Privacy Wipe Apps ?
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: u-tube
Next: "Progress" [was: Scanner driver]
From: Franklin on 15 Jan 2010 15:57 JB wrote: > hummingbird wrote: > >> 'JB' wrote thus: >> >> >hummingbird wrote: >> >> Packets going from your Tor browser to your ISP are encrypted. >> >> >> >Packets traveling from your browser to the instance of Tor you're >> >using are *not* encrypted. >> >> But you wrote this 5mins earlier: >> >> "Your original packets are encrypted multiple times before they >> ever leave your machine" >> >> Duh! > > Both statements are factual and true. I realize now that you're sorely > lacking when it comes to comprehending the technical aspects of things, > so I won't bother trying to explain them to you in that regard. > > I absolutely will point out the fact that you're a dishonest asswipe for > not including the context of a typical installation though... > > "Your original packets are encrypted multiple times before they ever > leave your machine (assuming a typical setup here)." > > Message-ID: <hin4sk$9ro$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>. > > Not to mention the fact that I already explained my words in greater > detail, in the message you just replied to... > > "This is basically meaningless in practice because in most cases your > running instance of Tor is on the same machine as your browser or other > "Torified" client, but it's not *always* the case." > > You see, unlike you I don't have to cower behind an X-No-Archive header > in order to try and deny what I've said. I stand behind what I write, > and it stands behind me. Even when liars like you try to rewrite it. :) > > I also realize now that you're insufferably immature while hiding behind > your keyboard. Not only can't you simply admit your mistakes, you seem > to go on a rampage against anyone who calls you on them. No matter how > petty and ridiculous you become. For showing that side of yourself so > early on I thank you. It will save me a lot of time down the road. No > need to try and help you, I'll just mop up your ASCII messes when they > have tangible consequences, and move on. Jeeze! Full marks for showing such patience with Hummingbird's stupidity. If it was me, I'm not sure I could have held back from giving him a good slap across the head by now. The strange thing is Hummingbird already runs local proxy services on his machine (such as Hamster and Nfilter/NewsProxy). So he must surely know a local proxy like Tor is hardly going to be found anywhere else than in his machine. Sadly, this thread reminds me of the time Hummingbird said he didn't know how to set up Hamster to use SSL. �Q� explained it involved copying two files to a folder, but then Hummingbird explained it was too time consuming. I didn't get the feeling Hummingbird could really be so stupid. His motive then was to distance himself from one of his socks which was using SSL but I don't know why he would pretend to be so thick this time. Come to think of it, when I pointed out he was using a local proxy he said he didn't know what one was although he was running Nfilter/NewsProxy. How hard could it have been to work out NewsProxy had something to do with a proxy? Like I said, a good slap across Hummingbird'd head would probably sort this out without the need for any patience.
From: za kAT on 15 Jan 2010 16:44 On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:57:59 GMT, Franklin wrote: > The strange thing is Hummingbird already runs local proxy services on his > machine (such as Hamster and Nfilter/NewsProxy). So he must surely know a > local proxy like Tor is hardly going to be found anywhere else than in his > machine. Now you are just winding him up. You know how he hates having his setup discussed. He'll be off to the Hampster newsgroups next causing a fuss. You know the thread, it's the one Incred likes to quote :) .... and if I was to mention the name of the news client he uses, and tries to hide, well.. Forte Agent -- za kAT
From: a on 15 Jan 2010 20:18 "Anonymous Remailer (austria)" <mixmaster(a)remailer.privacy.at> wrote > If you want "perfect" forward security when it comes to obfuscating > your browsing habits you really need to sandbox, and destroy > everything post-session. And the cache etc should really be in a ram disk, not hard disk.
From: za kAT on 15 Jan 2010 20:00 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:40:28 +0000, hummingbird wrote: > Don't take the p***. I had a superb business idea as far back > as 19xx in the Greek Islands that involved beaches... I'd hardly call selling cans out of a cool box, a superb business idea, hum. -- za kAT
From: Spamblk on 15 Jan 2010 21:42
hummingbird <hummingb�rd(a)127.0.0.1> wrote in news:4cf908a41024569a254c9bbb45e619fe(a)aracari.org: > Packets going from your Tor browser to your ISP are encrypted. To Hummingbird and JB: OK well I haven't actually used TOR so can't pontificate. In my defence I did refer my 2cents worth. You both know a bit more about TOR than I do albeit from differing perspectives. >>I can't see a way you can hide your packets from >>your ISP or Default Gateway which are on the first few network hops > > "first few network hops"? You mean only the 1st hop? (ie: your > ISP to the first Tor node?). Hmm, well I was thinking that beyond your local machine there is at least 2 hops: The default gateway into your ISP's network, then there is another hop: the exit point from that network to the entry point of another network which will be another gateway or router(though the same machine can be used to act as the entry and exit points?). Large ISPs might have more than one ring or network also. I was therefore thinking that if you are communicating with a server that isn't on your local network it would require a packet to traverse at least 2 nodes to reach that server. > And if that 1st node does not keep > logs.......what then? Further, IME, Tor nodes change during a > session. I have tested this. > >>(which >>you can view using a utility such as traceroute (TRACERT if using >>MSDOS). > > Not sure how this will help. > Again, IME, Tor nodes change during a session. Very well. I did think of this after I posted the previous message. If you have encrypted a packet thoroughly it might be possible to hide it from your ISP. The analogy is PGP encrypted email, the contents of the email is encrypted before it passes through the networks and it takes the recipient at the end with the right key to decrypt it. So maybe TOR involves having the contents of the packets encrypted before they leave the machine? Perhaps by some sort of daemon that sits on your local machine and encrypts the contents packets before they are forwarded to the default gateway? I'll leave it at that, not having used TOR at all. But privacy isn't, I think, always 100%. Mobile phones were supposed to use encryption then someone is alleged to have unlocked the codes. http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/vulnerabilities/showArticle. jhtml?articleID=222100224 A bit like a locked door that keeps nearly all people out but not everybody all the time. <SNIP....> >> >>Computers also open files in the directory indicated by the TEMP or >>TMP environment variables. It would be an idea to assign these >>variables to a ramdisk or directory you can wipe later if you are >>looking for privacy and you are not operating inside a suitable >>sandbox. > > Indeed. |