On 12.09.2011 21:09, Phillip wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
>
>> Sometimes ago the Live Journal became the mainest Russian oppositional
>> informatinal playground. Because it, the Putin's junta gave order to
>> their commercials to by the
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
>>> It is very bad news because I am affraid that another tyrannical regimes
>>> such as Russian can make do it too.
>>> But it seems to me that Tor-users can use bridges and etc. for avoiding
>>> repressive measures
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
>
> We are working on pluggable transports and obfuscating the tor procotol so
> that we can fool a deep packet inspection device to some level. See
> https://gitweb.torproject.org/obfsproxy.git for extremely experimental
> code.
>
>
Hope it g
On 09.09.2011 23:39, Phillip wrote:
>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
>>>
>>>
>> It is very bad news because I am affraid that another tyrannical regimes
>> such as Russian can make do it too.
>> But it seems to me that Tor-users can use bridges an
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 23:18:04 Andre Risling wrote:
> Does that mean even though Pakistan has banned encrypted traffic that
> Tor can still work because users are connecting by way of bridges?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Pakistan has banned all encryption on the Internet
inside their count
Hi
>> Because encryption is illegal, not ip addresses and port combinations.
>> At the most basic level, they could just block tcp 443 and probably
>> stop the most customers with that alone. If the ISPs really care, then
>> deep packet inspection is the next probability to detect and block
>> any
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:55 PM, and...@torproject.org wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:08:35PM +0100, pump...@cotse.net wrote 0.7K
> bytes in 16 lines about:
> : Forgive my ignorance but why would there be any need to inspect
> : packets for tunnels? Would the authorities not just ask
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 10:08:35PM +0100, pump...@cotse.net wrote 0.7K bytes in
16 lines about:
: Forgive my ignorance but why would there be any need to inspect
: packets for tunnels? Would the authorities not just ask every ISP
: to monitor the IPs to which their clients are connecting and if t
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 22:08 +0100, Matthew wrote:
> >> It would be good to know what technologies these ISPs will implement to
> >> do the packet inspection for encrypted tunnels. Half the problem is you
> >> don't really know what they'll be looking for and so you don't know how
> >> to circumven
It would be good to know what technologies these ISPs will implement to
do the packet inspection for encrypted tunnels. Half the problem is you
don't really know what they'll be looking for and so you don't know how
to circumvent.
Forgive my ignorance but why would there be any need to inspect
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 05:13:32AM +, moeedsa...@gmail.com wrote 4.5K bytes
in 111 lines about:
: would using bridges prevent the ISP from knowing that a person is using tor?
Yes. However, any analysis of the traffic using deep packet inspection
will show it is using encryption which is illeg
would using bridges prevent the ISP from knowing that a person is using tor?
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:04 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:23:41PM +0100, pump...@cotse.net wrote 1.4K
> bytes in 42 lines about:
> :
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-soft
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:23:41PM +0100, pump...@cotse.net wrote 1.4K bytes in
42 lines about:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
I talked to someone from the pakistani government about this encryption
ban early this spring. They were concerned that
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
>>
>>
> It is very bad news because I am affraid that another tyrannical regimes
> such as Russian can make do it too.
> But it seems to me that Tor-users can use bridges and etc. for avoiding
> repressive measures fr
On 09/08/2011 08:02 PM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Anthony G. Basile"
>
>> On 09/08/2011 05:23 PM, Matthew wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Very disturbing. I wonder if its possible to hide encrypted traffic as
>> se
DARPA has funded a project to develop a stego type communications system as a
"next generation TOR". Its called SAFER Warfighter Communications.
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Programs/SAFER_Warfighter_Communications_(SAFER).aspx
On Sep 8, 2011, at 7:00 PM, "Michael Holstein"
wrote:
>
On 08.09.2011 21:23, Matthew wrote:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
>
>
>
>
> ___
> tor-talk mailing list
> tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-ta
> Very disturbing. I wonder if its possible to hide encrypted traffic as
> seemingly unencrypted http traffic in much the same way as a gpg key is
> rendered as ascii armored, or stenographically inside images. Although
> such methods may be inefficient, they may be good enough for some purpose
From: "Anthony G. Basile"
> On 09/08/2011 05:23 PM, Matthew wrote:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
>>
>>
>
> Very disturbing. I wonder if its possible to hide encrypted traffic as
> seemingly unencrypted http traffic in much the same way as a
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
On 09/08/2011 05:23 PM, Matthew wrote:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/pakistan-bans-encryption-software
>
>
Very disturbing. I wonder if its possible to hide encrypted traffic as
seemingly unencrypted http traffic in much the same way as a gpg key is
rendered as ascii armored
21 matches
Mail list logo
