is heaping pile of scavengers and lowlifes since the very beggining. In this aspect it's very similar to commerce; nothing will be lost if both stop existing.
>Look for who is against Israel's wars
>Israel's wars
>iraq
I can't simply reduce iraq to muh eretz israel.
>libya
mystery, didn't pose a threat to israel at all
>afghanistan
That one started as cold war proxy conflict.
Egypt was anti-israel too and usa, uk and france wanted mubarak to stay in power. Junta is better than second somalia or whatever the fuck is going on in there.
>Snowden fled to Russia
You can't really flee anywhere else.
>various leftist tech outlets
liberal, most of what is called leftist is liberal, name it by its name
>>7456
>assange
is autist and I don't trust him, not even the nose between his eyes

sage sage No.7467 [D]
Write like humans, you fucking donkeys.
Also, this is not /pol/. Don't infect this board with your slangs.

Nanonymous No.7478 [D] >>7485
>>7456
>You'd think Snowden would be more greatful then.
Why? I do not see that as necessitated.
Just because they both have exposed classified information does not mean that they have to be ideologically aligned.
>Not as much as you may think.
You misunderstand me. Assange was one of Snowden's most vocal supporters immediately after the mass surveillance revelations, and it was only with his support that Snowden was smuggled out of Hong Kong. Russia was not Snowden's intended destination; the United States revoked his passport while he was connecting from Moscow.

>Remember that just it's not false dichotomy. BOTH Russia and the USA are (((them)))
Sure both nations are untrustworthy, but that does not mean that they collaborate together or support each other in the way that you are implying, Snowden being free.
<In 2007, Tor developer Steven Murdoch wrote up a report on the problems and vulnerabilities connected to the way Tor encrypted its internet connection. Turned out that it did so in a very unique way, which made Tor traffic stand out from all the rest and made it easy to fingerprint and single out people who were using Tor from the background data noise of the internet. Not only did this encryption quirk make it easy for foreign countries to block Tor (at the time Tor's efforts were targeted primarily at China and Iran), but in theory it made it much easier for anyone interested in spying on and cracking Tor traffic — whether the NSA, FBI or GCHQ — to identify and isolate their target.
This is pure FUD. There is no hiding that your traffic is Tor traffic when you connect to the central servers that provide you the list of all relays. Of course it "encrypts things in a unique way" it is its own protocol.

Nanonymous No.7479 [D] >>7481
>>7464
>But hosting your own website [is impossible with a VPN]
You can host a website over a VPN.
Mullvad for one provides this functionality, not sure about the others.

Nanonymous No.7481 [D] >>7482
>>7479
Of course you can host services in a VPN. This is the most common use case of a VPN, securing down services from people who should not be able to access them. It's the reason why there is a P in VPN.

Nanonymous No.7482 [D]
>>7481
I thought some providers blocked this functionality though?

Nanonymous No.7483 [D] >>7569
>LokiNet
If they are so secure, so out-toring-tor-itself, WHY THE FUCKING HELL DO THEY HAVE A DISCORD!?
A KNOWN POZZED ENTITY THAT MILKS PEOPLES DATA! WTF IS WRONG WRONG WITH THEM!? DO THEY NOT KNOW HOW THAT LOOKS OR WHAT DISCORD IS?

At least they could have made a room on Matrix or some shit.
They do have a Loki-only IRC channel according to their site, so that's a small saving grace.

Nanonymous No.7485 [D]
>>7456
>>7478
>made Tor traffic stand out from all the rest and made it easy to fingerprint
It is FUDD since all Tor traffic has a similar pattern and the fact the nodes are public. At this point I'm not even sure about Tor "bridges" as researchers already can detect them with high accuracy.
I don't have knowledge on that, papers would need to be in order.

However, there was a more notable case in helping understanding how Tor handles its problems. The FBI was accused of paying Carnegie Melon scandal in 2014. The issue at the time was that Tor was not quick enough to address a replay/tagging attack vulnerability at the protocol layer, or at the very least eject the malicious (FBI) nodes attempting the coordinated Sybil attack. This tagging attack was speculated in 2008 and had a technical paper published in 2012 explaining the protocol attack in depth. This was never to be taken lightly since Tor is run by a team who develop the software for browser, nodes, and maintain the master node list, who stays and remains on it.

>A New Replay Attack Against Anonymous
Communication Networks (2008)
http://archivecaslytosk.onion/DfdlD
>Tor Team catches wind
https://blog.torproject.org/one-cell-enough-break-tors-anonymity
>Protocol-level Hidden Server Discovery (2013)
http://archivecaslytosk.onion/aD9aV
>Tor Team ignores/doesn't apply 2013 paper, Illegal Drug Onion gets fucked in 2014, and some Tor-fags blame Melon researchers despite the many details of the possible attack vector published atleast a year earlier (see butthurt in comments)
https://blog.torproject.org/tor-security-advisory-relay-early-traffic-confirmation-attack
<"We considered the set of new relays at the time, and made a decision that it wasn't that large a fraction of the network. It's clear there's room for improvement in terms of how to let the Tor network grow while also ensuring we maintain social connections with the operators of all large groups of relays."
>Carnegie Mellon Denies FBI Paid for Tor-Breaking Research
http://archivecaslytosk.onion/bfs9O
>Circuit Fingerprinting Attacks: Passive Deanonymization of Tor Hidden Services (2015)
http://archivecaslytosk.onion/OQYgT

http://dds6qkxpwdeubwucdiaord2xgbbeyds25rbsgr73tbfpqpt4a6vjwsyd.onion/wiki/Speculative_Tor_Attacks
I found this Whonix wiki pretty handy as an overview. I know free haven hosts technical papers and docs but an overview list and threat-modeling is handy before diving blindly into the technical aspects.

Even I2P intro docs are better explained, despite them both being low-latency networks, or Tor having more funding, developers and research. For general further reads:

https://2019.www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/#adversary
https://geti2p.net/en/docs/how/threat-model
>Darknet Security: A Categorization of Attacks to the Tor Network
http://archivecaslytosk.onion/8KPTm

>inb4 wrong on this detail
I'm not a security expert or network researcher so feel free to correct. I praise you autist overlords that can remember every single little detail about all this nerd shit. All I can do is just read and apply. If I had to really be anonymous my strength will be in real world opsec and moderately in preconfigured privacy software, as the majority experts are lightyears ahead of me on this one. So why fuck with the configs or use unstable, unresearched, or possibly vulnerable software?

Nanonymous No.7487 [D] >>7574
Tor does work, very good. jews use it a lot
OP is a jew who wants to scare non-jews from Tor, so we don't use it against jews

Nanonymous No.7530 [D]
this is a kvetch chan.
like, subscribe, share and comment down below. peace out!

Nanonymous No.7569 [D]
>>7483
LokiNet is a side project for the Loki organization or whatever, they mostly are focused on their shitty coins. Devs are kinda separate from this whole mess and some of em are pretty fuckin based.

Nanonymous No.7572 [D] >>7574
>>7403
In order to trust Tor you have to trust the Tor team. If not there is nothing saving you since they list the nodes.

Nanonymous No.7574 [D][U][F] >>8042
File: 3d881ccc97de7598185b6f5c55fc27f70e710556a0603f1e30b7eefbe555d3e1.jpg (dl) (66.03 KiB)
>>7487
<OP is joo
You are the /pol/tards the drove away the oldfags. You are the tards that ruined 8ch. You are the reason the last few defenders of our race have been reduced to illiterate skinheads in the minds of onlookers. You make me sick.

I'm not a jew, just a white nationalist that lives in a place where white nationalism can land me in jail. When your threat model is the NSA, Tor was supposed to be one of the few technologies on Earth that could protect us. The only defense most posters here offer is "Uh, well I've got nothing to hide." Good for them, but I DO. And I don't want other people who haven't put the pieces together to think tor is a safe place against the glows, it appears it is not.

Remember FreedomHosting? Does anybody know how they mysteriously got taken down, even though that's supposed to be impossible for an onion site? I know Silk Road was a failure in Opsec although with parallel construction one does wonder, but how did FreedomHosting just suddenly get taken over? Genuinely asking, as last I checked nobody could figure it out but maybe they have since then.

>>7572
>In order to trust Tor you have to trust the Tor team.
Precisely. And the fact that the Tor group gets most of their funding from the BBG - the group that projects CIA glow around the world - I'm afraid the "Tor is independent and open source, thus trustworthy" is no longer valid.

Nanonymous No.7577 [D] >>7581
Loki? That's a fucking red flag right there. Loki was a Norse entity of evil and degeneracy just like Satan in Christianity. This smells like some sort of masonic bullshit to me.

Nanonymous No.7581 [D] >>7610
>>7577
Loki is known as shape shifter.

Nanonymous No.7584 [D]
You can't trust the Tor team, but their tool has to work in order to serve the purposes of the deep state. Sounds like an oxymoron, so be careful even with Tor and be on the lookout for alternatives.

About FreedomHosting, they were supposed to have some vulnerabilities and became the target of various SJW idiots. And those SJW idiots are always easy to manipulate and their autistic rage allowed them to find those vulnerabilities and pass them to the state agents.

