Anonymous Servers - Tor in the cross-hairs of NSA?

Author

Tor in the cross-hairs of NSA?

Thanatopsis

2005-09-27, 2:47 am

--LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER--

National Security Agency gets
fix on Internet users

Top secret group applies for
patent to ID physical address
of Web surfers

Posted: September 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Internet users hoping to protect their privacy by using anti-virus software,
Web anonymizers, false identities and disabled cookies on their computer's
Web browser have something new to worry about a patent filed by the
National Security Agency (NSA) for technology that will identify the
physical location of any Web surfer.

Patent 6,947,978, granted this week, describes a process based on latency,
or time lag between computers exchanging data, of "numerous" known locations
on the Internet to build a "network latency topology map" for all users.
Identifying the physical location of an individual user, reports CNET
News.com, could then be accomplished by measuring how long it takes to
connect to an unknown computer from numerous known machines, and using the
latency response to display location on a map.

The rate at which data travels over the Internet constantly varies due to
the amount of traffic, the size of data files, the constant changing of
hardware and software by millions of users. Sometimes the system is slow,
sometimes it is fast. Because of this variation, knowing how long it takes
for a signal to travel to a location and back is not sufficient to identify
it's location. But knowing the latency of the entire system at a given
moment and the latency for a specific computer provides a means of knowing
relative locations, however fast or slow the Internet is operating.

While most users are unaware of it, their computers are able to "ping"
website addresses to trace the route their connection took and how much time
was required to complete the operation. Likewise other computer users -
hackers, for example - can ping their computer as well when connected to the
Internet. It is this feature that the NSA's patent seeks to exploit.

The NSA patent does not describe the intended use of the technology by the
agency, noting only general uses like measuring the "effectiveness of
advertising across geographic regions" or flagging a password that "could be
noted or disabled if not used from or near the appropriate location,"
according to CNET News. But given NSA's status as the nation's premier
cryptologic organization, it's unlikely the technology will be used to
improve advertising.

NSA is so secret that its acronym has been said to stand for "No Such
Agency." According to its website, "the National Security Agency/Central
Security Service ... coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized
activities to protect U.S. government information systems and produce
foreign signals intelligence information. A high technology organization,
NSA is on the frontiers of communications and data processing. It is also
one of the most important centers of foreign language analysis and research
within the government."

The agency has come under fire in the past for spying on American citizens.
In the 1970s, the agency was forced to admit that it had used its
eavesdropping equipment against Jane Fonda and other anti-Vietnam War
activists. The revelation led to a 1978 law banning spying by the agency on
U.S. citizens and resident aliens anywhere.

In 2000, following reports revealing the existence of Echelon, a massive
data-mining project that filtered electronic and voice communications around
the world, then director of the National Security Agency, Air Force Lt. Gen.
Michael Hayden, and his boss, CIA Director George Tenet, assured Congress,
"We protect the rights of Americans and their privacy. We do not violate
them and we never will."

"If, as we are speaking this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking across
the peace bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as
he gets to the New York side, he is an American person and my agency must
respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by
the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution," Hayden testified.

Post-9-11, if bin Laden goes online, NSA may actually know where he is.

__
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=46501

framarks@molcho.com

2005-09-27, 5:47 pm

Thanatopsis <Thanatopsis@Aegean.Sea> wrote in
news:FW7L4CLB38621.8791319444@anonymous.poster:

> --LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER--
>
> National Security Agency gets
> fix on Internet users
[snip]

Unlikely Tor would be affected by this?

traveler

2005-09-27, 8:46 pm

On 27 Sep 2005 02:05:57 -0000, Thanatopsis <Thanatopsis@Aegean.Sea>
wrote:

>--LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER--
>
>National Security Agency gets
>fix on Internet users
>
>Top secret group applies for
>patent to ID physical address
>of Web surfers
>
>Posted: September 25, 2005
>1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
>
>Internet users hoping to protect their privacy by using anti-virus software,
>Web anonymizers, false identities and disabled cookies on their computer's
>Web browser have something new to worry about a patent filed by the
>National Security Agency (NSA) for technology that will identify the
>physical location of any Web surfer.
>
>Patent 6,947,978, granted this week, describes a process based on latency,
>or time lag between computers exchanging data, of "numerous" known locations
>on the Internet to build a "network latency topology map" for all users.
>Identifying the physical location of an individual user, reports CNET
>News.com, could then be accomplished by measuring how long it takes to
>connect to an unknown computer from numerous known machines, and using the
>latency response to display location on a map.
>
>The rate at which data travels over the Internet constantly varies due to
>the amount of traffic, the size of data files, the constant changing of
>hardware and software by millions of users. Sometimes the system is slow,
>sometimes it is fast. Because of this variation, knowing how long it takes
>for a signal to travel to a location and back is not sufficient to identify
>it's location. But knowing the latency of the entire system at a given
>moment and the latency for a specific computer provides a means of knowing
>relative locations, however fast or slow the Internet is operating.
>
>While most users are unaware of it, their computers are able to "ping"
>website addresses to trace the route their connection took and how much time
>was required to complete the operation. Likewise other computer users -
>hackers, for example - can ping their computer as well when connected to the
>Internet. It is this feature that the NSA's patent seeks to exploit.
>
>The NSA patent does not describe the intended use of the technology by the
>agency, noting only general uses like measuring the "effectiveness of
>advertising across geographic regions" or flagging a password that "could be
>noted or disabled if not used from or near the appropriate location,"
>according to CNET News. But given NSA's status as the nation's premier
>cryptologic organization, it's unlikely the technology will be used to
>improve advertising.
>
>NSA is so secret that its acronym has been said to stand for "No Such
>Agency." According to its website, "the National Security Agency/Central
>Security Service ... coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized
>activities to protect U.S. government information systems and produce
>foreign signals intelligence information. A high technology organization,
>NSA is on the frontiers of communications and data processing. It is also
>one of the most important centers of foreign language analysis and research
>within the government."
>
>The agency has come under fire in the past for spying on American citizens.
>In the 1970s, the agency was forced to admit that it had used its
>eavesdropping equipment against Jane Fonda and other anti-Vietnam War
>activists. The revelation led to a 1978 law banning spying by the agency on
>U.S. citizens and resident aliens anywhere.
>
>In 2000, following reports revealing the existence of Echelon, a massive
>data-mining project that filtered electronic and voice communications around
>the world, then director of the National Security Agency, Air Force Lt. Gen.
>Michael Hayden, and his boss, CIA Director George Tenet, assured Congress,
>"We protect the rights of Americans and their privacy. We do not violate
>them and we never will."
>
>"If, as we are speaking this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking across
>the peace bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as
>he gets to the New York side, he is an American person and my agency must
>respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by
>the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution," Hayden testified.
>
>Post-9-11, if bin Laden goes online, NSA may actually know where he is.
>
>__
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=46501

Cool tech.
>

Nomen Nescio

2005-09-28, 5:54 pm

In article <lenjj19u4phmce0o030ckvncphkvb5plo1@4ax.com>
traveler <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> On 27 Sep 2005 02:05:57 -0000, Thanatopsis <Thanatopsis@Aegean.Sea>
> wrote:
>
>
> Cool tech.

idiot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

knowbetter@notoffturniptruck.org

2005-09-29, 5:52 pm

Ur kidding right? The guys who put together Tor are so confused that NSA doesn't
need a special patent to defeat Tor. Hell they had it out for months until
they admitted it was buggy and not anonymous. It is very slow, doesn't work
on many OS's and I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw all their boxes
that it runs on.

Zax

2005-09-29, 5:52 pm

On 29 Sep 2005 20:19:25 -0000, knowbetter@notoffturniptruck.org wrote in
Message-Id: <3MNHHKRO38624.6384837963@anonymous.poster>:

> Ur kidding right? The guys who put together Tor are so confused that NSA doesn't
> need a special patent to defeat Tor. Hell they had it out for months until
> they admitted it was buggy and not anonymous. It is very slow, doesn't work
> on many OS's and I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw all their boxes
> that it runs on.

The Tor developers have held meetings with the NSA who see potential
uses for Tor within the agency.

It seems they have a higher opinion of it than you do.

--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>

alfie

2005-09-30, 5:48 pm

Zax <fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote in
news:dhhm1j$36a$1@bananasplit.info:

> On 29 Sep 2005 20:19:25 -0000, knowbetter@notoffturniptruck.org wrote
> in Message-Id: <3MNHHKRO38624.6384837963@anonymous.poster>:
>
>

Hmmmm. The very fact that they're even talking to the NSA is one reason,
imo, NOT to use Tor.

> The Tor developers have held meetings with the NSA who see potential
> uses for Tor within the agency.
>
> It seems they have a higher opinion of it than you do.
>

Jeffrey F. Bloss

2005-09-30, 5:48 pm

alfie wrote:

> Hmmmm. The very fact that they're even talking to the NSA is one reason,
> imo, NOT to use Tor.

It certainly is. And if it were the only piece of information we had about
Tor, it might just be important enough to not use the software.

Fortunately we have other information. Like the experience and credibility
of its current developers, the fact that it's open sourced, the opinions of
a good number of well known and highly respected professionals in the
field... you know, little things like that.

--
Hand crafted on September 30, 2005 at 17:56:10 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

ubermaster

2005-09-30, 8:46 pm

"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote in
news:1225812.8TQYNiR7IE@wrench.yi.org:

> alfie wrote:
>
>
> It certainly is. And if it were the only piece of information we had
> about Tor, it might just be important enough to not use the software.
>
> Fortunately we have other information. Like the experience and
> credibility of its current developers, the fact that it's open
> sourced, the opinions of a good number of well known and highly
> respected professionals in the field... you know, little things like
> that.

>

Yeah "other information" alright. Like putting out a program and giving
the delusion of anonymity and then months later saying "oops, sorry it's
not anonymous, and buggy, so sorry, rots-a-ruck" These guys are like
frat boys that screw first and think about the condom later. Not with my
confidential data they won't.

George Orwell

2005-09-30, 8:46 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, ubermaster <ubermaster@no.org> wrote:
>"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote in
>news:1225812.8TQYNiR7IE@wrench.yi.org:
>
>
>Yeah "other information" alright. Like putting out a program and giving
>the delusion of anonymity and then months later saying "oops, sorry it's
>not anonymous, and buggy, so sorry, rots-a-ruck" These guys are like
>frat boys that screw first and think about the condom later. Not with my
>confidential data they won't.

I was interested it in and supported it. No XXXXing more.

It is full of XXXXing holes. A piece of shit. They don't tell you that.
When you complain, it is your fault. It won't succeed. A total waste of
money. Don't give a XXXXing penny to EEF for supporting it.

Yet the arrogance of the developers doesn't stop them. Right, it's great

Assholes belonging to an elite group. XXXX em. Turds!

Whatever you do, don't be a victim of Tor. Never run a Tor node, it is a
life sentance of death to your IP despite their promises you might possible
receive a complaint. In reality, your dead.

Assholes all.

Tor belongs in a bit bucket, totally worthless.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.58ckt

iQA/AwUBQz3m3/5McEU5rTr2EQJprACfRZwksoTlmnpI8/m+o6DSIqcGn20An1Vh
ciIdP2Wy+AcM/SZGQqfP0N6u
=Gi0x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A.Melon

2005-09-30, 8:46 pm

Assholes belonging to an elite group. XXXX em. Turds!

Whatever you do, don't be a victim of Tor. Never run a Tor node, it is a
life sentance of death to your IP despite their promises you might possible
receive a complaint. In reality, your dead.

Assholes all.

Tor belongs in a bit bucket, totally worthless.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.58ckt

iQA/ AwUBQz3mKP5McEU5rTr2EQIKtgCghjJG96djqJ7c
lcULUicK+i1tbSYAn3uD
vdqwER/vY3KJqbbNKNesypfd
=UXv0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A.Melon

2005-09-30, 8:46 pm

Assholes belonging to an elite group. XXXX em. Turds!

Whatever you do, don't be a victim of Tor. Never run a Tor node, it is a
life sentance of death to your IP despite their promises you might possible
receive a complaint. In reality, your dead.

Assholes all.

