/l/ - The Lounge

Non board-specific discussion

[Make a Post]
[X]





Nanonymous No.15991 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>16006 >>16008 >>16064 >>16262
File: fbb24de35d46fef7639c80cd13cc74faf337b901745f895ac6a19353096ea8bd.jpg (dl) (69.68 KiB)
What exactly is the point of using TOR inside a virtual machine? Do you do it and if which OS are you emulating? Can you recommend any other safety measures?

Nanonymous No.16006 [D] >>16062 >>16269
>>15991
What exactly are all you schizos running from?

Nanonymous No.16007 [D]
This place is dead like an aborted fetus, go somewhere else to find a decent answer

Nanonymous No.16008 [D] >>16016 >>16062
>>15991
>point of using Tor (not TOR) inside a virtual machine
Another layer between your internet traffic and your bare metal. If it's a disposable/amnestic VM, theoretically a Tor compromise shouldn't affect the data on your base (non VM) system.
>Do you do it
No.
>Can you recommend any other safety measures?
Seat belts, condoms, and good insurance policies. Obey traffic laws, be aware of your surroundings, avoid black neighborhoods, and when you have to use a ladder, have someone stabilize it for you. Never use just a jack if you're working under a car; invest in a set of jack stands or some other stable base. Wear proper PPE when using power tools and other equipment. This might mean respiratory masks, eye protection, protective clothing, etc. If you have a specific safety concern, we might be able to suggest more targeted measures.

sage sage No.16011 [D][U][F] >>16015
File: 69c90c233dc5d190ee5da7e68b6caa754b92dd3ea0819f88ba0d255fcfb6c6dd.jpg (dl) (95.95 KiB)
"A pig in a cage, on antibiotics".

Nanonymous No.16012 [D] >>16062
>Oy vey goy, moar layers!
More layers means that the whole thing is impossible to understand. (((TOR))) already includes 7-8 layers of kike bullshit. How can anyone possibly understand how all those layers interact with each other? Glow niggers are hiding back doors.

Nanonymous No.16015 [D] >>16016
>>16011
That song always felt weird. The situation it describes sounds almost ideal - "eating well, no more microwave dinners", just for example - but it's spoken with such derision, to make it sound disgusting. Would I be more free, if I were out in the wilderness with no one around? This sounds like a freedom fit for pigs.

Save this dumb thread by discussing music.

Nanonymous No.16016 [D]
>>16015
Actually I posted this as an answer to >>16008 "safety measures", just forgot to quote.
>if I were out in the wilderness with no one around?
I don't think that's the point Radiohead was trying to make. The idea is that this "predefined" way of modern living is boring and predictable. As if it's a 'box' or a 'starter pack' you have to accept in modern days. And other two musics from this same album (OK Computer) explains a little: in "Paranoid Android" he says in the lyrics "I may be paranoid, but not an android" as if he was reassuring his own existence (not robotic, but human), because he is losing his perception about himself. This contrasts with "Fitter Happier", where the actions you have to follow are robotic.
The other music is "No Surprises", where he ironizes these normal situations as boring and lifeless ("Such a pretty house. And such a pretty garden").
The music itself is as the title says: you have to fit in the conception of "happy" and this is no different than a pig in a cage, with fake social interactions ("on antibiotics").

Nanonymous No.16062 [D][U][F] >>16063
File: e5cc177b96c657c68795fdb9c091719dadf4fc6d6b3ab71e56bc953bf4b9e49b.jpg (dl) (67.62 KiB)
>>16006
>What exactly are all you schizos running from?

Man-eating-Jew-lizzards-from outer space

>>16012
> How can anyone possibly understand how all those layers interact with each other? Glow niggers are hiding back doors.

I don't trust TOR because it is legal to use.Anything dangerous including types of firearms have been long banned in every corner of the world. And yet you can legally use TOR in UK or any other nanny state.

>>16008
The only good answer. Thanks babe ily xoxooxox

Nanonymous No.16063 [D] >>16268 >>16303
>>16062
>And yet you can legally use TOR in UK or any other nanny state.
1. Encryption is still legal.
2. Browsing the Internet is still legal.
1+2=3. Tor is still legal.

>Anything dangerous including types of firearms have been long banned in every corner of the world.
Those things kill people. Tor browsing doesn't kill people. If it did, it would get banned. They tried banning violent games already but couldn't because the narrative they pushed wasn't truth.

Now the real question is: can they crack the encryption yet? If they can, Tor will overnight become completely compromised. Maybe that's why they're collecting all the data they can: for future decryption.

tl;dr: Tor is probably trustworthy enough for shitposting at least.

