|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > April 2006 > Riot.eu.org
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Did Riot give it up? Website gone. Web based remailer gone. Is there
another website that gives the geographical/map location of the active
remailers?
| |
| traveler 66 2006-04-24, 8:06 am |
|
"Frool" <NoReply@vnn.vn> wrote in message
news:85WQYPVZ38830.5440162037@anonymous.poster...
> Did Riot give it up? Website gone. Web based remailer gone. Is there
> another website that gives the geographical/map location of the active
> remailers?
Riot has been offline for a while now, there is a map out of the re-mailers,
but I'm not sure what the url is.
>
>
>
| |
|
|
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| TwistyCreek wrote:
> There are some ssl web based re-mailers here,
>
> http://www.privacyoffshore.net/links.html
Useless by themselves. Like handing over your plain text messages to a
random stranger and saying "Here, you deal with it." Chances are every
message ever sent through them has been archived in plain text along with
the IP and other information of every sender that sent them.
| |
| traveler 66 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:db876474c2377642fc797567998a9894@ps
eudo.borked.net...
> TwistyCreek wrote:
>
>
> Useless by themselves. Like handing over your plain text messages to a
> random stranger and saying "Here, you deal with it." Chances are every
> message ever sent through them has been archived in plain text along with
> the IP and other information of every sender that sent them.
It's always better to access them through a proxy or better yet, TOR just in
case.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| traveler 66 wrote:
>
> "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:db876474c2377642fc797567998a9894@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
> It's always better to access them through a proxy or better yet, TOR just
> in case.
First, I said "by themselves". You should have kept your panties out of
bunch mode because I wasn't going to bother wasting time bitchslapping
you or one of your pet snake oil services. Until you started spreading
your typically fatuous "advice" that is.
There IS no "better", or "proxy" or "just in case" about about it.
Remailers are provably anonymous, and using them in non-anonymous ways
completely demolishes everything they're designed to do no matter how many
times you stomp your little feet and claim "proxies" and "anonymity
services" are anonymous just to rip off unsuspecting newbies.
Tor is the only acceptable way to even CONSIDER using a web based remailer
interface, and even in that case you're giving up the benefit of latency
and opening yourself up to traffic analysis. That remailer operator, or
ANYONE with admin rights over the machine running the interface, has
exactly what you DON'T want an entry remailer having..... the plaintext of
your message. Period.
If it's at ALL possible to avoid using web based remailer interfaces then
do so. If you absolutely have to, stay the hell away from open proxies and
the Privacy.LIE family of scan services. Even REPUTABLE privacy services
and using remailers this way is a waste of time. You're using a
non-anonymous method to deliver your message in the clear. PERIOD.
| |
| traveler 66 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
|
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:4f09b9eae79431add987b56b33bc72e0@mi
xmaster.it...
> traveler 66 wrote:
>
>
> First, I said "by themselves". You should have kept your panties out of
> bunch mode because I wasn't going to bother wasting time bitchslapping
> you or one of your pet snake oil services. Until you started spreading
> your typically fatuous "advice" that is.
I added an appropriate comment to your "by themselves", what's the problem,
don't you like the
fact that I added some information you didn't. Keep your foot out of your
mouth, it's to big and doesn't fit.
>
> There IS no "better", or "proxy" or "just in case" about about it.
> Remailers are provably anonymous, and using them in non-anonymous ways
> completely demolishes everything they're designed to do no matter how many
> times you stomp your little feet and claim "proxies" and "anonymity
> services" are anonymous just to rip off unsuspecting newbies.
It depends on the level of anonymity you want, and how important what you
have to say is, no worries on your part.
Accessing a re-mailer, via TOR, from an anonymous entry point to TOR to
begin with adds a high degree of anonymity, whether
you like it or not, but it still shouldn't be counted on as 100% just to be
safe.
>
> Tor is the only acceptable way to even CONSIDER using a web based remailer
> interface, and even in that case you're giving up the benefit of latency
Read the information on TOR and how it works, it offers some pretty sound
protection.
> and opening yourself up to traffic analysis.
You need to read about how TOR works, it's explained in a simple way on
their homepage.
>That remailer operator, or
> ANYONE with admin rights over the machine running the interface, has
> exactly what you DON'T want an entry remailer having..... the plaintext of
> your message. Period.
