|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > July 2007 > Mixmaster set up, now what?
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 |
Mixmaster set up, now what?
|
|
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer 2007-07-30, 7:13 pm |
| I have Mixmaster working on my Linux system with the ncurses
interface. I can send anonymous email and Usenet mesages, including
file attachments. Now that I have this working, is there any other
software (excluding Tor, which everyone seems to suggest and which I
have working as well) available which runs under Linux that I could
use. I see references to QuickSilver and Private Idaho and other
pieces of software. Is there software like this for use under Linux?
I have read up on many documents relating to Mixmaster. Given that
I'm relatively savvy with setting up email and general Linux-type
hackery, would running a middleman Mixmaster node be a worthwhile and
doable thing?
Thanks.
| |
| marlowe 2007-07-31, 1:13 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> I have read up on many documents relating to Mixmaster. Given that
> I'm relatively savvy with setting up email and general Linux-type
> hackery, would running a middleman Mixmaster node be a worthwhile and
> doable thing?
>
> Thanks.
>
It is a most worthwhile thing to do. It helps add to other's anonymity
and increases your own. In fact, I am getting ready to add my third on
to the list. Can't have those extra IPs go to waste.
Cheers,
Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: email gpgpublickey-marlowe@antagonism.org for my GPG public key
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGrqFXMYIXomaKpd8RAuOSAJwJEbQO3B6o
7X1xcRpv86B5XTdulQCfcovy
O+SP/Zu00RFjRN424DIzWkg=
=eSwH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2007-07-31, 1:13 am |
| marlowe <marlowe@antagonism.org> wrote:
> It is a most worthwhile thing to do. It helps add to other's anonymity
> and increases your own. In fact, I am getting ready to add my third on
> to the list. Can't have those extra IPs go to waste.
Three mixmaster remailers? Please, no.
Tor yes, the clients have a inherent concept of families. Remailer clients
don't. If only one of the stats operators does not list all your remailers
as broken chains, clients can select a chain through all of your remailers.
The users don't want that. It breaks the assumption of the remailer network
that any single node does not collaborate with any other node. Mixmaster's
design does not have any precautions for multiple remailers run by a single
operating entity.
You don't want that, either. We had our share of azerty remailers and
people in here tend to be suspicious. Ask the Will Smith Project.
Possible solution: break the chains between your remailers. Don't let them
send mail to each other. Each of your remailers will be a worthy
contribution to the network and no sane client will ever chain through two
of them in sequence.
Your remailers are still a liability, though, as this can not prevent your
remailers to be both entry and exit of a chain. A combination that should
never be allowed to happen.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-07-31, 7:13 am |
| In article <4089227fc7ec9a7619a18e0848ebb258@dizum.com>
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> Three mixmaster remailers? Please, no.
>
> Tor yes, the clients have a inherent concept of families. Remailer clients
> don't.
I can't speak for QS or Omnimix, but JBN2 *does* take into account the
'groups of remailers run by the same operator' bit in the stats.
Mixmaster itself doesn't, unfortunately. Hell, its only recently
supported the broken chains section.
Maybe this is something that Zax could add to his windows mixmaster
build? I imagine you could use the majority of the code from the broken
chain part to implement it. If he can't, or doesn't want to, maybe he'd
at least accept a source code patch from someone else?
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:08:29 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote in
Message-Id: <4e97ee9ea4cde17dc2fcf209695c50d0@pseudo.borked.net>:
> Maybe this is something that Zax could add to his windows mixmaster
> build? I imagine you could use the majority of the code from the broken
> chain part to implement it. If he can't, or doesn't want to, maybe he'd
> at least accept a source code patch from someone else?
Hi,
Unfortunately my goal is to simply make the current Mixmaster build run
under Windows. If someone wants to submit a patch to make Mixmaster
read Same Operator stats, it should be sent to the mixmaster development
mailing list. Now is probably a good time to do this as the 3.0 release
is almost finalised.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGrw9klKZ6CY7Vd0MRCgPHAKDEN7XOW++8
JPIHP94K7uBKwUuMMACg6VW9
+lThC0O5tkkUHh1kIfmczCg=
=O5jy
-----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>
| |
| marlowe 2007-07-31, 7:13 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> marlowe <marlowe@antagonism.org> wrote:
>
>
> Three mixmaster remailers? Please, no.
>
> Tor yes, the clients have a inherent concept of families. Remailer clients
> don't. If only one of the stats operators does not list all your remailers
> as broken chains, clients can select a chain through all of your remailers.
>
> The users don't want that. It breaks the assumption of the remailer network
> that any single node does not collaborate with any other node. Mixmaster's
> design does not have any precautions for multiple remailers run by a single
> operating entity.
>
> You don't want that, either. We had our share of azerty remailers and
> people in here tend to be suspicious. Ask the Will Smith Project.
>
> Possible solution: break the chains between your remailers. Don't let them
> send mail to each other. Each of your remailers will be a worthy
> contribution to the network and no sane client will ever chain through two
> of them in sequence.
>
> Your remailers are still a liability, though, as this can not prevent your
> remailers to be both entry and exit of a chain. A combination that should
> never be allowed to happen.
>
I appreciate your concern and if the rest of the community feels the
same, I will gladly forgo the additional remailer. I have stated from
the beginning, that my remailers were family, noted in both of my
pingers and encouraged others to do the same. I have no desire other
than to strength community as much as possible by providing additional
remailers.
As for your fear of being both an entry and an exit, this won't change
unless I change the configuration. I purposefully set both my remailers
to middleman.
As for mixmaster development, I would gladly being willing to provide
testing for a patch which would prevent the same family being used in a
chain.
Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: email gpgpublickey-marlowe@antagonism.org for my GPG public key
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGrxaLMYIXomaKpd8RAi7rAJ9jgh0Ylf/FS7ng8px65Rqle8Ve8gCcD7He
CZeLFi0Nts0rEMZ5/yV1G1U=
=fObf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
|