|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > February 2007 > TOR even suckier than b4
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]
| Author |
TOR even suckier than b4
|
|
| notanelitistpig@likeuare.org 2007-02-06, 7:14 pm |
| I posted about this b4 using tor, but the post was rogue cancelled and one
wonders if that was a tor exit server that cancelled it?
I don't have time to spend becoming an expert in onion routing, but I can tell
you TOR is no faster than it was 2 years ago. It is sloooooooowwwwwwwwww. Probably
from their policy of letting any jackass run a tor server, without consideration
to whether they bought their computers at a swap meet and are 20 years old.
Or whether or not they are not hackers who are purposely trying to XXXX things
up or spy on people.
If there was/is an alternative that offers privacy protection and encrypted
routing, I'd like to hear about it. I am sick of Tor and it's sludge slow poor
performance. Really crappy, sucks, eats shit. How else can I put it?
And don't think for a moment that gov. agencies have not found a crack for
tor and/or will soon have one. Any service that is so amateur in nature cannot
withstand the onslaught of true cryptographic internet experts. Those working
for the NSA aren't about to be bested by a group of amateurs.
Besides being slow, I think Tor servers are involved in some kind of DOS attacks.
Have had alot of problems with lost chat connections and stalling, seems to
happen when Tor servers crap out as they frequently do.
Is JAP still around?
XXXX you in advance to any flamers. Fix tor or bury it. It sucks.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
notanelitistpig@likeuare.org wrote in
news:DZUT4QWU39119.747650463@anonymous.poster:
> I posted about this b4 using tor, but the post was rogue cancelled and
> one wonders if that was a tor exit server that cancelled it?
>
> I don't have time to spend becoming an expert in onion routing, but I
> can tell you TOR is no faster than it was 2 years ago. It is
> sloooooooowwwwwwwwww. Probably from their policy of letting any
> jackass run a tor server, without consideration to whether they bought
> their computers at a swap meet and are 20 years old. Or whether or not
> they are not hackers who are purposely trying to XXXX things up or spy
> on people.
>
> If there was/is an alternative that offers privacy protection and
> encrypted routing, I'd like to hear about it. I am sick of Tor and
> it's sludge slow poor performance. Really crappy, sucks, eats shit.
> How else can I put it?
>
> And don't think for a moment that gov. agencies have not found a crack
> for tor and/or will soon have one. Any service that is so amateur in
> nature cannot withstand the onslaught of true cryptographic internet
> experts. Those working for the NSA aren't about to be bested by a
> group of amateurs.
>
> Besides being slow, I think Tor servers are involved in some kind of
> DOS attacks. Have had alot of problems with lost chat connections and
> stalling, seems to happen when Tor servers crap out as they frequently
> do.
>
> Is JAP still around?
>
{snip 'tude}
The only problem with TOR Is that there's a LOT more users than nodes,
and among nodes, there are a LOT more middleman than exit. What TOR
needs more than anything else is more exit nodes.
- --
http://blog.peculiarplace.com
http://comments.lurasbookcase.com
http://iamnotahamster.peculiarplace.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.52
iQEVAwUBRclmJ3V+YnyE1GYEAQhrmwf+Kb4800Uv
GzyLVbybnnxe2q325u3Eg2v4
hnrE83FqvmGXYyj3tTzz1yR3YPWzzIE90MGXdSaB
XuUHTCh0f/eZ/CmUIMKkWeHs
9lV7ZNbwDcZGUL8Zn8/ dZMwyLJZwuAIw1hY99bp6wRQj10fHInhsdqUpqrp
IkXiD
HfvRlT5hwbWdR0Q8iyqUSWv3KI5QbkCfua8xVotT
SijKFV1TjlJlIQO1t1idZ4+m
ca7By9sqSwLDSXio5/JygDD3PNhUNJABHdJwjcfkx3rAoD7+yVAjrGpVa/dN2LBD
CRpjFJ70UJFnOLGDJiRwnLhoCW1wscsrQm1A39Uu
LSPd81RKPX1JNA==
=juvh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 6 Feb 2007 23:56:37 -0000, notanelitistpig@likeuare.org wrote in
Message-Id: <DZUT4QWU39119.747650463@anonymous.poster>:
> I don't have time to spend becoming an expert in onion routing, but I can tell
> you TOR is no faster than it was 2 years ago. It is sloooooooowwwwwwwwww. Probably
> from their policy of letting any jackass run a tor server, without consideration
> to whether they bought their computers at a swap meet and are 20 years old.
