/tech/ - Technology★

>>891102 (OP)

Are you stupid? You set up 20 public facing servers at rando places, and they proxy to your back-end. It's not complicated. Its also a shitty solution compared to tor.

>>891141

>You set up 20 public facing servers at rando places, and they proxy to your back-end.

Ok, so NSA or whoever just investigates what servers the public-facing servers are connecting to. Then they find the back-end. Right?

>>891144

They could go find the proxy / load balancer tier and see where they connect. With literally anything they can do that. You can use a proxy chain to make it much harder.

>>891150

So what's keeping TPB up? NSA just won't help out the feds? Servers are in uncooperative countries where it actually is hard for the NSA to snoop via ISP or physical access?

...or you could just use Tor

>>891156

What are they doing that is illegal? They share magnet links. They don't host any files.

Maybe they are still alive because they are controlled by the feds...

>>891218

I'm on the anti-copyright side here, but do you think "I don't sell illegal goods, I just tell people where they can buy illegal goods for a small fee" should be a valid defense?

If unauthorized copying is illegal it's reasonable for knowingly facilitating that on a massive scale to be illegal. The issue here is unauthorized copying, not technicalities about magnet links.

>>891218

they've been busted in the past.

>>891250

how could the feds really benefit from that?

>>891102 (OP)

>the CP

how is this anything of any significance? there isn't even a normalfag narrative that "tor is bad/immoral because of CP" yet

>the vulnerabilities?

what fucking vulnerabilities? tor adds like 5 vulns on top of the 6000000000 vulns you already have from using a modern OS and browser

The people running TPB are pretty much untouchable by the fuzz. A bunch of the Demonoid guys ended up working for the Bay.

>>891156

why would they want to shut down a public torrent tracker? they can datamine the actual users downloading the torrents much easier this way, they can see what's popular and seed it themselves, then burn/datamine the users.

If they shut it down and push all public trackers underground into private tracker realms, it'll me more difficult to datamine the downloaders.

>>891731

Keep telling yourself that retard, if some forum loser like you can get in so can professional infiltrators, and it only takes one.

>>891141

Tor is a shitty solution compared to IPFS if avoiding censorship is your primary goal.

>>891971

>Tor is a shitty solution compared to IPFS if avoiding censorship is your primary goal.

You can't do shit on IPFS, and its trivial to see who has what downloaded. You want the world to know that your computer is full of CP? Retarded. Not to mention you cant run things that need actual databases and to do computation.

>>891396

And convicted of what? Getting arrested on X shitty grounds and then convicted of tax fraud is something that happens all the time.

>>891397

Serving up backdoors in pirated Windows and games?

>>891102 (OP)

>Tor browser

lrn2gateway. It's how CIAniggers use Tor while everyone else is just making noise with that shitty compromised browser.

>>891971

IPFS does not help with anonymity at all.

>>891731

>tfw NSA seeds my torrents with big upload rates

wtf I love the NSA now

>>894580

Not only does it not help with anonymity, it does not even allow you to use tor.

>Secret Web Hosting WITHOUT TOR

Use I2P. Very simple to host your own website, and some people can even do it for you. Nobody can figure out where your website is, and torrenting is supported in many different ways through it. Although it would be pretty pointless to host the Pirate Bay on I2P because they already have a few torrenting websites that everyone already uses.

>>891975

>muh CP

maybe you should stop being a fucking degenerate, then

though you do have a point, what you said could also apply to (((hate speech))) or anything else (((they))) don't want you to have

>>901099

CP is just the universal hot potato word.

>>891102 (OP)

>hosting a website with magnet links on Tor is redundant.

Okay, FBI ;-) Will host from my home connection from now on.

>>900998

i2p is painfully slow and has a dogshit interface.

>>894594

>>891975

You're absolutely right but there is an entire thread here >>793208 of brainlets who haven't figured that shit out yet.

>>901375

>read thread to the bottom

>IPFS meme is just now getting exposed as a scam

OH NO NO NO NO NO HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>894393

Elaborate. How is using a text browser with %0.000001 market share and tunneling your entire traffic through a single circuit is better than using a browser that builds new routes for every domain and has a uniform fingerprint across its users?

>>902158

Lower attack surface, less vulnerabilities, more security.

There is no "good" or "bad" in this perspective.

Yes, it has a more unique fingerprint, but the location is still anonymized.

Imagine browsing 4ch/g with default Tor browser (javascript on) when Hiroshima decides to turn on js miners that also carry a rootkit payload and few zero-days for Firefox. All vanilla Torbrowserfags are btfo-ed unless they use Qubes or a disposable machine and dedicated gateway, a CIA nigger with Links feels himself just fine and continues to 8ch/tech.

And he didn't say anything about single circuit, you can run multiple circuits with it too.

Tor Browser is crowd wearing slightly different Guy Fawkes masks, text browser piped with Tor gateway is like wearing a close helm.

>>901185

>needing nu-web interface to be able to use software

You should head over to Reddit buddy.

>>902158

Ever take a dive into your torrc file? You can set per-service, per-client, and per-port circuit differentiation even for transparent proxying/gatewaying. Dive into the source code to up the number of hops in your circuits (at the cost of responsiveness/speed).

>>902164

What if the user sets the security slider to the safest? It disables javascript, svg, math symbols and many more attack surfaces that could be used to exploit the browser. How does this setup compares to yours?

>>902231

Very interesting. I will look into it. But while I am at sacrificing the speed for security shouldn't using I2P be better for my use case?

>>902158

meanwhile your bullshit corporate dogshit browser with 10 billion lines of C++/JS rubberstamp code has unlimited ways to identify you and every script kiddie has his own set of 5 or so techniques

for example because it uses some dumbass nigger API configuration to display JPEGs, you can put certain info in a JPEG file and then use JS (for simplification. these issues exist even without JS) to query the file and it will give you some unique information about your system. made up example but there are literally millions of things like this

>>902249

and CSS and 5 million other components nobody even knows about are still active

>>902249

>Very interesting. I will look into it. But while I am at sacrificing the speed for security shouldn't using I2P be better for my use case?

Tor has more nodes. I don't think circuit extension is visible to the nodes (i.e. it shouldn't make the tunnels look different to the intermediary nodes).

>>902351

>Tor has more nodes

Tor has approximately ~6000 nodes and ~2000 bridges.(1) A study made by The Tin Hat concluded that there are at least ~50000 actively participating nodes in the I2P network.(2)

I think the security by default models are more sensible than roll-your-own ones. Firstly because a user can skip trivial-looking details with, in some cases, life threatening consequences. Second, not everybody is knowledgeable enough to provide enough technical skills to construct a proper setup. More users will inevitably create more noise in the network, therefore strengthing it. And third, Tor doesn't include a global adversary with timing attack capabilities in its threat model. It implies that increasing the node numbers is not in the interest of its developers so the users who need semi resistance against timing attacks are better with I2P.

(1) - https://metrics.torproject.org/networksize.html

(2) - http://tinhat233xymse34.onion/blog/thoughts/i2p-survey.html

>>902261

>first paragraph

provide some real world examples

>and CSS and 5 million other components nobody even knows about are still active

Tor Browser uses special configurations to mitigate attacks made through CSS. For example the default window size is set to 1000*1000 and Tor Browser warns you if you change it because CSS reports the window size back to the website and creates a more unique fingerprint of the user. There are million attacks on modern browsers and here is the million mitigations the Tor Browser Bundle taken against them:

https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/design/

WHAT IF PUBLIC FACING SERVERS CONNECT TO MAIN SERVER USING TOR?

so main server only is accessible with Tor. and public servers connect to it using Tor, public servers do not know the address of main server

but how about domain? FBI will just take your domain and shut it down. and users are too dumb to use IP addresses or Tor.

>>891141

> Its also a shitty solution compared to tor.

but nobody will use tor-only website. people are dumb and lazy. I hate humans

>>891218

>What are they doing that is illegal? They share magnet links. They don't host any files.

nothing.

but

>implying CIA/NSA/FBI actually cares about law and not about jewish and corporate interests

if it's in jewish/corporate/NWO interests the FBI will come to your house and murder you

>>903267

>but how about domain? FBI will just take your domain and shut it down. and users are too dumb to use IP addresses or Tor.

Or your ISP or ICANN can do a IP redirect for your jurisdiction of that one IP to a honeypot.

>>903267

>if it's in jewish/corporate/NWO interests the FBI will come to your house and murder you

Yeah they probably wouldn't be too successful in doing that though. "Behind every blade of grass."