On 01/30/2015 12:04 PM, Seth wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:18:50 -0800, Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 01/30/2015 03:30 AM, Bill Berry wrote: >>> This image explains VPN + tor quite well; >>> >>> https://vigilantcanuck.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/vpn-tor.png >>> >>> IMO this setup is a pretty sensible idea given the recent >>> de-anonymisation attacks (e.g. CMU). If your Tor connection gets >>> comprimised, all the Feds have (hopefully) is your VPN IP. >> >> Yes, that's a good point. >> >> Better yet is VPN1 -> VPN2 -> VPN3 -> Tor or VPN1 -> JonDonym -> VPN2 -> >> Tor. Belt _and_ suspenders :) > > The Grugq sez TOR => VPN – ok; VPN => TOR – go to jail. > > http://privacy-pc.com/articles/hackers-guide-to-stay-out-of-jail-7-vpns-vs-tor.html
Yes, he does. But I don't get why. Maybe someone can explain. How is letting ones ISP see connections to Tor entry guards safer than only letting the VPN provider see them? Ones ISP is typically at mercy of ones government, and perhaps even local criminals. Conversely, ones VPN provider is (if prudently chosen) not at mercy of such local adversaries. At worst, from a "go to jail" perspective, the VPN provider is cooperating with ones ISP and local adversaries. Right? And anyway, VPN1 -> VPN2 -> VPN3 -> Tor is better. -- tor-talk mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