> Or whether or not they are not hackers who are purposely trying to XXXX things
> up or spy on people.
It was never a goal of the Tor project to assess individuals suitability
to run a server. As with Mixmaster and Mixminion it's assumed that if
someone can get it up and running then they are capable of doing all
that's required to deliver the service. This provides the best
foundation upon which to build an effective network: If only technical
experts with lots of free bandwidth ran servers, the network would never
grow beyond university campuses.
In time Tor may evolve to the point where all clients become partial
servers[1]. When this happens there will be a better balance between
users and providers. Until then performance is a limitation you have to
live with.
[1]
http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/The...verybodyAServer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBRcnU/ WoLu9HNUqmMAQqeagf9HyuBM2BNYOujKmPuNY+JM
olGcKBu4RRS
DRCo1uiJI7tMGaQUgc/ jgL9jZalQDqPunq4wbVZwICABEFVfe6S9kDpya9H
KVeZV
F5LlEZdssD5aSWre9Nq2woGGwJKQBPV82DM8CwXs
ahWuZqhE9jnhbMMCYjDLi7Hn
AhFr1uV4uJnTCTaCj0ct2xVEjHWyu8vYGuAmArXb
MsRfoD2PiDyDbnwgMyZPy7QK
B/ i+vmX+nsXRYaiC7kkAi6lgmd+JmZkTF4XpuqEV2T
l3091DoSrpPfOAmInev95w
5zXU3dVWaHlJRqN5ohOXnhZMN4P1H/LcvtPzElwGf037dPVDgajN1w==
=NGWo
-----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>
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2007-02-07, 1:12 pm |
| On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:20:30 +0000, Zax wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:30:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote in
> Message-Id: <e8e000f2517c46d4375af748196f9cb9@dizum.com>:
>
>
> Tor exit policies enable you to define precisely what
> ports, subnets and addresses you provide exit functionality for. You
> can't specifically filter email or newsgroups because Tor has neither
> email nor news functionality.
That's too bad. So I can allow a connection to port 80 for email and port
119 for news, but cannot filter on the email and news messages that go
out. Although you did mention 'addresses'. Does that include newsgroup
names and email addresses? I checked a list of running TOR servers, and
saw lots of ports listed, but no email addresses or newsgroup names, so I
assume the answer is no. I wonder why the people who wrote Mercury and
Reliable put in filtering but the writers of TOR did not? Maybe TOR would
attract more exit operators if the operators could have more control over
their own node. Personally, if I ran an exit node to port 80 and somebody
complained about nasty emails and wanted his address blocked, what could I
do? It sounds like nothing can be done. Maybe I can co-locate my server.
I could probably provide 20+ gigs per day, but do not want the hassle.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:10:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote in
Message-Id: <1fcaec79aea1a8d133029081dcc07673@dizum.com>:
> That's too bad. So I can allow a connection to port 80 for email and port
> 119 for news, but cannot filter on the email and news messages that go
> out.
That's correct. If Tor did this, it would have to examine and
understand the nature of all the protocols it handles. This would be
completely impractical as Tor doesn't dig into the packets it passes, it
just passes them.
Currently port 25 (email) is blocked in the default Tor policy. This is
because email is so open to abuse. Unlike Mixmaster and Mixminion, it
would be quite easy (although slow) to bulk email through Tor.
