/tech/ - Technology★

>using Tor to access the clearnet

Maybe you need to kill yourself

>>926529

>being a tripfag

You are already dead inside.

>>926527 (OP)

>It's "attention required" after "attention required". Some websites don't even provide that, but inexplicably ban your IP.

It's simple, don't use cucked websites which block tor.

>>926535

So which ones? Remember that your criteria disallows 8ch as well...

>>926527 (OP)

>>926536

Use the Tor browser bundle:

https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en

>>926536

Find the onions

https://onion.torproject.org/

http://expyuzz4wqqyqhjn.onion/download/download-easy.html.en

>>926536

8chan doesn't block tor, retard, they even have a tor hidden service which you would know if you actually used tor to post in 8chan, just like you would also know that you are not asked for captcha if you use the hidden service.

>>926543

>8chan doesn't block Tor

<8ch.net detects Tor and stops you from posting "for security reasons"

<the 8chan hidden service stops you from uploading any file site-wide

>8chan doesn't block Tor

Well technically I guess it doesn't block Tor completely, yet.

<using sites which use MITMflare

It's time to go back.

>>926549

Doesn't 8chan use Cloudflare, by any chance? Because if it does, your reply would make you look stupid.

I don't expect a 100% internet experience using tor, but it does allow me to get most of what I want without having my actions attached to a discernible identity.

>>926547

I'm fairly sure this applies only to certain boards and it's entirely because of Child Porn spamming.

Did you try the Privacy Pass extension?

>>926556

fucking glowniggers

>>926553

Yeah but you can access it without cuckflare either through tor or with direct IP access. Here's a list of 8chan IP addresses which I've found so far.

https://8ch.net						(206.223.147.211)
https://8ch.net						(206.223.147.214)
https://8ch.net						(206.223.147.215)
https://8ch.net						(206.223.147.217)
https://8ch.net						(206.223.147.218)
https://8ch.net						(206.223.147.221)
https://8ch.net						(206.223.147.222)
https://8ch.net						(206.223.147.228)

Fuck tor, use direct IP you stupid goyim. Or use my free VPN based in Israel, it's free!

>>926527 (OP)

>sites filters out Tor public nodes

>it's Tor Project’s fault

Might as well blame Linux for NVIDIA drivers.

>>926547

you can post links to files, so what

>>926570

wow

hackerman.jpg

>>926570

>https://206.223.147.211

> self signed

> CN = 8archive.5chan.moe

hmm

>>926570

>>926625

Hmm I need to send SNI in order to get into the right service?

Can I do this without messing with /etc/hosts? In Firefox or something.

>>926570

How many people connected to those IP's yet, Hackerman?

>>926562

How does this stuff work? I've read about it but still don't get it. I mean, it would have to save some data on your machine to know that it's YOU that solved the challenge, and then it's not anonymous as it claims? Apparently there's some tough crypto behind it, but I still don't see how it bypasses the issue...

>>926645

Wait, I kinda get it now. But still, it requires the "service" to enable it. And you still need to solve craptchas.

>>926527 (OP)

Maybe you just stop using Google, faggot.

use it where it works

>>926547

>>8chan doesn't block Tor

><8ch.net detects Tor and stops you from posting "for security reasons"

><the 8chan hidden service stops you from uploading any file site-wide

>>8chan doesn't block Tor

>Well technically I guess it doesn't block Tor completely, yet.

Try to at least understand the technology you are using - what it is for, and how it should be used.

8ch does not block Tor. If you think it did you weren't using the .onion site, but instead were trying to post on a Mongolian fingerpainting forum via Tor onto the clearnet.

It would be better to say 8ch enforces you to use Tor properly when posting, so you retain your anonymity.

Not allowing file uploads aids in two main things - 1 you don't doxx yourself with photo EXIF, and 2 you can't abuse post CP etc and remain untraceable.

>>926570

anon delivers.

>>926527 (OP)

>The fact is, you can't use it almost anywhere.

You can use it almost everywhere that's worth accessing, normalfaggot.

