| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <475ABF3B.7090800@rogers.com> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 10:58:51 -0500 From: gmaggro <gmaggro@...ers.com> To: Full Disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk> Subject: Compromise of Tor, anonymizing networks/utilities So I guess CIA -> CSIS, FBI -> RCMP, and NSA -> CSE/GCHQ/DSD/GCSB. The last bit being the standard bunch of Echelon sons-of-bitches. Those lads must have some fat pipes. Now are they hidden, or hidden in plain sight? In any case, it is a certainty than that some law enforcement agencies are running tor nodes; it has been spotted in actual use at many such locales. Tor might a great idea but it is sadly lacking in many aspects of its implementation. Let us consider it a good first step, but now it's time to move on. >>From now on we should all operate under the assumption that every anonymizing network is rife with law enforcement infiltration. In fact, future designs should incorporate this infiltration into their development; there has got to be a way to use this against them. Tactically, do folks think it would be better to withdraw from Tor use slowly whilst replacing the resulting traffic with filler to keep up appearances? Or ditch it wholesale in the hopes that larger and abrupt changes in usage will disrupt or confuse our friends with badges? _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists