For those who have suggested it there's already plans and a roadmap for the fork of Tor. Two concurrent networks which are compatible with a singular browser would greatly diversify the ecosystem and give users more choice. At this point this is the only way forward imo. More info: https://rotorbrowser.com
Great news. For those who have suggested it there's already plans and a roadmap for the
fork of Tor. Two concurrent networks which are compatible with a singular browser would greatly diversify the ecosystem and give users more choice. At this point this is the only way forward imo. More info: https://rotorbrowser.com
On 08/20/2016 12:04 AM, Александр wrote:
Great news.
For those who have suggested it there's already plans and a roadmap for the
fork of Tor. Two concurrent networks which are compatible with a singular browser would greatly diversify the ecosystem and give users more choice. At this point this is the only way forward imo. More info: https://rotorbrowser.com
I don't see the point. As Juan so likes to remind us, Tor design is fundamentally flawed, in that it's vulnerable to global adversaries. Which, in practice, means US military. So how would a fork not be vulnerable as well? Instead, why not develop something better?
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:40:43AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
I don't see the point. As Juan so likes to remind us, Tor design is fundamentally flawed, in that it's vulnerable to global adversaries. Which, in practice, means US military. So how would a fork not be vulnerable as well? Instead, why not develop something better?
Agreed. As I read it, this is not Tor fork, just the browser, right?
On 08/20/2016 01:05 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:40:43AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
I don't see the point. As Juan so likes to remind us, Tor design is fundamentally flawed, in that it's vulnerable to global adversaries. Which, in practice, means US military. So how would a fork not be vulnerable as well? Instead, why not develop something better?
Agreed. As I read it, this is not Tor fork, just the browser, right?
| Short Term: Achieve technical parity with regard to security and | features to predecessor codebases through rapid inclusion of | upstream commits. | Short Term: Add functionality to allow browser users to select | chosen network traversal method (Tor vs Independent Onion Routing). | Short Term: Begin Independent Onion Router network infrastructure | deployment. Right. I was referring to "Independent Onion Router network".
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:05:07AM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:40:43AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
I don't see the point. As Juan so likes to remind us, Tor design is fundamentally flawed, in that it's vulnerable to global adversaries. Which, in practice, means US military. So how would a fork not be vulnerable as well? Instead, why not develop something better?
Agreed. As I read it, this is not Tor fork, just the browser, right?
Hey it's development - gotta start somewhere :) Those who want to start from a clean slate - go for it! The more options the better..
As a first relatively easy step towards a generic browser supporting multiple mixnets this might not be a bad start. It wrestles control of TBB from TorCorp and with additional protocols would remove the dependancy on the compromised Tor exit nodes, possibly even use some sort of 'least cost routing' style of algorithm to spread traffic across the fastest or most secure network depending on user preference and based on destination. Maybe add an element of randomness to mixnet choice as well to make traffic analysis more difficult :) Longer term goals should be development of a secure browser from the ground up, not basing it on any Mozilla/Apple/Google code - and having it audited. On 20/08/16 07:40, Mirimir wrote:
On 08/20/2016 12:04 AM, Александр wrote:
Great news.
For those who have suggested it there's already plans and a roadmap for the
fork of Tor. Two concurrent networks which are compatible with a singular browser would greatly diversify the ecosystem and give users more choice. At this point this is the only way forward imo. More info: https://rotorbrowser.com I don't see the point. As Juan so likes to remind us, Tor design is fundamentally flawed, in that it's vulnerable to global adversaries. Which, in practice, means US military. So how would a fork not be vulnerable as well? Instead, why not develop something better?
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:06 AM, oshwm <oshwm@openmailbox.org> wrote:
As a first relatively easy step towards a generic browser supporting multiple mixnets this might not be a bad start.
It wrestles control of TBB from TorCorp and with additional protocols would remove the dependancy on the compromised Tor exit nodes, possibly even use some sort of 'least cost routing' style of algorithm to spread traffic across the fastest or most secure network depending on user preference and based on destination.
Maybe add an element of randomness to mixnet choice as well to make traffic analysis more difficult :)
beautiful
Longer term goals should be development of a secure browser from the ground up, not basing it on any Mozilla/Apple/Google code - and having it audited.
On 08/20/2016 12:04 AM, Александр wrote:
Great news.
For those who have suggested it there's already plans and a roadmap for
On 20/08/16 07:40, Mirimir wrote: the
fork of Tor. Two concurrent networks which are compatible with a singular browser would greatly diversify the ecosystem and give users more choice. At this point this is the only way forward imo. More info: https://rotorbrowser.com I don't see the point. As Juan so likes to remind us, Tor design is fundamentally flawed, in that it's vulnerable to global adversaries. Which, in practice, means US military. So how would a fork not be vulnerable as well? Instead, why not develop something better?
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
mirimir@riseup.net: I don't see the point. As Juan so likes to remind us, Tor design is fundamentally flawed, in that it's vulnerable to global adversaries. Which, in practice, means US military. So how would a fork not be vulnerable as well? Instead, why not develop something better?
Absolutely right, Mirmir. BUT despite it i am happy forks are emerging only because of the fact, that it is weakening the original Tor and it's feminazi-slanderers leaders. If there are forks, also they are not the "only ones" holding/producing Tor binaries. Yes, of course, a totally alternative system will be the best (and for killing the original flawed tor and for a true anonymity tool), BUT as far as i can see, there are no real alternatives yet. That's why i'm happy, at least, by the fact of the forks. It's a form of rebel against Tor and its pseudo leaders.
why not develop ???????????????????????????? tor is perfect we have reached the pennacle of everything on the planet so why would anything need development anywhere /..... all sectors are solid perfection ... no need for any human to even move a pinky finger a main stance for tor has long been to function just at the level to keep development from being too needed so the people would not move beyond it On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
Great news.
For those who have suggested it there's already plans and a roadmap for
On 08/20/2016 12:04 AM, Александр wrote: the
fork of Tor. Two concurrent networks which are compatible with a singular browser would greatly diversify the ecosystem and give users more choice. At this point this is the only way forward imo. More info: https://rotorbrowser.com
I don't see the point. As Juan so likes to remind us, Tor design is fundamentally flawed, in that it's vulnerable to global adversaries. Which, in practice, means US military. So how would a fork not be vulnerable as well? Instead, why not develop something better?
-- Cari Machet NYC 646-436-7795 carimachet@gmail.com AIM carismachet Syria +963-099 277 3243 Amman +962 077 636 9407 Berlin +49 152 11779219 Reykjavik +354 894 8650 Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet> 7035 690E 5E47 41D4 B0E5 B3D1 AF90 49D6 BE09 2187 Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without permission is strictly prohibited.
Without being able to offer my time, my comments don't carry much weight, but it would be great if it natively supported i2p as well :) I can configure TBB to support i2p (there are instructions out there for everyone) but it would give i2p greater exposure and people an obvious choice if i2p was supported without any configuration work. On 20/08/16 07:04, Александр wrote:
Great news.
For those who have suggested it there's already plans and a roadmap for the fork of Tor. Two concurrent networks which are compatible with a singular browser would greatly diversify the ecosystem and give users more choice. At this point this is the only way forward imo. More info: https://rotorbrowser.com <https://rotorbrowser.com/>
participants (7)
-
Cari Machet -
Georgi Guninski -
Mirimir -
oshwm -
xxyyzz＠tuta.io -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр