On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 04:14, Roger Dingledine <a...@mit.edu> wrote: > For what it's worth, it's the phrasing of assertions like this that make > people call your posts here trolling.
Perhaps I should have been more specific: the “Militaries” section on the “Tor users page”, as it is formulated, looks unrealistic and artificial to me: 1. Field agents — who exactly are those? I these are regular soldiers, then tools such as LiPoSe [1] make no provisions for Tor — if they are using Tor on their own, then good for them, but I wouldn't call that “military use”. If these are special agents and the like, then Tor is most likely too unreliable and experimental for their purpose — they have their own expensive toys. 2. Hidden services — too vague. In any case, a military C&C as a Tor hidden service? This must be a joke. 3. Intelligence gathering — only for low-profile targets, perhaps. Even for such targets, what is usually done is establishing civilian network accounts, and proxying everything via them (or proxying directly via some ISP gateway proxy). That way you don't run into the possibility of rogue exit node intercepting unencrypted traffic, and don't expose yourself as a Tor user, which might be quite unusual (“revealing the surveillance” in the section). [1] http://www.spi.dod.mil/lipose.htm > I am periodically invited to do talks for law enforcement about Tor, > and at basically every talk somebody there tells me they use Tor every > day for their work. Law enforcement is no military intelligence — these people would do anything, since the most they risk is a failed investigation. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux (discussion / support: http://dee.su/liberte-contribute) _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