Something else about the Tor team: Due to the open source nature of the project they can't openly risk their fame, but they do try to play it dumb. Like when Google shills used to post on their mailing list and they would say that it's OK or when various vulnerabilities got fixed only after they were milked for good. Or when they made a statement against Dailystormer but they are OK with terrorists using tor services. They bring in more and more of the leftypol kind of stuff, so the only thing stopping them from openly exposing their ideological enemies is that then nobody would use Tor anymore.

Nanonymous No.7601 [D]
That's why I use i2p.

Nanonymous No.7610 [D] >>7615
>>7581
yeah just like a kike

Nanonymous No.7615 [D]
>>7610
Then the purpose of loki is to be kike. It's either hiding like a kike in shadows ie tor or shape shifting like a kike ie loki or something i2p. everything is kike lol

Nanonymous No.7616 [D]
>>7403
>i.e. if you're a White Nationalist or
this is a hapa supremacy board you fucking newfag
>pro-BDS
pro who?
>pic related
kys wtf is this cancer

Nanonymous No.7617 [D]
>documentcloud
what a fucking pointless pile of shit. just upload the PDFs directly somewhere

Nanonymous No.7629 [D]
What's the state of i2p these days? Is there good support in terms of linux and liveos images? Is it usable and is there any content available?

Nanonymous No.7717 [D] >>7735 >>8042
The documents are fucking unreadable. Multi-second freezes from going to the next page. And if you view them online it's even worse (as expected). Also the fact that Tor is written in C on UNIX-braindamage is a much bigger concern than your shitty conspiracy speculation. The US government is 10000 departments with loose coordination. Just because the US funds something, doesn't mean it's pozzed. Case in point: if Trump found out Tor was being funded by the US government, he'd immediately tweet "a platform for child molesters and terrorists was being funded by US dollars, outrageous!", and have the funding stopped the next day.

Nanonymous No.7735 [D] >>8042
>>7717
>The documents are fucking unreadable. Multi-second freezes from going to the next page.
kek, that explains why it took him years to do this "research":
>>https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/fact-checking-the-tor-projects-government-ties
>I obtained the documents in 2015. By then I had already spent a couple of years doing extensive reporting on Tor's deeply conflicted ties to the regime change wing of the U.S. government
his enire website is fucking retarded. every second he calls the BBG the "federal government" as if that makes BBG the bad guys. BBG is just some group around radio free europe/asia, you dumb fuck. then he cites that Tor kept a "vuln" secret between this "federal entity" (aka BBG) where you could distinguish a Tor HTTPS connection from a non-tor one, big fucking deal.
god i hate this cancerous shit. every fucking website on any topic on the internet is either clickbait or written by some dumbass schizo who thinks he can prove conspiracies by reasoning on the level of mere syntax. in this case i can easily dismiss his entire website in 3 seconds, but in other cases where i don't have expertise, like health, i can't. one day all of these faggots will be filtered through the Web of Trust. day of the WoT when
>>7403
>Here is further reporting in RT: https://www.rt.com/usa/420584-tor-bbg-fbi-doj/
I didn't know RT was this retarded as well.
>The only defense I've encountered is the smug "huehue the Tor devs themselves say Tor is no defense against a 'global passive observer' lelelel!1"
are you a schizo too? how did you go from claiming Tor is directly compromised by TLAs to this? The global passive observer attack would work regardless of whether Tor is compromised or not.

Nanonymous No.8016 [D]
>Tor is no protection if your enemy is the United States government
My enemy isn't the government and I don't think that's the case for most people in these discussion. I don't break any laws and I'm not trying to overthrow the government.

The US government is a very complex bureaucracy and many parts of it are beholden to itself. Low and mid levels cannot just arbitrarily fuck with my net traffic on a whim for shits and giggles. Even if I was a really bad goy, they have to go through a lot of due process to get me. I'm sure there's a point when you become a high enough value target, like starting your own terrorist cell, after which they put the real operators on the scene and suspend all the due process and constitutional/legal protections. But for anything short of an actual felony, and probably most actual felonies (as opposed to organized crime and acts of treason/war) the people "after me" would be incompetent and unmotivated. And I don't even commit the small crimes, like I said.

Meanwhile, rogue webmasters and other private/commercial middlemen ARE a big part of my threat model. There is a huge financial incentive for corporations to fuck with me. Individual website owners can dox/otherwise shit on me. Most companies do a shit job of securing their data so anytime a rogue employee or hacker could easily ruin my day. These things have happened countless times and continue happening every day. Tor is an excellent protection against these.

Given that anti-tor FUD is often disingenuous on the above, the obvious question is "cui bono"? OP is a corporatist shill posing as anti-state, and would probably recommend some proprietary centralized solution such as a VPN instead.

Nanonymous No.8018 [D] >>8019
>I don't break any laws and I'm not trying to overthrow the government.
really?

Nanonymous No.8019 [D][U][F]
File: c7cbc17c21349860378a887c77d3afcca7a1f32635d824cbb7e809c99278c27f.png (dl) (131.04 KiB)
>>8018

Nanonymous No.8042 [D] >>8043 >>8122
>>7574
>Remember FreedomHosting mysteriously got taken down
>supposed to be impossible for an onion site
That are server, tracing were all that TOR traffic end is no miracle. You could ping them and watch which suspected IP responds. TOR isn't good to hide server from discovery. It doesn't promise that. It doesn't promise that to none of its user, server or client.
The thing TOR promise is that it makes it difficult to discover who communicates with whom. The nature of server, to react on request, makes it difficult to hide them. The only way is to put them at a place were traffic can not be observed by your adversary.

Here comes the gorilla, nobody is talking about, in the room.
If Russia and China are real adversaries of the WEST(C) why don't they fuck more with the West hegemony over media and communication?
China has his Great Firewall to isolate itself from fuckery by the West and to inquisitive locals. That wouldn't prevent them from helping out dissidents in the West, by setting up an enclave of "bullet proof hosting". The nature of politics and clandestine intelligence work is to collaborate with people you may not agree with, would be your enemy in a different situation.
No, neither China nor Russia do host anything harming the WEST(C), despite claims of "hybrid warfare".

The very restraint reaction of the media of the WEST(C) on the happening in Hong Kong creates the suspicion that there is some understanding between both leaderships.
The impression of some sort of collusion is not easy to dismiss. I fear that the WEST(C) is planning to go full Chinese on its own population in the future.

>exposing TOR Org's ideological enemies

>>7717
>The US government loose coordination. Just because the US funds something, doesn't mean it's pozzed.
I think what most defender and critics of TOR don't get is how by introducing conceptional flaws, design weaknesses, compromises in interest of performance TOR theoretical anonymity can be sufficient weakened to satisfy their sponsors.

>>7735
>BBG is just some group around radio free europe/asia, you dumb fuck, big fucking deal.
>dumbass schizo conspiracies
Radio Liberty, Radio free Europe/Asia was an semi-official CIA operation.

The most serious flaw TOR has is timing and traffic attacks on the packets. If there is few traffic it is easy to see who communicates with whom (so more TOR traffic is good). If one can observe traffic coming in an out of TOR nodes one can make educated guess who is communicating with whom.

The Onion Routing of TOR isn't new, it was first used with anonymous mail. The the protocol was much better and more secure. The sender had to make a decision which and how many nodes (remailer) to use, no automation difficult influence by the sender and easy to exploit by adversaries. TOR traffic can easy be routed by setting up some very high bandwidth nodes attracting most traffic. In effect TOR EU traffic is automatically routed within the EU.

The second thing Onion remailer did better was introducing delay. The mail were not immediately send, but stored some times until a number of mails accumulated, then to be send in random order not in order of reception.

Another thing would be making TOR more censorship proof by letting it look more like ordinary HTTPS traffic and its nodes like normal webserver. This is certainly not easy to do and also a conceptional problem how to communicate with a node that nobody should know is a node?

Nanonymous No.8043 [D]
>>8042
>The sender had to make a decision which and how many nodes (remailer) to use, no automation difficult influence by the sender and easy to exploit by adversaries.
The sender had to make a decision which and how many nodes (remailer) to use, no automation WHICH IS difficult TO influence by the sender and easy to exploit by adversaries.

Nanonymous No.8044 [D]
Are remailers still a thing?

Nanonymous No.8063 [D]
Real-time protocols sounds like the issue. Having cache and forward, with random timing, would be better. Tor looks to have many "convenience" features that should NOt be included.

Nanonymous No.8069 [D]
The remailer, the booger, the fart.


All this has likely been made more complicated than it needs to be!!!!!
That's my two shits.

Nanonymous No.8118 [D][U][F]
File: 06006fc2a025919db571b74cb6fe949f1afa5fb201d6f4009b82131ff2901418.jpg (dl) (41.96 KiB)
>pro-BDS

Nanonymous No.8122 [D]
>>8042
>China has his Great Firewall to isolate itself from fuckery by the West and to inquisitive locals.
KYS fucking retard LARPer and possible schizo.