On 2018-03-04 23:26, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 05:51:44PM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> FWIW, we collected all feedback from this thread, discussed this change
>> in the metrics team, and forwarded our planned change to the Tor
>> Research Safety Board. I don't know how f
Roger Dingledine:
> And speaking of
> community-building, are there volunteers lined up who would contact
> bridge operators if given the chance, or is this more of a theoretical
> "maybe it would happen"?
I'll eventually add a check for "is exit operator also a bridge operator?" and
might con
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 05:51:44PM +0100, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> FWIW, we collected all feedback from this thread, discussed this change
> in the metrics team, and forwarded our planned change to the Tor
> Research Safety Board. I don't know how fast that will move, but I could
> imagine it's a m
On 2018-02-07 17:45, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> We're now considering to drop one step in the sanitizing step, which is
> to remove contact information. The result would be that we'd keep
> contact information in sanitized descriptors in the exact same way as
> the bridge operator put it into their t
Am Montag, 12. Februar 2018 um 12:33 schrieb nusenu
:
If you block the ORPort, won't the reachability check fail?
Fine question. At least this has been the case in the past, though I
know there was discussion and maybe development to overcome this
weakness. But even if it's not possible ye
>> If you block the ORPort, won't the reachability check fail?
>
> Fine question. At least this has been the case in the past, though I
> know there was discussion and maybe development to overcome this
> weakness. But even if it's not possible yet, having bridge contact
> information would allow
On 2018-02-12 11:19, Alexander Dietrich wrote:
> On 2018-02-11 00:43, nusenu wrote:
>
>> - we could tell operators that running obfs3 and obfs4 is a bad idea
>
> Are you saying obfs3 and obfs4 shouldn't run simultaneously on the same
> bridge? That would be good to know indeed.
Citing from the I
On 2018-02-12 11:39, nusenu wrote:
> Once the decision has been made to publish contactInfo, people with
> access to the current contactInfo (bridgeDB, isis?) should sent current
> bridge operators
> a pre-notice about the upcoming change so they have a chance to react to it.
>
> I assume you wil
Once the decision has been made to publish contactInfo, people with
access to the current contactInfo (bridgeDB, isis?) should sent current bridge
operators
a pre-notice about the upcoming change so they have a chance to react to it.
I assume you will not implement this change retroactively (only
On 2018-02-11 00:43, nusenu wrote:
- we could tell operators that running obfs3 and obfs4 is a bad idea
Are you saying obfs3 and obfs4 shouldn't run simultaneously on the same
bridge? That would be good to know indeed.
- we could tell operator that exposing their vanilla ORPort is a bad
id
On 2018-02-11 00:43, nusenu wrote:
>> Possible advantages are:
>> - Relay Search would support searching for bridges by contact information.
>> - People who keep a watching eye on the Tor network could reach out to
>> bridge operators to inform them that they're running an outdated tor/PT
>> vers
On 2018-02-08 19:48, to...@protonmail.com wrote:
> Whatever you decide, I think you should have this mentioned in the setup docs
> for bridges.
We have the following explanation in the manual:
"Administrative contact information for this relay or bridge. This line
can be used to contact you if y
> Possible advantages are:
> - Relay Search would support searching for bridges by contact information.
> - People who keep a watching eye on the Tor network could reach out to
> bridge operators to inform them that they're running an outdated tor/PT
> version, or that running bridges and exits t
Whatever you decide, I think you should have this mentioned in the setup docs
for bridges.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
Original Message
On February 8, 2018 6:53 AM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>On 2018-02-08 12:19, nusenu wrote:
>>
>>>Possible advantages are:
>>>anothe
On 2018-02-08 12:19, nusenu wrote:
>
>> Possible advantages are:
>
> another advantage I can come up with:
> we will be able to analyze bridge shares (if most have contactInfo set),
> meaning
> is one or two entity running all bridges? How many operators are there?
>
> Obviously you could also
> Possible advantages are:
another advantage I can come up with:
we will be able to analyze bridge shares (if most have contactInfo set), meaning
is one or two entity running all bridges? How many operators are there?
Obviously you could also see this as disadvantage.
When discussing bridge IP
On 2018-02-08 10:54, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
> Hi there,
Hello!
> I don't want to declare it a showstopper outright, but:
>
>> On 8. Feb 2018, at 09:42, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>>
>> These sound like variants of the first disadvantage listed above. There
>> are two additional assumptions in here,
Hi there,
I don't want to declare it a showstopper outright, but:
> On 8. Feb 2018, at 09:42, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>
> These sound like variants of the first disadvantage listed above. There
> are two additional assumptions in here, though:
>
> 1) bridge operators use the same or a similar e
On 2018-02-07 19:37, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
>
>> On 7. Feb 2018, at 18:55, Geoff Down wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>>
>>> Possible disadvantages are:
>>> - If somebody runs a relay and a bridge, both with the same contact
>>> information, a censoring a
> On 7. Feb 2018, at 18:55, Geoff Down wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>
>> Possible disadvantages are:
>> - If somebody runs a relay and a bridge, both with the same contact
>> information, a censoring adversary might guess that the bridge might run
>>
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> Possible disadvantages are:
> - If somebody runs a relay and a bridge, both with the same contact
> information, a censoring adversary might guess that the bridge might run
> on a nearby IP address as the relay. However, they could as w
21 matches
Mail list logo
