[tor-talk] Systemd error with v0.2.7.5 (git-6184c873e90d93b2)

2015-11-29 Thread Hideki Saito
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, I might have spotted some issue on the latest update through apt-get on Ubuntu 15.10. (I used source installation through apt-get because of the OpenSSL version mismatch error.) Basic symptom was that tor was restarting every two minutes or so.

[tor-talk] TOR and Obfsproxy packet size

2015-11-29 Thread Amin s
I have some questions about TOR and Obfsproxy packet size. 1. TOR cell size is 512 bytes but most TOR packets have size of 586 bytes [1]. My question is that why there is such difference in size (74 bytes difference)? 1. In my own testing, instead of TOR packets with size of 586 bytes,

[tor-talk] [OT] shocking incident in software incident

2015-11-29 Thread Bob
Dear list, A shocking incident in software industry has been reveled recently. I'm sharing it here so that more people can support the cause. https://www.change.org/p/andi-puehringer-netzrezepte-de-netzrezepte-technologies-pvt-ltd-clear-pending-salaries-and-compensate-for-our-job-loss -- t

Re: [tor-talk] TOR and Obfsproxy packet size

2015-11-29 Thread Justin
Hello, I’m not sure what the answer to your question about regular Tor is. When it comes to Obfsproxy changing the 586 byte size, it’s to evade filters that use that to help block Tor. The other packet length fluctuations would indicate that Obfsproxy makes the sizes of packets different so th

Re: [tor-talk] [OT] shocking incident in software incident

2015-11-29 Thread Justin
Ok? I’m just going to say that the article has nothing to do with Tor. > On Nov 29, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Bob wrote: > > Dear list, > > A shocking incident in software industry has been reveled recently. I'm > sharing it here so that more people can support the cause. > > https://www.change.org/

Re: [tor-talk] TOR and Obfsproxy packet size

2015-11-29 Thread Philipp Winter
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 06:35:12PM +0330, Amin s wrote: >1. TOR cell size is 512 bytes but most TOR packets have size of 586 >bytes [1]. > > My question is that why there is such difference in size (74 bytes > difference)? The difference is caused by the protocol headers that are wrapped