[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /q/ - 12544



File: 1482331934730.png (44.33 KB, 300x300, 148034MG.jpg)

No.12544

https://lainchan.org/sec/res/3042.html

>>Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.

There is no need for good faith when it comes to blatant disinformation dennied by official project documentation.
>>You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.
I don't need to elaborate any opinions. The author who claims himself a information security researcher is talking about problems that don't exist while presuming all kinds of stuff.
It reads like a propaganda piece.

Is this place a safe space now or what.

  No.12545

>>12544

The post was locked for breaching rules 3 and rule 4.

There is always a need for good faith.

You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.

OP of that thread isn't above the rules.

You are also ignoring Rule 11 at your own peril.

11. Read the rules again. /* infinite iteration will fix later */

The thread was locked because it was a single link, with a two line comment.

And the two lines, one was an assumption that incorrectly assumed because the article syndicated to medium didn't mention pluggable transports that the author of the article had no clue about them.

The other line was a question that was a personal attack on security researchers that think about the bigger picture.

I don't know what you mean by safe space, but the rules make it pretty clear Rule 1
If you break the rules we will delete your post.

The locking of the thread with a message indication rule breaches is a courtesy, as is warning threads for rule breaches prior to deleting them.

  No.12580

>And the two lines, one was an assumption that incorrectly assumed because the article syndicated to medium didn't mention pluggable transports that the author of the article had no clue about them.
>The other line was a question that was a personal attack on security researchers that think about the bigger picture.

No offense but you are being too charitable when it comes to that individual but I guess I wouldn't have it another way when it comes to the owner of lainchan. I cannot control my train of thoughts when an authority figure spr
eads disinformation.

For your entertainment and mine while I drink my tea I'm going to look at the post again and find what set me off. Feel free to ignore this. {x} marks problematic parts.

(tor) It doesn’t work well for them {assumption with no base}. In almost all cases a good VPN is safer (i.e. won’t cooperate with Vietnamese legal authorities {assumption with no base, won't cooperate with Vietnamese legal aut
horities as opposed to what}); and provides the same protections:
geographic shifting {not actually the same}
IP masking, and {I don't know how to interpret this}
“on the wire” data encryption {what does this even mean}

VPNs are used to watch Netflix and Hulu {generalisation with no base}, but Tor has only one use case – to evade the authorities.{generalisation with no base, appealing to authorities as if evading them is something bad} There
is no cover. {?} (This is assuming it is being used to evade even in a country incapable of breaking Tor anonymity.) {there's no country currently able to break tor anonymity,yeah you can get sybyl'd or some spooky soykaf but th
ere is no country capable of nation-wide breakage of tor anonymity, this is wrong}

In many ways Tor can be riskier than a VPN:
VPNs are (typically) not actively malicious {as opposed to}
VPNs provide good cover that Tor simply cannot – “I was using it to watch Hulu videos” is much better than – “I was just trying to buy illegal drugs online” {There's this person from this soykafhole named uk that wants to talk t
o me in private without the queen knowing}

  No.12581

Tor is a traffic source obfuscator {problematic phrasing}, not a free VPN. VPNs don't (generally) have actively malicious exit points. {tor doesn't have actively malicious exists, work is being done on this front, you can choo
se where you want your exit nodes to be}

“Download and run this and you get a free proxy / VPN; {nobody in their right mind would talk like that about tor} oh, yeah, but you’ll stand out like a fuarrrking glow stick {fuarrrking pluggable transports} and you have no good re
ason to use it {??} except as an evasion tool against state authorities {again with the authorities}. Good luck explaining that when they ask uncomfortable questions.” {literally what} {I can't wait for a future where you can'
t use pgp because you're evading the authorities if you're suspected of terrorism because you use imageboards}

Tor is not a new problem for states,{phrased as if there is a solution available} they have been working on solutions for years {no they haven't all the solutions so far are soykaf, check ooni}, that includes injecting malicious
nodes.{This was a problem in the past but not really that horrible this days, you can't just inject malicious nodes these days, we have directory authorities and measures against this} We’ve seen this numerous times.{examples
would have helped but I'm not dennying} It is a reasonable {?} conjecture to assume a significant percentage of Tor nodes are controlled by Mallory. {.}

His whole browser section is retarded. He bassically touches upon fingerprinting but doesn't go into detail.Just look at this:

Tor Browser Bundle is the worst browser possible. This is truth. {woah there sempai} To follow the reasoning why {I'm with you}, there are a few main key issues:
Monoculture {what}
Firefox lacks critical security features {what}
Firefox “Rapid Release” schedule {what}

I finished my tea. So I closed the tab.