>>926527 (OP)

Yeah yeah, TOR is the best thing regarding online privacy as on for now, cia niggers here will shill anyways.

Tor is for visiting onion sites. Aka cheese pizza.

VPN -> TOR -> VPN

I recommend this way.

everyone in this thread is pretty much retarded

>>926547

You can upload files to imgur or catbox.moe via tor and link to that.

>>926725

so enlighten us genius

>someone in the project got framed for rape accusations.

dunno if true but it's fucking shady as fuck

>Ian Murdock died after having issues with Tor browser debian repo

>Edward Snowden was a sellout crisis actor

>Soros funded firefox to combat "fake news" so the main tree is fucked even more (Tor inherits all the changes)

Just use proxychain and use hide under 7 or more tunnels/proxies that shuffle every load

>>926739

don't forget to also shuffle your dns too or have your very own dns.

use a vps to fetch all proxies using a script then send them to you encrypted so your ISP won't flag you suspicious.

as fallback, remember to have a few zombie computers. dumb winfag is your friend so use fully disclosed outdated exploits to install rat on as many outdated winfag systems as you can

maybe use anonymous burner SIM cards too and a modem whose IMEI can be altered or randomized. make sure that your modem connection is locked only to one cell tower so they won't magically locate you by calculating or triangulating RSSI from other frequency bands.

be careful of IMSI catchers but if you're using a burner SIM you're only problem would be the IMSI catcher party van passing by your area so be sure to live in a private residential area (maybe a private island if you have like 9000 bitcoins)

>>926527 (OP)

Man up and solve those captchas, fgt

>>926527 (OP)

>ATTENTION REQUIRED ONE MORE STEP | CUCKFLARE

has been avoidable for almost a year now. either use Tor Browser or set your user agent to

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0

in firecuck and its forks you can set this with the general.useragent.override key in about:config

>>926529

what kind of special nigger opinion is this? 99% of the point of tor is to access the clearweb

>>926674

>Not allowing file uploads aids in two main things:

shut the fuck up. blocking tor is a special placebo that chanfags like to take. even reddit allows uploading videos over tor.

>>926729

imgur has blocked tor since it started existing.

>>926821

Obfuscated bridges

Proofs?

Traffic correlation was solved 4 years ago

>>926827

I guess it wouldn't be hard for ISPs to scan obfuscated bridges? Dont know much on topic

Welp, seems like rumor I kept propagating, sorry bout that fam

Really? Just Jewgled it a bit and nothing comes up?

>>926527 (OP)

Works fine for me, most everywhere in fact. If some site doesn't let me in with Tor I just close the tab and go somewhere else.

Why do people fear the government on the internet more than corporate industry tracking them?

>>926867

>pretending there's a difference

2015 happened. Now it's current year.

>>926867

Central point of failure. The govenment gets data from all the main corporations (see PRISM) and it all goes in one spot. Anyone or any nation sponsored attacker that gets access to that data can steal identities en masse.

Also, any government can now perform a 99-100% efficient genocide with all that data (already been done in Africa). Just hope your country elect the right people for the next 50 years and don't get invaded!

>>926527 (OP)

Has anyone actually tried asking the site owners to unblock?

Assuming clearweb but otherwise sane Tor browser usage.

1) How effective if Tor anonymisation against a nation state for a non-targeted user? (eg. actually dindu nuffin, USA couldn't care less about activities)

2) How effective is Tor anonymisation against muh corporations? The browser forces a shared fingerprint, and it seems they are unlikely to be able to perform a timing attack, so it should be totally effective.

>>926882

AFAIK effective against both.

t. Tor user for everything except sites that require real name

>>926882

Everything is answered on the tor wiki.

Why do you even bother asking that then. I'll not do the job of a potential bot that could answer you in a nanosec.

>>926882

"Officially" effective against both, but you don't know what they really have in store. I mean a few years ago the FBI apparently paid some university to deanonymize Tor.

Remember Heartbleed? That was used for I think two years before being revealed. I've become more suspicious lately since "they" seem to have accepted Tor pretty much. I bet they have something on it...

>>926902

Why do you even bother typing this shit post? At least link to the answer, or fuck off.

>>926908

>news. ycombinator. com/item?id=8608941

Of course this is blocked on tor, haha.

>>926825

>or set your user agent to Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 in firecuck and its forks you can set this with the general.useragen

M8 I've been trying to replicate the effects of the Tor browser with firefox forks for two years and none of them are able to not trigger cloudflare like the tor browser bundle.

>>926916

Wait, you're right, I don't get these "attention required" messages when using the Tor browser. Why though? I mean if cloudflare considers tor traffic malicious, why give a pass to Tor browser? Something's fishy here.

>>926914

I'm using Tor Browser Bundle and it works fine for me.

>>926916

>>926918

I've also noticed this and would like an explanation, what is going on exactly?

>>926908

Government funding and contributors has been common knowledge since the very beginning of the project. Paul always posted using his navy.mil email address. Claiming it's hard to find this information only betrays your meme level understanding of Tor.

Agree with your second paragraph, however.

Why not just use I2P?

anyone watch this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di7qAVidy1Y - Dingledine giving talk about Tor Services at DefCon 25 last summer

>>926938

I2P is a darknet. There are few (and at times, 0) "outproxies", which are I2P nodes configured to ferry traffic between I2P and the regular internet. They are slow and unreliable.

>>926825

I actually get that "one more step" shit every time I follow an archive.XX link, despite not using Tor. So I basically don't bother with those archive shits anymore.

My browsers are Links and Lynx.

>>926953

Then why not combine I2P, IPFS and IP-Wayback into one single package? That would make things more convenient

>>926867

Corporatism means that government and corporations stand hand in hand with their evil plans of global control.

The difference being is that governments have monopoly of force.

>>927022

>Corporatism

Redefinition of the word, it was originally used by Mussolini and included unions as one of the pillars of society. Crony Capitalism would be more correct. Sage for off topic and pedantry.

>>926908

>You may not find easily

I thought that Tor coming out of the US Navy is common knowledge? They basically invented it to spread freedom sow discord in China and other nations that police their internet.

>>927026

The term "Crony capitalism" implies that Capitalism can exist in the wild chaotic world without monopoly of governments protection.

Every current country has monopolies in which corporations lobbied governments and politicians for.

Corporations don't want fair trading enemy with which they will fight over for market shares. They want monopolies.

Corporatism is correct term.

sage

>>926918

Can anyone answer this? Because it is suspicious as fuck. For so long Cloudflare did everything possible to make life harder for Tor users, and now poof! And it's gone.

Works for me. I can even post images: https://0x0.st/s_4R.png

But I rarely do.

>>926925

>>926908

That's why I putted mutiple quotes, was an attempt to be ironic, because the guy was asking for shit question findable on the tor wiki.

>>927073

That happened to me once, but then I wrote a filthy language complaint about it and they un-flagged me.

>>927073

I could understand them locking it for security reasons, but flagging it? What are they doing? Just another reason never to use github again.

There needs to be a movement towards Freenet.

>>926529

>tripfag

sage and ignore

>>926918

I think cloudflare is not scared of human Tor users, but automatic bots, those usually execute only basic http functions and have a "lulsorandum" user agent, which also proves why all textbrowser larpers in this thread get btfo'd by cloudflare, they simply appear to be bots and stick like a sore thumb in swarm of regular tor browsers.

>>926851

It would be hard for ISP to scan the bridges, and a bit easier for government-backed entity since bridges are given up from Tor project's website after entering captcha or sending email, that's a lot of pajeet-hors to bruteforce. Private obfuscated bridges are not listed elsewhere and are virtually impossible to find unless a DPI is trained to find them, and those usually become known to wide public pretty soon. If you run a bridge with different algorithm like shadowsocks, govpn, stunnel instead of default Tor obfuscators, it'd be even harder to discern what traffic you're sending over the network.

>>927345

You realize the solution to all of that is just kill all unauthorized protocols. Things like HTTP(s) and email will be about it.