News/NNTP is a little different as there are very few servers wide open
to public posting. If your Tor server was used to abuse these few
servers then you could simply block their IP addresses in your exit
policy. The same is true for port 80 (html): If someone abuses a
webserver then you can block the address of that webserver.
> I could probably provide 20+ gigs per day, but do not want the hassle.
You can run a virtually hassle-free Tor server just with the default
exit policy. The biggest problem in my experience[1] is Webserver
admins who have their noses put out of joint because someone exploits a
vulnerability on their server. These admins appear to shout very loudly
rather than actually fixing the problem.
[1] http://blog.bananasplit.info/?p=110
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBRcobl2oLu9HNUqmMAQq/YggAljYEkukMUU/CF8zfifZ9s2NVBYauwWw2
kT8qJsN4YpXPQ5BsxVMPJW+nvybEDOaJQj8D1BKG
12xT3C3yzwl3U8miYQdvOGwY
DI+rnFDVIl7VgbYHKEFUCEhoRaGgrNuaquJEJUKa
wlOmoh5/y0Y5EVxm7KmA/x8v
O9uZSE12SBvaMsqzk7YMnAenvHEeRb6eFnioynSA
nIzEQ6GUDuLPn0bNJM7JbnQe
pfF0lN4QHCu9tW0ts7qdFnftfsVG5XHiwzw94FJI
hvAwePnLVqpKGdK24oAb91yN
MLGS4qgqOtMSCwnKLRov4ZniyCROcOg0Pt/7AbDCjL/dbV+NgBVg/w==
=rcXa
-----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>
| |
|
| nobody@dizum.com wrote in message news:
<1fcaec79aea1a8d133029081dcc07673@dizum.com> ...
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:20:30 +0000, Zax wrote:
>
>
> That's too bad. So I can allow a connection to port 80 for email and port
> 119 for news, but cannot filter on the email and news messages that go
> out. Although you did mention 'addresses'. Does that include newsgroup
> names and email addresses? I checked a list of running TOR servers, and
> saw lots of ports listed, but no email addresses or newsgroup names, so I
> assume the answer is no. I wonder why the people who wrote Mercury and
> Reliable put in filtering but the writers of TOR did not? Maybe TOR would
> attract more exit operators if the operators could have more control over
> their own node. Personally, if I ran an exit node to port 80 and somebody
> complained about nasty emails and wanted his address blocked, what could I
> do? It sounds like nothing can be done. Maybe I can co-locate my server.
> I could probably provide 20+ gigs per day, but do not want the hassle.
I'm sure you could dest block with the firewall if someone was getting
their web server abused. As for mail, just don't allow 25, I'm not
sure how you think they'll send mail out port 80, there would have to
be a mail server listening somewhere on 80 to receive it or they'd have
to use a web form somewhere and then the ip would be that of the web
form.
/steve
--
Packetderm, LLC
Web hosting, SSH Tunneling, Proxies, Advanced E-Mail, Privacy
http://www.cotse.net/areyoureadyforus.html
| |
| Gogarty 2007-02-08, 1:12 pm |
| Whatever. If you run TOR as an exit server the system runs faster. You just
get so many more connections to other servers. As an exit server, there is
always the chance that your IP will show up somewhere sometime as the source
of some forbidden content and LEA will come knocking at your door, not the
actual poster's. But it's remote. The incoming sources change all the time and
you can block certain types of material. And nobody has any idea where the
data originated.
As I understand it, all information travelling between nodes is encrypted so
neither you nor anyone else can actually read what is going through your
computer. All I can see is bandwidth useage. I can't see what is using that
bandwidth though I am told there are sniffing tools that will show it. But
what's to see? Gobbledeegook?
Anyway, my own observation is that TOR runs much faster on your machine when
you run a server as an exit node. You can just see it with TCPView. There
dozens of active connections at any one time. If you merely piggyback youi may
have only half a dozen connections, or fewer.
|
|
|
|
|