Tor belongs in a bit bucket, totally worthless.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.58ckt

iQA/AwUBQz3m9/ 5McEU5rTr2EQJqmQCfQhYNns0b5S4tHmugoU0gv2
SZ+x4AniSL
3kRyqSKfsjip+ANRqCdDWTW2
=8dbt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tarapia Tapioco

2005-10-01, 2:46 am

In article < 9940d769654ee8756c86f9ae916b9603@melontr
affickers.com>
A.Melon <juicy@melontraffickers.com> wrote:
>
>
> I was interested it in and supported it. No XXXXing more.
>
> It is full of XXXXing holes. A piece of shit. They don't tell you that.
> When you complain, it is your fault. It won't succeed. A total waste of
> money. Don't give a XXXXing penny to EEF for supporting it.
>
> Yet the arrogance of the developers doesn't stop them. Right, it's great

>
> Assholes belonging to an elite group. XXXX em. Turds!

I put a little more stock in their work and what they say than "Freddy the
Troll" anyday.

> Whatever you do, don't be a victim of Tor. Never run a Tor node, it is a
> life sentance of death to your IP despite their promises you might possible
> receive a complaint. In reality, your dead.
>
> Assholes all.
>
> Tor belongs in a bit bucket, totally worthless.

Kinda sounds like you've got a vested interest in trashing Tor, if you ask
me.

Jeffrey F. Bloss

2005-10-01, 2:46 am

ubermaster wrote:

>
> Yeah "other information" alright. Like putting out a program and giving
> the delusion of anonymity and then months later saying "oops, sorry it's
> not anonymous, and buggy, so sorry, rots-a-ruck" These guys are like

It's beta software. Under development. Bugs are expected and that's fully
explained every time you fire up the software, let alone in the
documentation. If you're relying on it for anything serious at this point
you're taking your chances. And in spite of that, your chances are light
years better using tor than anything else.

> frat boys that screw first and think about the condom later. Not with my
> confidential data they won't.

And your "secure" alternative would be... what?

--
Hand crafted on September 30, 2005 at 22:05:01 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

info@neuroni.org

2005-10-01, 2:46 am

-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext

In "Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote:
>ubermaster wrote:
>
>
>It's beta software. Under development. Bugs are expected and that's fully
>explained every time you fire up the software, let alone in the
>documentation. If you're relying on it for anything serious at this point
>you're taking your chances. And in spite of that, your chances are light
>years better using tor than anything else.
>
>
>And your "secure" alternative would be... what?

probably a polymorphing dll.

-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----

George Orwell

2005-10-01, 2:46 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Tarapia Tapioco <comesefosse@ntani.firenze.linux.it>
wrote:
>In article < 9940d769654ee8756c86f9ae916b9603@melontr
affickers.com>
>A.Melon <juicy@melontraffickers.com> wrote:
>
>I put a little more stock in their work and what they say than "Freddy the
>Troll" anyday.
>
>
>Kinda sounds like you've got a vested interest in trashing Tor, if you ask
>me.

Yeah, it XXXXed me over. had to shut down for a couple of days to get a new
IP. Then I got trashed by "the know it alls" that said you have to have
static IPs. Well, read what the instructions say, a dynamic IP is fine. Go
to the what complaints you might experience. "Oh, over the last so many
years we only had a hadfull of complaints"

Find out you can't connect to re-mailers the hardway.? Send a message and
wonder why it doesn't get through?

Don't ever run a Tor node unless youu want to forgoe everything else.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.58ckt

iQA/AwUBQz4no/ 5McEU5rTr2EQKbhwCfaE2EIVQLJydgyURUVpHeZv
c7qBsAnj07
CsgNIQphTIuJw1dT/gl5NPL9
=/gOf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A.Melon

2005-10-01, 2:46 am

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, info@neuroni.org wrote:
>-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
>Message-type: plaintext
>
>In "Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote:
>
>probably a polymorphing dll.

A XXXX of a lot better choice than Tor!!!!!

George Orwell

2005-10-01, 2:46 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Tarapia Tapioco <comesefosse@ntani.firenze.linux.it>
wrote:
>In article < 9940d769654ee8756c86f9ae916b9603@melontr
affickers.com>
>A.Melon <juicy@melontraffickers.com> wrote:
>
>I put a little more stock in their work and what they say than "Freddy the
>Troll" anyday.
>
>
>Kinda sounds like you've got a vested interest in trashing Tor, if you ask
>me.

