[tor-talk] tor project website change

[dns1983 at riseup.net]

Excuse my bad English, probably I'm not writing correctly.

In the mail of 28 March 2019 11:06:07 CET, from grarpamp, I read:

"...

"
a 501(c)3 US nonprofit.
"
With rather curious amounts of potentially highly
user adversarial funding sources.
..."

Il 29/03/19 14:36, Mirimir ha scritto:
> On 03/29/2019 06:07 AM, dns1983 at riseup.net wrote:
>> I'm not in the position to talk about the architecture or other
>> technical aspects because I'm not expert enough. I don't say that the
>> network doesn't have problems.
>>
>> But i think that some things you said are a bit of stretch; for example,
>> why adversaries should finance tor project and publicly it if they have
>> a malicious intent?
> Where do you see that? I've reread his post several times, and see
> nothing about "adversaries should finance tor project". It is true that
> some criticize Tor because it was originally a US Navy project, and
> still gets funding from US governmental entities. But that's not an
> argument that I recall grarpamp ever making. Unless he's juan, anyway.
>
>> It would be interesting to me to know what other people think about what
>> you said.
> The main thrust of his criticism, as I interpret it, is that Tor
> explicitly doesn't protect against global passive adversaries. Let alone
> global _active_ adversaries, such as the NSA. As I understand it, that
> reflected both "it would be too hard to do that, without unacceptable
> latency and traffic overhead" and "they don't likely exist, or if they
> do, they're our friends".
>
> Some systems have been proposed that use padding and chaff to make
> traffic analysis harder. But as grarpamp says, it'd be hard for the Tor
> Project to implement stuff like that in the existing Tor network. Much
> harder than the v3 onion upgrade, anyway. And the other side of it is
> that Tor works well enough that implementing one of the newer designs
> seems unlikely. Given that potential volunteers are working on Tor.
>
>> Il 29/03/19 03:08, grarpamp ha scritto:
>>> On 3/28/19,dns1983 at riseup.net  <dns1983 at riseup.net>  wrote:
>>>> I think you are affected by cognitive bias.
>>> Tor is effected by lack of external thought.
>>>
>>>> You are blindly looking only for bad things.
>>> Your adversaries are assuredly looking at those things and more.
>>> If you are not looking at them, you're done in mate.
>>>
>>>> Of course the network is not perfect, but is the best we have
>>> That's apologist talk to avoid clean slate researching
>>> and creating better architectures, even to the
>>> then at that point possibly legit point of being
>>> able to actually make that declaration.
>>>
>>>> and we should make our best to improve it.
>>> Tor is and will always be 20 year old architecture
>>> from time before current adversary models were
>>> say matured if not known. Tor's relatively
>>> simple and effectively static with only marginal
>>> improvements left. And has outright traded off
>>> and/or discarded design models that others
>>> might not today.  (And obviously Tor arch cannot
>>> be substantially changed while still calling itself Tor.)
>>>
>>> Before declaring Tor sufficient against today threats
>>> you need to analyse it against today threats
>>> vs new networks being research and deploy
>>> against today threats.
>>>
>>>> trying to delegitimate everything.
>>> Those concerned with messengers vs
>>> messages are prone to miss some dead canaries.