>>926916

All you have to do is make the headers look like Tor Browser. I captured this from Tor Browser:
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 192.168.2.2:1234
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Connection: keep-alive
Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: 1

Some Cuckflare sites still wont let you on (because "high security" mode or some bullshit), but I'm pretty sure like 99.999% will let you pass once you look like Tor Browser. Also Links bypasses Cuckflare too last time I checked.

>>926994

>>927066

Cuckflare is a WAF. Do you guys still not know what a WAF is 20 years after the year 2000 when they were popular? A Web Application Firewall is a piece of shit that sits around going through each request and deciding whether to approve them. This placebo technology is supposed to provide some form of "security" to site admins who are to retarded and lazy to figure out how the word "security" even pertains to the internet. Like all WAFs, it will block whatever the fuck their retarded end up blocking. This is typically all of Tor, all VPNs, most open proxies, some public places such as schools and cafes, etc. The way your IP even gets into the blocklist in the first place is either by manually adding ranges (such as Tor), or by you sending some traffic that looks like hax (such as having a quote in the URL). Even if you aren't trying to hack the page, you will inevitably trigger the WAF at some point, resulting in a single block, temporary ban, or permanent ban. It's also of course possible that Cuckflare is blocking Tor deliberately, but it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day they should be ousted as retards for selling and spreading this garbage technology all over the web.

>>927315

You couldn't be more wrong. As I said, Links bypasses Cuckflare. Tor Browser was blocked from Cuckflare for its entire existence up to a year ago (that's at least 5 years). Also refer to my previous paragraph.

Also refer to the rest of this thread. For example >>926994 uses Links without Tor and was blocked from archive.is.

>>927377

No, that solves nothing. It's not possible to determine whether encrypted traffic is flowing over a pipe, even if the data is "plain text" (for example only alphanumeric characters or words of the dictionary). Of course some government niggers would love to implement such a retarded non solution as long as they are paid in votes.

>>927377

Everything is possible, but it's a never ending arms race between DPI methods and obfuscation methods.

You can tunnel all your shit through legit-looking https with third-party CA and a legit looking website as a face for your tunnel server.

>>927468

Keep giving them ideas so they can create the most greatest walled garden Internet possible. No one is going to mess with that crap. The best hope is some kind of packet radio, but even that would fall under some kind of surveillance and punishment quickly.

>>927096

Maybe I wanted a discussion from multiple viewpoints and not just a press release from a government employee who has a vested interest in promoting their own software.

>>927476

>packet radio

You can't send encrypted messages though.

>>927476

Manually put wired networks and a tight-knit grassroots community of fellow hackers.

It's not like they care about you personally, they ban obvious normalfag-accessible services like messaging apps, websites, proxies, popular vpns, in name of fighting terrorism and poor children, then they stumble at true anonymous networks and start pretending they don't care while having a status quo on honeypotting drug-dealing retards. Or as I think so. It's a sad thing, people don't understand that having freedom to use communication technology in an age said technology equals to having your natural freedom to speak.

>>927489

>You can't send encrypted messages though.

<even that would fall under some kind of surveillance and punishment quickly.

>>927493

>It's not like they care about you personally

You can't prove that. The Internet is being corralled right now. Users are required to provide ID's, phone numbers, and all kinds of information to keep them from opening accounts and posting wrongthink. The end goal is to deny a single person access to any Internet service for any reason. This will happen within the decade if AI takes off the ground.

>>927489

Illegal in almost every planetary sector, with some exceptions for low power non-derectional wi-fi.

>>927500

pretty sure that low frequency in the tens of kilohertz range is unregulated in most jurisdictions, but it requires high power to transmit well due to antenna inefficiency, and it's also low bandwidth

>>927521

>10kHz

Man, we would be lucky to get dialup speeds on that. At the most it would be about 5 kilobits.

>>927489

How do you tell encrypted messages from unencrypted?

You can use strong encryption over alphabet of cleartext pieces of junk information, like words "hello", "goatse", etc.

>>927531

For some kinds of information flows it's not too bad.

Sure streaming video in real time would not be possible.

>>927532

I can imagine messages with high entropy and unknown compression algorithm may be considered encrypted because it's not possible to tell the difference. You can always lower your message's entropy, but that makes your communication channel less useful.

>>927531

good enough for textboards, good enough for me

>>927532

"encrypted" == anything (((they))) don't understand

>>927535

I am wondering how two concurrent transmissions to one receiver would work.

>>927540

>that makes your communication channel less useful

could be still useful, if it's not too slow and secure

>>927541

>anything (((they))) don't understand

oven gas evaluation taffymaker uncrystallized laterality detacher berigora …

it's plain text, isn't it? there's nothing to decrypt, capiche?

>>927550

Probably no one's going to give a fuck if you send messages encoded in your kid meme language. The whole point of the encryption ban is to prevent anyone from secretly using ham radio frequencies for commercial purposes.

>>927570

there's nothing preventing use of this shit for commercial purposes.

>>927574

except frequency constipation

>>927444

>All you have to do is make the headers look like Tor Browser. I captured this from Tor Browser:

What's the point, why not simply use Tor Browser?

>>927670

It's a poorly configured Firefox

>>927680

What exactly is poor in it?

"Sorry, the board owner decided to disable Tor posters for some reason".

Fuck this and fuck tor.

>>927468

>You can tunnel all your shit through legit-looking https

which is what Tor already does (though TLS, not HTTPS, although there's no way for an evesdropper to tell)

>>927476

only millenial cucks believe in this theoretical concept of unresistable government. go read like more than one page of history or look at Cuba or China or something

>>927489

what the fuck are you talking about

>>927670

because Links is 50KLOC instead of 50MLOC and doesn't require 50 patches per day

because i want to scrape etc instead of browsing through 20 pages like a cuck to read a single clickbait article (for example tomshardware)

>>927724

s/browsing through 20 pages/clicking the next page button 20 times/

to make my point more clear

>>927724

>only millenial cucks believe in this theoretical concept of unresistable government. go read like more than one page of history or look at Cuba or China or something

>china

They sure shut down their government at Tiannemen. I mean, look at how they removed the Democracy Wall and how Tank Guy completely disappeared and no one even knows his name. You really got it there.

>Cuba

No one gives a shit about Cuba, not even Cubans.

>>927785

>a single protest somewhere got surpressed once

oh good point.

>>927761

If you turn off images and pajeetscript you can use 8ch on a 20K connection. Turn on images and you best have 128K. Turn on javascript and it bumps up to 1.5M. This is for instant loading that is, if you want slower you can just wait longer on a slower 5K connection.

>>927761

>>927541

The new internet won't build itself. Get to work.

>>927793

Most of the images on this site would be too big anyway, so there's no use enabling images in the browser. Back in the dialup days, the screen resolutions were also pretty small. 800x600 was the most common around 1995, but you still had lots of 640x480 peeps. For that reason (and also the typical 14.4k or slower modem speed), when you go look at sites of that era in web.archive.org, the images look like thumbnails. But no, those were the full-size images. For example:

http://www.gamers.org/addons/utils/deutex/

(btw, I really love that old, simple Windows 3 look a lot more than anything more recent)

>>927803

>(btw, I really love that old, simple Windows 3 look a lot more than anything more recent)

you must've grown up with that stuff. i found it clunky and unresponsive, but then again everyone who had dos/windows machine then had all the games.

>>927811

reminds me of those vga sierra point and click games.

>>927793

Or you can stop larping and scrape json in a dedicated client like dashchan.

WHAT A NIGGER YOU ARE

>>926543

Pigchan does block Tor you nigger.

It forces use of .onion and blocks nodes that exit to the clearnet.

All .onion domains are centralized and pwnd by feds.

At least you have a chance with a vanilla Tor circuit.

>>928118

Do you also think the feds are reptilian shapeshifters? If you have evidence of either, post it.

>>926527 (OP)

https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001992652-Privacy-Pass

An error has occured.

Tor users may not report posts.

So Tor users are second class citizens regardless.

>>929063

This is true for anything in society if you aren't willing to buy in.