Yeah, it XXXXed me over. had to shut down for a couple of days to get a new
IP. Then I got trashed by "the know it alls" that said you have to have
static IPs. Well, read what the instructions say, a dynamic IP is fine. Go
to the what complaints you might experience. "Oh, over the last so many
years we only had a handfull of complaints"

Find out you can't connect to re-mailers the hardway.? Send a message and
wonder why it doesn't get through?

Don't ever run a Tor node unless you want to forgoe everything else.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.58ckt

iQA/AwUBQz4n8/ 5McEU5rTr2EQJdFgCgo70OIz1GjbTbe8ZUl8Vlyy
WE5owAn0Zb
0DYOG+JRPXaqa3WuUagkLUc3
=s16n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

George Orwell

2005-10-01, 2:46 am

stingray@trilightzone.org

2005-10-01, 7:46 am

Thanatopsis wrote:
> --LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER--
>
> National Security Agency gets
> fix on Internet users
>
> Top secret group applies for
> patent to ID physical address
> of Web surfers
>
> Posted: September 25, 2005
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
> © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> Internet users hoping to protect their privacy by using anti-virus software,
> Web anonymizers, false identities and disabled cookies on their computer's
> Web browser have something new to worry about a patent filed by the
> National Security Agency (NSA) for technology that will identify the
> physical location of any Web surfer.
>
> Patent 6,947,978, granted this week, describes a process based on latency,
> or time lag between computers exchanging data, of "numerous" known locations
> on the Internet to build a "network latency topology map" for all users.
> Identifying the physical location of an individual user, reports CNET
> News.com, could then be accomplished by measuring how long it takes to
> connect to an unknown computer from numerous known machines, and using the
> latency response to display location on a map.
>
> The rate at which data travels over the Internet constantly varies due to
> the amount of traffic, the size of data files, the constant changing of
> hardware and software by millions of users. Sometimes the system is slow,
> sometimes it is fast. Because of this variation, knowing how long it takes
> for a signal to travel to a location and back is not sufficient to identify
> it's location. But knowing the latency of the entire system at a given
> moment and the latency for a specific computer provides a means of knowing
> relative locations, however fast or slow the Internet is operating.
>
> While most users are unaware of it, their computers are able to "ping"
> website addresses to trace the route their connection took and how much time
> was required to complete the operation. Likewise other computer users -
> hackers, for example - can ping their computer as well when connected to the
> Internet. It is this feature that the NSA's patent seeks to exploit.
>
> The NSA patent does not describe the intended use of the technology by the
> agency, noting only general uses like measuring the "effectiveness of
> advertising across geographic regions" or flagging a password that "could be
> noted or disabled if not used from or near the appropriate location,"
> according to CNET News. But given NSA's status as the nation's premier
> cryptologic organization, it's unlikely the technology will be used to
> improve advertising.
>
> NSA is so secret that its acronym has been said to stand for "No Such
> Agency." According to its website, "the National Security Agency/Central
> Security Service ... coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized
> activities to protect U.S. government information systems and produce
> foreign signals intelligence information. A high technology organization,
> NSA is on the frontiers of communications and data processing. It is also
> one of the most important centers of foreign language analysis and research
> within the government."
>
> The agency has come under fire in the past for spying on American citizens.
> In the 1970s, the agency was forced to admit that it had used its
> eavesdropping equipment against Jane Fonda and other anti-Vietnam War
> activists. The revelation led to a 1978 law banning spying by the agency on
> U.S. citizens and resident aliens anywhere.
>
> In 2000, following reports revealing the existence of Echelon, a massive
> data-mining project that filtered electronic and voice communications around
> the world, then director of the National Security Agency, Air Force Lt. Gen.
> Michael Hayden, and his boss, CIA Director George Tenet, assured Congress,
> "We protect the rights of Americans and their privacy. We do not violate
> them and we never will."
>
> "If, as we are speaking this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking across
> the peace bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as
> he gets to the New York side, he is an American person and my agency must
> respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by
> the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution," Hayden testified.
>
> Post-9-11, if bin Laden goes online, NSA may actually know where he is.
>
> __
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=46501
>
>
>

Wishful thinking.

ubemaster

2005-10-01, 5:47 pm

"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote in
news:16593763.vB6Pd8Cz33@wrench.yi.org:

> ubermaster wrote:
>
>
> It's beta software. Under development. Bugs are expected and that's
> fully explained every time you fire up the software, let alone in the
> documentation. If you're relying on it for anything serious at this
> point you're taking your chances. And in spite of that, your chances
> are light years better using tor than anything else.
>
>
> And your "secure" alternative would be... what?
>

The other poster is correct. These guys who developed Tor are arrogant.
And not too competent either. And they offer little in the way of
support for their invention. It would not suprise me if two or three
months down the road they say: oh yeah, we found another bug, sorry all
your communications were traceable. Using a public computer with socks
support is probably just as good, if not better. And you don't have to
put up with all their BS techno babble. I still use Tor, I just don't
use it for anything that has to be anon.

Jeffrey F. Bloss

2005-10-01, 8:46 pm

ubemaster wrote:

> The other poster is correct. These guys who developed Tor are arrogant.
> And not too competent either. And they offer little in the way of

If you have some form of credible or factual evidence that Tor's developers
are "not too competent", by all means feel free to post it here. Better
yet, join OR-TALK and post it there so the people your impugning can deal
with you themselves.

If you have some sort of expertise that gives your opinion any credibility
at all, let alone the credibility it would take to stand up to the opinions
of a large number of well known and respected crypto/security
professionals, feel free to post that too.

Otherwise you're just a coward taking pot shots from the safety of your
internet connection. Why, can only be guessed at, but what's not in
question is the fact that you're part of the problem... not the solution.

--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 18:47:42 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

Anonymous

2005-10-01, 8:46 pm

In article <2371073.Pct1AA6v8d@wrench.yi.org>
"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ubemaster wrote:
>
>
> If you have some form of credible or factual evidence that Tor's developers
> are "not too competent", by all means feel free to post it here. Better
> yet, join OR-TALK and post it there so the people your impugning can deal
> with you themselves.
>
> If you have some sort of expertise that gives your opinion any credibility
> at all, let alone the credibility it would take to stand up to the opinions
> of a large number of well known and respected crypto/security
> professionals, feel free to post that too.
>
> Otherwise you're just a coward taking pot shots from the safety of your
> internet connection. Why, can only be guessed at, but what's not in
> question is the fact that you're part of the problem... not the solution.

Peter Palfrader is the main programmer on Mixmaster 3. As a result
the network is the least reliable it has ever been. You'll see people
post messages 2 or 3 times just to insure it arrives. Oh yeah, they
told us that they were going to make the network much more reliable.
I guess, at the time, they did not know what an incompetent
programmer Palfrader is. Now, in private, they just say mixmaster is
broken.

What about the bug that allows attackers to add any mail2news
gateway's address to any mismaster3 remailer's block list? Yeah, the
XXXX has steadfastly refused to fix it. He only wants to work on Tor
because it pays. No time to fix any XXXXups in mixmaster. He does not
give a shit about the network. Don't look for anything of quality
from Palfrader. It's just not in him.

Jeffrey F. Bloss

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

Anonymous wrote:

>
> Peter Palfrader is the main programmer on Mixmaster 3. As a result
> the network is the least reliable it has ever been. You'll see people

Mix 3 is in beta. Trying to draw any inference from how it may or may not
perform is disengenous at best, assuming you had enough of a clue to even
be aware of its status, or what that means. Which you obviously don't.

If you had such a clue you'd realize Mix 3 isn't deployed, and you might
have avoided the embarrasment of having someone point out that if there
were any unreliability in the remailer network can't be caused by Mix 3
because of that little overlooked fact.

http://www.noreply.org/echolot/type2.list

<chuckle>

In any case, congratulations. You just did an outstanding job of proving
beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're lacking any knowledge and/or
integrity that might make your opinion meaningful.

Now... are there any OTHER straws you'd like to grab at this evening?