They could if they really wanted to, but that might only be a concern when
someone has something important to
say, so don't worry, but that's why a proxy or TOR through an encrypted
anonymous access point should be used for higher anonymity.
Besides all that, most people don't have the time to read the thousands of
e-mails they get passing through, but if your concerned about
the importance of your thoughts, just access it through TOR.
>
> If it's at ALL possible to avoid using web based remailer interfaces then
> do so. If you absolutely have to, stay the hell away from open proxies and
> the Privacy.LIE family of scan services.
They seem to be the only ones offering an encrypted anonymous access point
directly to TOR through their tunnels, (tor's first hop doesn't know who
you are that way) along with one or two others out there, you don't seem to
like that, hmmm. And no, I don't use privacy.li for anything except news.
>Even REPUTABLE privacy services
> and using remailers this way is a waste of time.
That's a comment your making because what you refer to as "reputable" isn't
able to offer the service yet.
>You're using a non-anonymous method to deliver your message in the clear.
>PERIOD.
It's a way but not the only way, you could use a program like free pgp to
deliver a message to a remailer, we all know that no one (lol) can get
through that!
Now go away and be good for a change.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| >You're using a non-anonymous method to deliver your message in the
>clear. PERIOD.
Your not delivering anything in the clear, it's encrypted all the way
there stick head, and if you send it to the first re-mailer the right
way, even if someone did look at it before it got sent off, they
wouldn't have any way of knowing where or from who it's from
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
George Orwell schreef:
>
> Your not delivering anything in the clear, it's encrypted all the way
> there stick head, and if you send it to the first re-mailer the right
> way, even if someone did look at it before it got sent off, they
> wouldn't have any way of knowing where or from who it's from
And you should learn how to thread and you should learn how to use
remailers. The other George Orwell you replied to (tried to) is right.
Web based remailers that do the encryption of your plain text message
and chain selection for you are just no good when compared to 'proper'
remailer usage.
They know the exit and they know what it message to it will look like.
my2ct,
Thomas
- --
Robert Heinlein: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and
shout"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBRE4gEQEP2l8iXKAJAQGQ0wMeMj3JtHzm
GVI5QyydiHopsiQpFUk3+lbo
uDYebx/ 7VcheBJG79enMpNbdCpXQ6UPGpmJRFBVRMzxUhgD
raPOxmJw3Sy0L81yO
B5Nc8J47ATFUCP0DpbCIFW432F6X8YSc0Xmrsg==
=pSEx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| George Orwell 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| traveler 66 wrote:
>
> I added an appropriate comment to your "by themselves", what's the
> problem, don't you like the
The problem is I don't like ignorant fukwits who hand out completely
incorrect "comments" like they were useful advice.
>
> It depends on the level of anonymity you want, and how important what
Oh look..... the same line of horse shit your puke up when you're lying
about your snake oil services being anonymous. How unexpected.
If the level of anonymity you want is ZERO you might have a point.
> Read the information on TOR and how it works, it offers some pretty
> sound protection.
Good GOD what a XXXXwitted little weasel you are. Most of the time you're
pissing yourself over how Tor isn't secure.
Argue just for the sake of arguing much?
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:40:40 -0700, traveler 66 wrote in
Message-Id: <444dd5e7$0$24117$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>:
> It depends on the level of anonymity you want
I think all the users of remailers want the best possible anonymity
they can get. For those who can't run Mixmaster directly for whatever
reason, they might want to just inject the message directly to a
mail2news gateway. It doesn't provide anonymity, but neither
does a web interface. I don't think anonymity can be quantified on a
scale of 1-10; you either do it right or accept not having it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBRE5JHWoLu9HNUqmMAQrwcwf8DKlSRrsu
t58eOjq0abU7aK+d90wyTHHP
JYbirJyXIbobf1p2Bz1sVz9oSY3xGM1Vr4FsW599
Pt/nfzNaU2rgGp5pvUvPidYJ
WkagQ4gLa5xgub6rrpOy0LSOIoeV1i8YlBNV7keq
kPOSs74WQu7OMUIAGSgGF+ik
in/ fr4DAW4dpNlo2Aq8odH3wLhfZM0tpgo9sjf2DThr
aLibnrAjpnI0a2hTSgWPG
gc707JVoDCpxjJQC4wlED9o3p8HoT4XUPbSshgFQ
/AaGU2D87tfy2ftM+Fz2y3S5
Qj0od2WpyanUqxhUF8VWse4/BODSI1MZ+rk0wWxg/OBwkqThCGMJ2Q==
=Sf9t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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>
| |
| traveler 66 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
|
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:13894b1e01f3e04198489daa1e83626d@mi
xmaster.it...
> traveler 66 wrote:
>
>
> The problem is I don't like ignorant fukwits who hand out completely
> incorrect "comments" like they were useful advice.
Speak for yourself.
>
>
> Oh look..... the same line of horse shit your puke up when you're lying
> about your snake oil services being anonymous. How unexpected.
I don't own any services, and am not the only one who makes the above
comments,
but you know that, your just being a troll.
>
> If the level of anonymity you want is ZERO you might have a point.
>
>
> Good GOD what a XXXXwitted little weasel you are. Most of the time you're
> pissing yourself over how Tor isn't secure.
I've never said any such thing, just that there aren't any 100% guarantees,
TOR is still an excellent option and offers
very high anonymity if used properly. You might want to read their web
site, they have it all laid out in a simple way
so almost anyone can understand it, maybe even you.
>
> Argue just for the sake of arguing much?
No, but you do.
flush/troller
| |
| Dana Rosen 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
|
traveler 66 wrote:
> "Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
> news:db876474c2377642fc797567998a9894@ps
eudo.borked.net...
>
> It's always better to access them through a proxy or better yet, TOR just in
> case.
It's always better to access them... never. It's like leaving every
door in your house open, handing the keys to a total stranger, and
telling him to "lock up and keep an eye on the place". Or handing an
unsealed letter to a random stranger and asking them to seal it up and
take it to the post office. Even if the stranger doesn't know your name
it's a stupid thing to do.
Even with Tor your message is totally exposed. The remailer network
itself is completely useless. Any anonymity you have comes from Tor and
nothing else. You could use any webmail account just the same, have a
repliable address, and if you encrypted your message before you pasted
into the web page it would be a lot more private. And yes, I realize
you could do this with the remailer pages, but the point is those web
remailers don't give you anything at all beyond the false sense that
you're anonymous because they're associated with the remailer network.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| George Orwell wrote:
>
> Your not delivering anything in the clear, it's encrypted all the way
> there stick head, and if you send it to the first re-mailer the right way,
> even if someone did look at it before it got sent off, they wouldn't have
> any way of knowing where or from who it's from
ROTFL!
You SERIOUSLY need to bone up on how these things work before embarrassing
yourself with your brain dead theories. Or quit trying to con people into
believing insecure methods are somehow magically secure if you mumble a
few technical words over them. Whatever your problem is, it need attended
to.
The web interface machine first needs to DECRYPT the incoming TCP traffic
stream before it can ENCRYPT your message with Mixmaster. Otherwise it
would be mailing out a stream of random garbage to some random address.
That web interface operator, his agents, and any "support" people like web
hosting admins have EVERYTHING. Your IP/Identity, the plain text of your
message, its destination, absolute control over the route it's going to
take, number of hops...... EVERYTHING. It's impossible for it to be any
other way, unless someone implements Mixmaster in Java or such and
develops a Web interface that downloads a full blown Java remailer client
to the user. None of them do anything of the sort. All the "work" is done
on the machine that provides the interface.
Web based remailer interfaces aren't anonymous at ALL unless you are
anonymous to them, and even then they break the basic tenet of not giving
your plain text to the entry remailer. That simple fact alone makes the
remailer network completely irrelevant because your message is known
before it even enters, demolishing any security the remailer network
would have offered. The security of the remailer network absolutely hinges
the user applying layered encryption to their messages BEFORE they send
out a single byte.
You'd be just as secure using any web based email account, and most web
base email accounts don't have the delivery problems the remailer network
can sometimes have. They're ironically more reliable and every bit as
anonymous. If you use something like Tor to access Hotmail you're EXACTLY
as anonymous as you would be using Tor and a web based remailer interface.
Using either one "naked" means you not anonymous at all, even if your
connection is SSL encrypted to the web site.
| |
| traveler 66 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
|
"Dana Rosen" <drosen@centralpets.com> wrote in message
news:1145984113.964781.273840@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> traveler 66 wrote:
with[vbcol=seagreen]
just in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It's always better to access them... never. It's like leaving every
> door in your house open, handing the keys to a total stranger, and
> telling him to "lock up and keep an eye on the place". Or handing an
> unsealed letter to a random stranger and asking them to seal it up and
> take it to the post office. Even if the stranger doesn't know your name
> it's a stupid thing to do.
>
> Even with Tor your message is totally exposed. The remailer network
> itself is completely useless. Any anonymity you have comes from Tor and
> nothing else. You could use any webmail account just the same, have a
> repliable address, and if you encrypted your message before you pasted
> into the web page it would be a lot more private. And yes, I realize
> you could do this with the remailer pages, but the point is those web
> remailers don't give you anything at all beyond the false sense that
> you're anonymous because they're associated with the remailer network.
There is still an advantage to use re-mailers rather than a hotmail account.
It's just better
to be anonymous to the web interface if that's what you happen to use, and
any traffic to the web interface
should be via SSL, there are a few interfaces out there that provide an SSL
encrypted connection to their
interface.
| |
| Dana Rosen 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
|
traveler 66 wrote:
> "Dana Rosen" <drosen@centralpets.com> wrote in message
> news:1145984113.964781.273840@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> with
> just in
>
> There is still an advantage to use re-mailers rather than a hotmail account.
There is no advantage to using web based remailer access over a regular
web mail account. None what so ever. They both see exactly the same
things. No exceptions. They both know where the message originates,
where it's going, and its contents. The "Big Three" of anonymity are
all completely exposed in either scenario.
What sort of advantage do you mistakenly believe you're seeing when
what you're claiming doesn't even exist at all?
> It's just better
> to be anonymous to the web interface if that's what you happen to use, and
It's not better, unless you define "better" as being anonymous and
secure as opposed to having no anonymity at all. If that's your
definition, then you are correct. There's is no middle ground. You're
either anonymous, or you are not. You can't be just a little pregnant.
> any traffic to the web interface
> should be via SSL, there are a few interfaces out there that provide an SSL
> encrypted connection to their
> interface.
SSL has nothing at all to do with it. There's SSL enabled regular web
mail accounts too. They hide content from your ISP and the like, but
they do nothing to make you anonymous. Observers still know who you
are, and where you're going. And once the traffic hits its destination
it's out in the open again with your identity attached to it. The
concept of anonymity disallows any and all of that.
You're habitually confusing privacy and anonymity. Why? Do you not
understand the differences, or do you have some underlying motive as
other people have suggested?
| |
| George Orwell 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| traveler 66 wrote:
>
> Speak for yourself.
Sod off you ignorant snotwad. You've got more than one person telling you
you're full of shit, including old pros and one of the most respected
remailer operators around.
Yeah, that's right, welcome to the very latest entry in your already HUGE
journal of making yourself look like a complete asstard by saying the most
stupid thing you could possibly come up with then trying to defend it.
Welcome to the sinking feeling of once AGAIN being exposed as a fraud, a
liar, and a complete and utter idiot.
Screw you AND your asstarded "depends on how anonymous" bullshit. You're
nothing more than a slime ball shill trying to pass yourself off as as an
"expert" so you can prop up the blatant LIES you tell to make a living.
You're a bottom feeding scumbag. You always have been, and you always well
be. A waste of time and good air.
>
> I don't own any services, and am not the only one who makes the above
> comments,
> but you know that, your just being a troll.
Nobody knows anything of the sort. You're proven nymhopper, and a piss
poor one at that. You say the dumbest shit imaginable as long as it sounds
like it supports your snake oil "anonymity services", and the alleged
owner of those anonymity services is a coward who can't do business out in
the open. But he happens to have the EXACT SAME spelling and grammar
problems you and all your other sock puppets have. Even when you all make
make the most hilarious attempt to correct those problems the world has
EVER seen.
ROTFLMAO!! That was some of the funniest shit ever, you dumbass.
>
> I've never said any such thing, just that there aren't any 100%
Lying XXXXwit. "They're not anonymous but Privacy.XXXXing.liar is Just
read their web site where it says so...."
> flush/troller
LOL!
Reply, then "flush".
Suck my dick, and take all day you pathetic little twat.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| traveler 66 wrote:
>
> "Dana Rosen" <drosen@centralpets.com> wrote in message
> news:1145984113.964781.273840@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> with
> just in
>
> There is still an advantage to use re-mailers rather than a hotmail
> account. It's just better
ROTFLMAO!!
OK XXXXwit, amuse us ALL some more by trying to describe these "advantages".
This should be a XXXXing RIOT! (pun intended)
LOL!
> to be anonymous to the web interface if that's what you happen to use, and
> any traffic to the web interface
> should be via SSL, there are a few interfaces out there that provide an
> SSL encrypted connection to their
> interface.
<yawn>
| |
| traveler 66 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
|
"Dana Rosen" <drosen@centralpets.com> wrote in message
news:1145991367.382103.120530@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> traveler 66 wrote:
>
> There is no advantage to using web based remailer access over a regular
> web mail account. None what so ever. They both see exactly the same
> things. No exceptions. They both know where the message originates,
> where it's going, and its contents. The "Big Three" of anonymity are
> all completely exposed in either scenario.
The receiving party knows exactly what account the message came from, with a
proper chain
this is protected by the re-mailers. If you've accessed the re-mailer
anonymously, you and where
the e-mail came from are not known to any operator.
>
> What sort of advantage do you mistakenly believe you're seeing when
> what you're claiming doesn't even exist at all?
>
>
> It's not better, unless you define "better" as being anonymous and
> secure as opposed to having no anonymity at all. If that's your
> definition, then you are correct. There's is no middle ground. You're
> either anonymous, or you are not. You can't be just a little pregnant.
>
>
> SSL has nothing at all to do with it. There's SSL enabled regular web
> mail accounts too. They hide content from your ISP and the like, but
> they do nothing to make you anonymous. Observers still know who you
> are, and where you're going. And once the traffic hits its destination
> it's out in the open again with your identity attached to it. The
> concept of anonymity disallows any and all of that.
>
> You're habitually confusing privacy and anonymity. Why? Do you not
> understand the differences, or do you have some underlying motive as
> other people have suggested?
Not quite
| |
| amadeus 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
|
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:7fc554835dc70c61291ec12c890b617b@ps
eudo.borked.net...
> traveler 66 wrote:
>
to[vbcol=seagreen]
text[vbcol=seagreen]
you[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> ROTFLMAO!!
>
> OK XXXXwit, amuse us ALL some more by trying to describe these
"advantages".
>
> This should be a XXXXing RIOT! (pun intended)
>
> LOL!
>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> <yawn>
Your not just a troll, your a clown
>
>
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
| |
| Dana Rosen 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| <snip>
>
> The receiving party knows exactly what account the message came from, with a
> proper chain
You're confused. Exposing your entire chain to the first remailer isn't
"proper". You have no anonymity when yo do it. The matter of an account
is irrelevant. Your anonymity is preserved by using a web mail account
through Tor, and demolished by using remailer web interfaces without
Tor. This much is obvious.
Why are you refusing to see the very simple fact that letting someone
else build your Mixmaster messages is a complete and total destruction
of your anonymity? Are you unable, or unwilling? And why do you
continue to try and blurr the very disctinct line between privacy, and
anonymity. They are two completely different things.
> this is protected by the re-mailers. If you've accessed the re-mailer
> anonymously, you and where
> the e-mail came from are not known to any operator.
Why is it, do you suppose, that you can't even argue your point that
web remailer interfaces are useful without injecting the angle of
"outside" anonymity?
You are quite simply proving yourself wrong when you post that sort of
argument. If you can not defend your position, you may want to recant.
It will gain you much more credibility in the long run.
<snip>
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| In article <444d8a41$0$24125$450c70f1@news.privacy.li>
"traveler 66" <noreply@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>
>
> It's always better to access them through a proxy or better yet, TOR just in
> case.
If you have to access them through something like Tor, then they obviously
don't provide any anonymity. You might as well just use Tor.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-04-27, 6:54 am |
| traveler 66 wrote:
>
> The receiving party knows exactly what account the message came from,
So does the first remailer numbnuts. Along with where the message is
going and everything it says.
Give it UP already, you lost. You're completely FOS and everyone knows it.
Continuing down this path of stupidity only makes you look even MORE
pathetic every time you post.
Not that you apparently care about looking like an imbecile mind you. It's
not the first time you've beat your own dead horse while everyone stood
around and laughed at the show.
>
> Not quite
Not quite WHAT? Not quite you're too XXXXing stupid to understand why
you're wrong, or not quite you're a lying little XXXX who doesn't care
because if you can convince one person they're anonymous when they're not
you might put a few dollars in your slimy pockets?
|
|
|
|
|