Nanonymous No.16064 [D][U][F]
File: 39d21d86b535aa622814d7327be6ba0a32bdf9deba7f5660d13a23b630823d1d.jpg (dl) (600.62 KiB)
>>15991
>What exactly is the point of using TOR inside a virtual machine?
Security by isolation. Programmers are humans and humans make mistakes and can never fully anticipate all the ways things can be maliciously used. You like to get fucked every time programmers fuck up? That's why you run their codes in isolated environments. Take caution and distrust everything.

Nanonymous No.16262 [D]
>>15991
Use VeraCrypt.

Nanonymous No.16268 [D] >>16284 >>16298
>>16063
>can they crack the encryption yet?
No, but viable quantum computers will make cracking Tor encryption trivial. Which, yes, is one of the reasons they're storing Tor traffic. Same goes for PGP/GPG communicationss, TLS sessions, and SSH sessions. It's all dust if quantum cryptanalysis with Shor's algorithm becomes viable. Tor Project was looking into a quantum-resistance algo called NewHope at one point, but I don't think they're using it yet.

Nanonymous No.16269 [D][U][F] >>16276
File: 6ac660c3c08ada24733d81c64a2bc1aed32b103995f771613bd71e34862b7e4f.gif (dl) (1.79 MiB)
>>16006
Jews, companies, governments, people.

Nanonymous No.16276 [D]
>>16269
>companies, governments
those are redundant after you said jews

sage sage No.16284 [D] >>16286 >>16302 >>16304 >>16305
>>16268
Not true, AES-256 is not vulnerable to quantum attacks. Also, quantum computers are a myth created by media. There's no such a thing yet and probably will never be in anyone's home. There's very limited areas where quantum retardation is better than binary computers.

Nanonymous No.16286 [D] >>16304
>>16284
AES is not what will be broken. RSA, ECC, these are the things that will be broken. Popular asymmetric encryption algorithms are under threat. The maintained security of AES-256 will mean nothing if there is not a secure way to transmit keys over the internet.
Quantum computers are not a myth.

Nanonymous No.16298 [D][U][F] >>16304
File: f6f480809f695569d4d6107e58342f294d777754d779f2cfc0277307c01b0d7a.png (dl) (8.79 KiB)
>>16268
Didn't Gooooooooogle just reach supremacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing#Quantum_supremacy

Nanonymous No.16299 [D] >>16302
Quantum computers are hyped in the press to bolster their 'no where to hide' agenda. Quantum computers right now are really expensive and won't be practical anytime soon. Check back in a decade and see where QC stand. By then algorithms will be in place that QC will not solve no matter how many qbits.

Nanonymous No.16302 [D] >>16304 >>16307
>>16284
Symmetric ciphers like AES are vulnerable to quantum computers. Look up Grover's algorithm. They're just not utterly broken like RSA, ECC, etc. That's beside the point, though. It doesn't matter if your, say, TLS traffic is encrypted with AES. The AES key is exchanged over an RSA/ECC secured connection. When that is broken, they can retrieve the AES key. No further cryptanalysis is necessary. Whether quantum computers become viable for cryptanalysis in the future is an open question, but not a myth.
>>16299
Could you miss the point any harder? The NSA and various other alphabet agencies around the world are storing many yobibytes of people's internet traffic. Everything you do online, including posting here, is being stored. It doesn't matter whether capable quantum computers become available to them in ten years, twenty years, or fifty years. When they do, they will go back and decrypt EVERYTHING they've stored. With regard to criminal activity (e.g. ordering drugs or looking at CP over Tor), much of it will be past the statute of limitations in jurisdictions that have that, but glowers will still be able to use the info for blackmail and other nefarious purposes. Yes, there are efforts to standard post-quantum crypto, but it's still a work in progress, standards aren't in place, almost nobody is using post-quantum crypto, and meanwhile, pretty much everything that anyone does online is being stored by some nation-state entity (or multiple of them) for future decryption.

Nanonymous No.16303 [D][U][F]
File: 4fc6f0ec205867d75e69c4f72f24bb3374d58ffe10929d573e448682d0b82455.webm (dl) (579.28 KiB)
>>16063
>couldn't because the narrative they pushed wasn't truth

Nanonymous No.16304 [D] >>16305 >>16306 >>16308
>>16284 (me)
>>16286
>>16302
>key exchange
See Isogenies and New Hope:
https://www.newhopecrypto.org/
https://csidh.isogeny.org/index.html

Yes, current TLS will be broken, but until then we'll already have other versions of TLS or new and better protocols.
>>16298
All for media attention. They choose one very specific problem and then call it "supremacy". Yes, in their particular test they reached performance superiority, but that's very specific.
"Quantum" computers are not nearly close to reality. First of all, how are you going to solve the cooling problem? You need it to get close to absolute kelvin. You can only do that wasting a shit ton of money, only to be able to run even basic logic operations.