--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 21:53:02 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

Stephen K. Gielda

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

In article <2371073.Pct1AA6v8d@wrench.yi.org>,
jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com says...
> ubemaster wrote:
>
>
> If you have some form of credible or factual evidence that Tor's developers
> are "not too competent", by all means feel free to post it here. Better
> yet, join OR-TALK and post it there so the people your impugning can deal
> with you themselves.
>
> If you have some sort of expertise that gives your opinion any credibility
> at all, let alone the credibility it would take to stand up to the opinions
> of a large number of well known and respected crypto/security
> professionals, feel free to post that too.
>
> Otherwise you're just a coward taking pot shots from the safety of your
> internet connection. Why, can only be guessed at, but what's not in
> question is the fact that you're part of the problem... not the solution.
>
>
>
Yeah exactly, just like that guy in alt.privacy claiming all these
privacy sites are selling info, using web bugs and tricks, trying to
compromise his machine when he connects to them etc. But amazingly when
asked to name names comes back with the same unfounded, I say it so it's
true, no evidence BS as this poster. Wait, that was you, wasn't it?

/steve
--
Free Privacy Resources
http://www.cotse.net/resources.html

Jeffrey F. Bloss

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

Stephen K. Gielda wrote:

> Yeah exactly, just like that guy in alt.privacy claiming all these
> privacy sites are selling info, using web bugs and tricks, trying to

That much you could verify for yourself in a few minutes if you cared to do
so rather than run your mouth.

> compromise his machine when he connects to them etc. But amazingly when

Tried to compromise? No. Tried to connect back to a well known port for some
reason? Yeah. But by all means don't let the truth get in the way of a
perfectly good rant. Don't bother acknowledging the fact that I clarified
my statement and admitted it was likely some "look what we can do" ploy.
Just go right ahead and stomp your feet like the rest of the brats.

> asked to name names comes back with the same unfounded, I say it so it's
> true, no evidence BS as this poster. Wait, that was you, wasn't it?

Yer damned straight it was skippy. And if you have a problem with it,
trundle your XXX out there and prove me wrong. Start with the two most
discussed services here in this group aside from your own. Set your browser
to "ask" and see whose sites get hits. Check your Snort logs for 1x1 web
beacon garbage, or just sit there and watch the connection, because I know
you have the smarts to do it.

Then come on back and explain how if all that crap is so insignificant
you're not doing it yourself. Explain why YOU don't even accept
advertisements, ya' hypocrite.

--
Hand crafted on October 01, 2005 at 23:30:20 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

Stephen K. Gielda

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

In article <1368478.ppNOehugQu@wrench.yi.org>,
jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com says...
> Stephen K. Gielda wrote:
>
>
> That much you could verify for yourself in a few minutes if you cared to do
> so rather than run your mouth.
>
>
> Tried to compromise? No. Tried to connect back to a well known port for some
> reason? Yeah. But by all means don't let the truth get in the way of a
> perfectly good rant. Don't bother acknowledging the fact that I clarified
> my statement and admitted it was likely some "look what we can do" ploy.
> Just go right ahead and stomp your feet like the rest of the brats.
>
>
> Yer damned straight it was skippy. And if you have a problem with it,
> trundle your XXX out there and prove me wrong. Start with the two most
> discussed services here in this group aside from your own. Set your browser
> to "ask" and see whose sites get hits. Check your Snort logs for 1x1 web
> beacon garbage, or just sit there and watch the connection, because I know
> you have the smarts to do it.
>
> Then come on back and explain how if all that crap is so insignificant
> you're not doing it yourself. Explain why YOU don't even accept
> advertisements, ya' hypocrite.
>
>

I'm not commenting on if these sites do it or not, or any of the other
straw men you want to construct and throw at me, I am _only_ commenting
on the fact that if you get to make accusations without having to back
them up, then so do others and you don't have a leg to stand on whining
about it. Which, by the way, is the definition of hypocrisy.

/steve
--
Free Privacy Resources
http://www.cotse.net/resources.html

Anonymous

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

In article <4487855.JjzAmAuDfl@wrench.yi.org>
"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@tampabay.mapson.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Anonymous wrote:
>
>
> Mix 3 is in beta. Trying to draw any inference from how it may or may not
> perform is disengenous at best, assuming you had enough of a clue to even
> be aware of its status, or what that means. Which you obviously don't.
>
> If you had such a clue you'd realize Mix 3 isn't deployed, and you might
> have avoided the embarrasment of having someone point out that if there
> were any unreliability in the remailer network can't be caused by Mix 3
> because of that little overlooked fact.
>
> http://www.noreply.org/echolot/type2.list
>
> <chuckle>
>
> In any case, congratulations. You just did an outstanding job of proving
> beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're lacking any knowledge and/or
> integrity that might make your opinion meaningful.
>
> Now... are there any OTHER straws you'd like to grab at this evening?

