Prev: u-tube
Next: "Progress" [was: Scanner driver]
From: »Q« on 15 Jan 2010 22:32
In <news:hir927$dge$1(a)news.albasani.net>,
Spamblk <ZapSpam(a)SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:

> So maybe TOR involves having the contents of the packets
> encrypted before they leave the machine?

Yes, assuming the tor app is running on your own maching. That's only a
small part of it, but they are encrypted before they leave your
machine. The routers (including your ISP's) between your machine and
the first tor relaying node can see the the encrypted packet is headed
for that node's IP, but they can't see what the packet contains or where
it's going after it gets to the first node.

> 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?

The tor app itself does that.
From: Sam Luter on 16 Jan 2010 10:42
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:42:16 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk wrote:

> So maybe TOR involves having the contents of the packets
> encrypted before they leave the machine?

No encryption is majickal and happens during packet transfers over the
cable/line by little enc fairies.
From: za kAT on 16 Jan 2010 10:57
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:54:33 +0000, hummingbird wrote:

>>> But I realise that as a socialist, you have no concept of
>>> business, just of ripping people off.
>>
>>How wrong you are. You're wrong about my IP address,
>
> No I'm not.

Yes you are. Yes you are. Yes you ARE!!!

> You could have put the matter to bed but you ran away.

You were too scared to comply to my T's & C's. Cowardy cowardy custard. I
will toy with you as long as I care to, dummykins.

>>you've always been wrong about my politics,
>
> Absolutely not.
> It is only partly to do with who you vote for...it's widely known
> that Thatcher encouraged a lot of Essex chavs to vote Tory, but
> that doesn't mean you aren't a socialist by nature. And you are.
> I'm told that many policemen vote Tory but many are little more
> than wannabe fascists..fascism is one head of the socialist snake
> - authoritarian and ultimately destructive. The 'little hitler'
> syndrome as we see in New Lab, always trying to impose its will
> onto others in place of personal responsibility.

But... you're trying to impose your will onto others hummy, by requiring
they take personal responsibilty, and what to do if they don't take up your
kind offer? Now you have upset all those horrid policemen! What to do hum?
What to do in hum's utopia?

>>and seeing I've owned my own business one way or
>>another for the majority of my working life,
>
> I don't believe you but even if it were true, there are plenty of
> socialists who own their own business. Your comment is based upon
> a false premise that socialists always want state ownership akin
> to the old Soviet Russia and if someone runs their own business,
> then they cannot be socialist. It ain't true. We have millions of
> people working in the building industry as self-employed plumbers
> etc but many (or most) are socialist. Your idea of socialism is
> what the BBC peddle, itself a rotten socialist organisation.

Hum, I realise your tiny, tiny mind, dreams of owning your 'own business',
and being a self employed plumber... all those builder's bums, must excite
you..

.... and I also realise you believe that non aspirational tory frugalism,
and a return to the working class knowing their place, will save us all,
but some of us opened our eyes and saw world markets, and a global economy,
and guess what, we don't live in your world.

--
za kAT
From: Sam Luter on 16 Jan 2010 12:13
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:32:20 -0600, �Q� wrote:

> Yes,

*SHADDUP*
From: JB on 16 Jan 2010 12:44
Spamblk wrote:

> hummingbird <hummingbírd(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,

There's a lot more than two. Typically a dozen or more between your
machine and a remote host. There's 16 between my machine and
www.google.com right now, for instance. Even surfing to the home
page of my own ISP (hosted in their IP block) takes 7 hops.

> 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.

Actually, hummingbird is a bit confused on this point also. A
collection of Tor nodes is called a "circuit". Tor functions by
building these circuits and then routing information along them.
Circuits don't "change during a session", they're changed according
to certain rules. Some circuits are more "durable" than others, and
in point of fact, Tor specifically leans toward *not* changing
circuits in the middle of a session because when you do things like
that you tend to really screw up communications between hosts.

One of the exceptions to the "don't change" rule is simple HTTP.
Web browsing normally isn't broken by an IP that's a moving target.
Web servers are basically "dumb" machines, just sitting there
spitting out packets to whatever requests that come in regardless
of where they came from.

Other protocols aren't so tolerant. IRC servers for instance will
almost invariably boot you if your IP address changes. So Tor will
almost *never* change circuits in the middle of an IRC session.

> 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.

If you extend that logic... encrypt the entire message headers and
all, then forward that encrypted package to a third party who
decrypts it and re-mails it from their own machine with their own
IP information... then you begin to understand how proxies, and
ultimately anonymous systems in general, operate.

>
> So maybe TOR involves having the contents of the packets
> encrypted before they leave the machine? Perhaps by some sort of

Not just the contents, the whole packet. Everything. The routing
information, the datagrams that denote what *type* of packet it
even is... the whole kit 'n kaboodle. Encrypted at least 3 times,
to three different keys, then routed along a path during which
each layer of encryption is stripped away in turn. Resulting in the
original packet appearing on the other end after having taken its
"detour".

> 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%.

It's never 100%. There *are* no sure things.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: u-tube
Next: "Progress" [was: Scanner driver]