>>928723

>tor has insufficient bandwidth for ddos

>big company blocks tor

>"download our software to access our pages"

go fuck yourself faggot

>>926527 (OP)

brainlet

>>926527 (OP)

actually you are a bainlet and a nigger

>>926527 (OP)

Test

>>942780

the "ATTENTION REQUIRED | CUCKFLARE; ONE MORE STEP XDDDD" page is useless for spam you fuck. the only plausible reason for it is to mitigate application layer ddos, but they don't even do that right.

worry about what kind of footprint you are leaving and use whatever tools you can to lower it, dont do crazy shit thats too complicated

Anonymity is never about the 'tools' - it's about you.

>>931344

>bainlet

Small guy?

>>926723

>ping timeout

No thanks.

>>926529

>using Tor for what it was made for is wrong

This is why you don't use tripcodes, so you can LARP all you want and noone will remember you are retarded.

>>926529

all tripniggers must hang

>>942808

>page is useless for spam you fuck

I'm sure captchas have absolutely no effect on spam like they were literally invented to solve

>>926527 (OP)

The best way to protect your anonymity is to not use any websites that track you or harvest data.

>>943197

>I'm sure captchas have absolutely no effect on spam like they were literally invented to solve

Actually, that's not true.

I've been on many smaller imageboards with no captchas and they get insane amounts of spam.

It's not that the captchas are hard to solve or confuse a machine (AI programs are better at solving them than humans are), it's that 99% of all spam bots aren't programmed to deal with them.

>>943219

>It's not that the captchas are hard to solve or confuse a machine

Wow you people are retarded.

>>928118

>All .onion domains are centralized and pwnd by feds

Try to at least understand the technology you're using before you attack it.

>>943953

>Try to at least understand the technology you're using before you attack it.

You do realize the onion directory system actually is centralized right?

>>927073

>>927097

>>927101

I know I'm preaching to the choir but it's not without reason that CuckHub flunks and gets an F on GNU Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html#GitHub

<GitHub --- F

<Things that prevent GitHub from moving up to the next grade, C:

<* Important site functionality does not work without running nonfree JavaScript. (C0)

<* Specific information may not be available in all countries; see roskomnadzor and export controls for more details. (C2)

<GitHub also encourages bad licensing practice, including no license; failure to state the license on each source file; and failure to say which GPL versions apply. (B2)

>>944150

No one cares about your retard ratings. Kill yourself.

>>944140

Firstly, it's not -- it's a distributed hash table.

Secondly, that does nothing to degrade the anonymity of hidden services, especially with the v3 hidden services.

>>944154

>Anything that uses a DHT cannot be centralized

https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/flag:authority

LOL. Yeah those windows 10 p2p updates are totally not command and control by microsoft.

>>944164

>a DHT is centralized because microsoft also uses p2p

That's not-an-argument tier logic.

Also you still haven't pointed out how the directory authorities compromise Tor's anonymity.

>>944158

It used to be the same before Microsoft.

>>944170

>That's not-an-argument tier logic.

This DHT is centralized

>Also you still haven't pointed out how the directory authorities compromise Tor's anonymity.

Even worse is that EVERYTHING is set up this way in Tor. A single entity controls all the node selection for 99% of users. One fucko can pwn everyone. Retarded.

>>944177

Meet the new GitHub, just as bad as the old one.

>>944182

>Even worse is that EVERYTHING is set up this way in Tor

You still don't know what you're talking about.

>A single entity controls all the node selection for 99% of users

See above.

>>926527 (OP)

Tor is a torch of hope. It also illuminates those sites which are most aggressively anti-freedom.

I think TOR would be a lot better if there was a way to require a VPN for TOR to function at all.

>>944240

Same fam. Someone of whom I may or may not be familiar has a VPN for the very purpose.

>>944182

Pretty sure you're full of shit. Circuit selection is done client-side.

>>944253

>Circuit selection is done client-side.

Yes goy it's perfectly secure just pick from this list of servers i'm giving you.

>>944264

Instead of complaining uselessly as you are why don't you run a tor node yourself?

>>944265

>Sorry goy you are not allowed to criticize us unless you yourself run a node!