Oh, I forgot! Palfrader was lead programmer on mix 2.9. Anybody
running that non-beta software? Oh yeah, a bunch.

Thank you, mr. asswipe, for allowing me to clarify my point.

Jeffrey F. Bloss

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

Stephen K. Gielda wrote:

> I'm not commenting on if these sites do it or not, or any of the other
> straw men you want to construct and throw at me, I am _only_ commenting
> on the fact that if you get to make accusations without having to back
> them up,

You know damned well why I don't care to start naming names. It's the same
reason YOU don't, and the same reason I clearly stated already. If you
think you can get me to do the dirty work and take the heat you're
mistaken. You can call that whatever you want. I sleep just fine.

What the hell would posting a bunch of log entries and headers prove anyway,
Steve? What do you suppose it would lead to? More "you're lying, no YOU'RE
lying" bullshit? Anyone can forge a log. Anyone can see log of their
bullshit posted to Usenet and clean house long enough to make it look like
someone's lying, too. That little cat and mouse game is played out every
day here, and most of the time the good guys loose. It's just too easy for
the miscreants to diddle the rules.

It ain't worth the hassle. It's better to give people the tools and let them
learn the truth for themselves. Most of the time you can get a pretty good
idea of whose selling you out by setting your browser to ask every time it
sees a cookie. That little bit alone is a real eye opener. And keeping an
eye on your status bar can tell you a lot too depending on your browser.
Skimming through the HTML of a page, and even reading through the external
scripts for links and reference to third parties is something anyone can do
too. It ain't rocket science, and it ain't uncommon. It's just something
you wouldn't expect a *privacy* business to to, but most of them do it
anyway.

--
Hand crafted on October 02, 2005 at 00:16:06 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

Nomen Nescio

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

In < 14a42978ab3c8703fb7f28dcac383514@mixmast
er.it>, nobody@mixmaster.it
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, info@neuroni.org wrote:
>
>A XXXX of a lot better choice than Tor!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Raving Asshat

Jeffrey F. Bloss

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

Anonymous wrote:

> Oh, I forgot! Palfrader was lead programmer on mix 2.9. Anybody

I thought you said the problem was the "result" of Mix 3......

"Peter Palfrader is the main programmer on Mixmaster 3. As a result
the network is the least reliable it has ever been."

Why yes, that's _exactly_ what you said.

Backpeddle much?

--
Hand crafted on October 02, 2005 at 01:18:43 -0400

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

info@neuroni.org

2005-10-02, 2:46 am

-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext

In < 14a42978ab3c8703fb7f28dcac383514@mixmast
er.it> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Oct 2005, info@neuroni.org wrote:
>
>A XXXX of a lot better choice than Tor!!!!!

And you are a Multi-Posting Asshat!

-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo

2005-10-30, 7:46 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Anonymous wrote:

> What about the bug that allows attackers to add any mail2news
> gateway's address to any mismaster3 remailer's block list? Yeah, the
> XXXX has steadfastly refused to fix it. He only wants to work on Tor
> because it pays. No time to fix any XXXXups in mixmaster. He does not
> give a shit about the network. Don't look for anything of quality
> from Palfrader. It's just not in him.

Technically that is not a bug (the m2n ending up in dest-block). It is a
design error. As Peter is not the main designer you are targetting the
wrong person here.

Let me explain what I have learned in two years of computer science:
1. Design
2. Specification
3. Implementation

Peter does 3. IMO. You are looking for the 1. guy I think,
Thomas
- --
Gothika: "How can you trust someone who thinks you are crazy"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQ2TEPQEP2l8iXKAJAQHIxAMglhZ/5r35rLEvVCTeSHWxMAHCFzcy2qKq
2pPSGekD/ cCH5H1iO3OwLSWV8JIeJFWeUTlOx8jEKdKB7wHas
2hHiaNRilhvk6++
UNgXfUUH4DlS6Ldf0N+uAt/TB0YR/ddLCMKylg==
=5WG4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----