Two Different Instructors On Using Tor Crypto Etc...
Mirimir
mirimir at riseup.net
Wed Jul 20 01:13:27 PDT 2016
On 07/19/2016 03:34 PM, juan wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:31:09 -0600
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> On 07/18/2016 03:39 PM, juan wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:45:19 -0600
>>> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable
>>>> by design.
>>>
>>>
>>> keep sucking mirimir - your friend syverson isn't fully
>>> satisfied yet.
>>
>> He's not my friend, Juan. He works for the fucking US Navy, after all.
>>
>> But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US
>> military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure
>> communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders
>> and their enemies.
>
> Oh come on Mirimir. As 'we' know, they did the only thing they
> could have done.
>
> The only way for them to be able to exploit their users as
> cover is by making the system 'public' and 'free'. They didn't
> do it because of ANY altruistic and humanitarian motivation.
> They had no other choice, and it was good propaganda to boot!
I didn't say that there was anything altruistic or humanitarian about
it. And yes, they did what they had to do.
> So,
>
> 1) They need human shields, their abused 'users'
Yes, they do. All Tor users do, actually.
> 2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the
> system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military.
Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. I can't imagine how you know. I do
agree that it's prudent to be suspicious. But no better alternatives
have been implemented. So the best option that I see is layering stuff.
Route Tor through nested VPNs. Route Mixmaster, Pond, Bitmessage, etc
through Tor. Encrypt private stuff with GnuPG.
>> It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US
>> military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's
>> intentionally designed to be vulnerable.
>
> The distinction looks rather subtle. It's actually invisible and
> non-existent from my point of view...
Maybe so.
>> There's also the fact that
>> nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to
>> global adversaries.
>
> Hardly surprising cosidering how powerful the US government is
> and how far its control over 'industry' and 'academy' goes. It
> includes the 'community' of sold out 'hackers' too.
If your assessment is correct, we are truly fucked :(
> Also, it should be obvious that having bad and *subsidized*
> systems like tor fucks up the 'market' for security.
Yes, it does :(
>> So it seems unlikely that he had such a design
>> that he put aside as unsellable.
>>
>
>
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list