Nanonymous No.16305 [D]
>>16304
> >>16284 (me)

Nanonymous No.16306 [D]
>>16304
Google did not even achieve quantum supremacy. The strongest classical computer can do the computation in just 2.5 days. It would even be more accurate to.
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/

Nanonymous No.16307 [D] >>16309
>>16302
Yes aware of the Utah facility and most likely others. There are over 2 million Tor users a day, many more VPN connects and bandwidth keeps getting higher every year. They are still limited by how much they can store. Most likely it won't be much use to them by the time they crack it. If they could crack in 5 years it could be useful, however 20 years not so much. Many people will be dead by the time some of it is cracked. If everything went to plan blackmail is probably most worrisome of all things.

From a historical perspective the Stasi collected huge amounts of data but most of it sat in warehouses collecting dust. Eventually that system fell and possible history could repeat.

Nanonymous No.16308 [D]
>>16304
You stupid motherfucker. The FUTURE deployment of quantum-resistant algorithms does not change the fact that vast amounts of internet traffic are CURRENTLY being stored for future decryption.
>absolute kelvin
You mean absolute zero, dumbass?

Nanonymous No.16309 [D]
>>16307
They could be prioritizing data based on what they think it is. Some data is likely on a rolling overwrite that allows them to go back X amount of time after something happens. Other data could be flagged for archive and held until the encryption can be broken or bypassed. You have to remember that most Internet traffic, by default, was not encrypted not too long ago (2012-13). It wasn't until after Snowden, that mainstream started taking the people talking about domestic spying seriously.

Nanonymous No.16311 [D]
compared to the quantum implementation taking seconds.

And you'd need like 25 ibm supercomputers if they added 2 more qubits or something (see jew aaronson's blog). There's essentially no debate at this point that quantum computers & supremacy are achievable.

Nanonymous No.16321 [D]
>16311
Quantum supremacy is not about being faster. It's about the calculation being infeasible on a classical computer. Quantum supremacy is close, but we are not quite there yet.

Nanonymous No.16323 [D]
wrong board

Nanonymous No.16537 [D][U][F]
File: 053c567bac4023b1db172d8445767cc2ab0dec1b427c5bfd77622ce8aa1ae9ff.jpg (dl) (31.71 KiB)
every single one of you is totally fucking retarded. the post was asking about using virtualization as an added layer to browse tor. no one has answered the question yet.

the reason to do that is because there are N-many ways to figure out who you are through javascript and/or through nuances in your hardware setup and how it interacts with elements on a page. it's called a fingerprint. check out the site amiunique. also look into these issues, there's a lot of discussion about them.

so using a virtualization, as one solitary post below pointed, will make it more difficult for others to discover identifying characteristics about your hardware setup.

everyone here talking about cryptography like it was the largest vulnerability in tor. correlation / timing attacks are a real thing. even if the five eyes and their cronies hadn't pwned most of the exit nodes (which they most likely have) they can just watch the timing of input and output into and out of tor and clearnet to ascertain who may be accessing what and when, add this to digital fignerprinting of your hw, along with a host of other techniques: do you access tor from the same location as your main? do you have predictable access and usage patterns over tor, if so have you ever accidentally compromised yourself? is the timing have you ever written anything over clearnet, do you change writing styles and nuances when you write on tor? do you browse forums and communicate over the same tor instance that you do things you would prefer to remain confidential?

furthermore, a good argument for xkeyscore back in the day was to put you on a 'hack this dude so we can figure out what he's up to' list.

it may sound paranoid, and it is. but i don't consider it unnecessary to consider these things.

i was gonna say some more, but i just forgot.

Nanonymous No.16669 [D][U][F]
File: 81d5baa5bda844137ce13d518bcf284e6333eaba2cfe4069d4795e600b771d6f.jpg (dl) (47.09 KiB)
tor is dumb. use the clearweb like I am doing to post this message right now. I am on windows XP on IE7 and I dont give a shit. we should all register our real IP with each government and kindly ask permission for what to talk about. It is the only sensible thing to do. Think of the children. Thoughts and Prayers.