On 03/29/2019 08:36 AM, dns1...@riseup.net wrote: > Excuse my bad English, probably I'm not writing correctly. > > In the mail of 28 March 2019 11:06:07 CET, from grarpamp, I read: > > "... > > " > a 501(c)3 US nonprofit. > " > With rather curious amounts of potentially highly > user adversarial funding sources. > ..."
He means the US government, I think. > Il 29/03/19 14:36, Mirimir ha scritto: >> On 03/29/2019 06:07 AM, dns1...@riseup.net wrote: >>> I'm not in the position to talk about the architecture or other >>> technical aspects because I'm not expert enough. I don't say that the >>> network doesn't have problems. >>> >>> But i think that some things you said are a bit of stretch; for example, >>> why adversaries should finance tor project and publicly it if they have >>> a malicious intent? >> Where do you see that? I've reread his post several times, and see >> nothing about "adversaries should finance tor project". It is true that >> some criticize Tor because it was originally a US Navy project, and >> still gets funding from US governmental entities. But that's not an >> argument that I recall grarpamp ever making. Unless he's juan, anyway. >> >>> It would be interesting to me to know what other people think about what >>> you said. >> The main thrust of his criticism, as I interpret it, is that Tor >> explicitly doesn't protect against global passive adversaries. Let alone >> global _active_ adversaries, such as the NSA. As I understand it, that >> reflected both "it would be too hard to do that, without unacceptable >> latency and traffic overhead" and "they don't likely exist, or if they >> do, they're our friends". >> >> Some systems have been proposed that use padding and chaff to make >> traffic analysis harder. But as grarpamp says, it'd be hard for the Tor >> Project to implement stuff like that in the existing Tor network. Much >> harder than the v3 onion upgrade, anyway. And the other side of it is >> that Tor works well enough that implementing one of the newer designs >> seems unlikely. Given that potential volunteers are working on Tor. >> >>> Il 29/03/19 03:08, grarpamp ha scritto: >>>> On 3/28/19,dns1...@riseup.net <dns1...@riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> I think you are affected by cognitive bias. >>>> Tor is effected by lack of external thought. >>>> >>>>> You are blindly looking only for bad things. >>>> Your adversaries are assuredly looking at those things and more. >>>> If you are not looking at them, you're done in mate. >>>> >>>>> Of course the network is not perfect, but is the best we have >>>> That's apologist talk to avoid clean slate researching >>>> and creating better architectures, even to the >>>> then at that point possibly legit point of being >>>> able to actually make that declaration. >>>> >>>>> and we should make our best to improve it. >>>> Tor is and will always be 20 year old architecture >>>> from time before current adversary models were >>>> say matured if not known. Tor's relatively >>>> simple and effectively static with only marginal >>>> improvements left. And has outright traded off >>>> and/or discarded design models that others >>>> might not today. (And obviously Tor arch cannot >>>> be substantially changed while still calling itself Tor.) >>>> >>>> Before declaring Tor sufficient against today threats >>>> you need to analyse it against today threats >>>> vs new networks being research and deploy >>>> against today threats. >>>> >>>>> trying to delegitimate everything. >>>> Those concerned with messengers vs >>>> messages are prone to miss some dead canaries. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
