Juan Garofalo:
--On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:03 AM +0000 Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@appelbaum.net> wrote:
Juan Garofalo:
--On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:43 AM +0000 Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@appelbaum.net> wrote:
Juan Garofalo:
--On Sunday, December 15, 2013 6:11 PM -0800 coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
Video: https://archive.org/details/schneier Audio: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/events/2013/a_conversation_with_bruce _s ch neier/
"the nsa can't break tor"
Ha? tor developers admit that the nsa can break tor but schneider says otherwise?
Where do we admit that the NSA can break Tor? We have seen evidence only for the NSA exploiting the code in Tor Browser (Firefox) and never in the core Tor network software.
See my next messages. I'm referring to the "users get router" paper.
Wait, you're taking an academic paper, a good one I might add, and saying that this counts as admission by the Tor Project that our efforts are futile?
The paper states that traffic analysis is feasible. I mean, that isn't exactly news. The paper seems to admit that traffic analysis is (a lot?) easier that previously supposed.
Traffic analysis is likely feasible if you can watch all of the internet. The question is at what resolution? With full packet captures of everything, for all time, it becomes a statistical question with some possibly negative outcomes.
So, yes, that shows that tor can't protect people from the US government.
Actually, we see from the documents that they cannot deanonymize all people, all of the time; they must target. So actually, it *does* protect people from instantly falling into the pitfalls related to dragnet surveillance. You're avoiding this and it is totally silly.
Which actually shouldn't be surprising since tor is a tool of the US government.
The Tor Project is a 501c3 non-profit. As a company, we're not tools of anyone and as a tool, tor, is similarly not a tool of the US government. Your statements indicating otherwise are just rude and uninformed.
As to your 'efforts being futile' - that's not my wording. Depending on what your ends are, your efforts are certainly not futile...
Could you possibly be more of an asshole, Juan?
I see no reason to believe that the NSA can't find out who's who in the tor network.
Perhaps the leaked documents that specifically state this fact might clue you into their capabilities?
Oh, come on. Again "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
How does that old quote go? "That which is presented without evidence may be dismissed without argument." Yeah, exactly.
I encourage you to read them:
I've already seen a few of them. No, I obviously don't think that those prove anything. Did I mention that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
The NSA and the GCHQ ran a real operation to deanonymize someone. Do you understand how they attempted to do this? Do you understand the evidence presented or will you continue to ignore it?
And while we're it, did I miss any leaked documents discussing traffic analysis of tor? There should be some no?
Yes, you did - read the above documents already? The CES summer school document discusses some of this and it is sadly very poor research. The open community, such as Aaron's recent paper, is much much further ahead. This is what we expect - this is why we work with an open research community so seriously.
Contained in those files, I see no evidence for your assertions. Aaron's paper is good but as Al said, feel free to show us some evidence that you've used it to break Tor!
I really can't believe you wrote that. You think I'm that stupid?
I'm giving you some credit - break it, already?
The way to 'break' tor, that is, find things like the location of, say, freedom hosting and silk road, is to monitor traffic. I obviously can't do that. Your government can obviously do that.
Can you please explain to everyone how they found the location of the Silk Road? Hint: it wasn't Tor, it was his extremely bad operational security and using... a VPN!
Please.
plus, schneier, greenwald and partners don't seem to have too much credibility at this point
Why is that?
Because they have access to a lot of information they are not publishing, and have close ties to the establishment.
Wait, they have access to information, that they publish, story by story and that means that they're not credible? That is hilariously strange reasoning.
What's hilarious is your attempt at twisting what I said.
You criticize the only people working to inform the public and you degrade their honor without having real information about their specifics. Do you live under threat for your work? Do you live in exile from your home country? Do you do anything that matters where someone else has some criticisms because they don't have a full view on your entire life or because they misunderstand something about what is presented in public?
The information is coming out as quickly as people are able to make sense of it.
Oh really. I need to be spoon fed by computer illiterate greenwald? That's cool...
And how do these superior people gauge the rate at which the inferior people they spoon fed are able to consume what they are given? Just curious...
Ah, I see - you're basically just green with envy? Well, get in line, eh?
Plus, isn't the latest news that greenwald was bribed/bought by ebays owner, who happens to be the typical fake american 'libertarian' (he's actually a mercantilist conservative - see what kind of 'free' market ebay is)
No, the latest news is that Glenn still has nouns of steel and is still publishing incredible news on a regular basis.
OK...
You could actually demonstrate that you see that Glenn, Laura and others have taken real risks by doing anything at all to inform us. The way that you behave, it is a wonder that they take such risks with people who are so cynical and ungrateful as their peanut gallery. Lucky for the rest of humanity that for every dozen people spending their energy being so unkind, as you are, we have thousands who appreciate their efforts. All the best, Jacob