>>944264

>set up Tor node

>wait

>look at directory listings

>see your Tor node listed

>realize you're full of shit

>>944266

That's right! Because this is not a situation where there is some person or organization out there doing wrong by you, where there is nothing you can do about it. If you think the majority of Tor nodes are malicious, then run one you fucking faggot. It's not even hard.

>>944267

>Realize that they can give a new list to anyone and they are totally fucked when it happens

Keep defending this centralized piece of shit please.

>>944268

> If you think the majority of Tor nodes are malicious

It's not about the node operators, it's about the tor foundation. That node a run I going to do fuck all when the feds at Tor decide to give the person they are attacking a bad list.

>>944330

*that I run is going to do

>>944329

> what are trusted bridges

> what is signing

shoo shoo CIAnigger

>>944333

99% of users are totally at the whim of the tor foundation. No amount of bike shedding will invalidate that fact.

>>944334

99% of users don't use Tor at all. Those who actually need srs bzns can set up their own route using the control port.

>>944336

> Those who actually need srs bzns can set up their own route using the control port.

<NSA gives you a list of servers

<You pick your route from them

<I-it's secure goy

>>944337

> implying you can't source your nodes from other places

>>944339

Literally no one does this.

>>926867

The state monopoly on the use of violence.

>>944344

Tor is insecure anon. There is no other place to get secure tor nodes. If something like that gets started then tor may become secure. Until then it's centralized shit with potential.

>>944347

Do you have a reason to believe the Tor project is actively being malicious to its users or is this just more FUD?

Any reasons beyond "its centraleyezd"? Should I stop using Linux because Kernel.org could possibly serve me a malicious tarball? All those non-CIA non-NSA relay operators wouldn't be scratching their heads as their nodes receive no traffic?

>>944421

>Just trust us goy it does not matter that it's centralized. We will never do anything wrong. The project was not started by the military, and is not currently run by literal communists or anything.

>>944329

>what is directory list signing

>>944330

>what is directory list signing

>>944337

>what is directory list signing

>>944347

>what is directory list signing

>>944432

>what is directory list signing

>>944421

>Do you have a reason to believe the Tor project is actively being malicious to its users or is this just more FUD?

It's FUD. Like every other attempt by the alphabet-soup types to get people not to use Tor.

>TOR was created by the government, goys!

>TOR is centralized, goys!

>See, I'm using your "memes"! I also dislike Jews and visit the /pol/! I'm one of you!

>>944433

>The centralized service signing it's own list makes it so the centralized service cant fuck with it's own list

how brainwashed are you?

>>944623

On exactly which server is this supposed centralized list? Here, I will spoonfeed you the answer: https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#KeyManagement

>>944637

On the list of the 8 specially marked by the tor foundation directory servers you retard. I already linked you to them.

>>944623

>the centralized server signing...

Stopped reading there.

>>944640

>NSA gives you list of nodes for the new NSA secure net (tm).

>NSA gives you list of special directory servers

>I-its distributed goys!

>>944640

>youtube is not a centralized authority because they have servers all over the world

durrrrr

>>944642

>NSA gives doctored list of nodes to one of the directory servers

>other seven servers reject the list

>>944644

No you retard.

>Tor foundation (AKA spooks) give you list of directory servers

>They all come from the same authority

>They are all fucked

<But there's more than one server so it's okay!

retard

>>944645

>They all come from the same authority

No, they come from eight authorities. Eight authorities that are distributed around the world, belonging to different people, some of whom don't even personally know each other.

>>944649

No. You get a list of 8 servers that you sure as fuck better hope are for 8 different authorities.

>>944651

>what is IP geolocation?

Just look up the IPs. See which regions they belong to. See what their ASNs and IP blocks are. See if they've changed without any warning from the Tor team. See if they've changed suddenly to a vastly different location, ASN, or IP block. By doing that, you can verify that the directories are not all located in the same server farm somewhere.

>>944652

>See if they changed

I don't give a fuck if they change. If they originally all come from one authority (they do) it's fucked to start with.

>>944654

>If they originally all come from one authority (they do)

Proof?

>>944657

Proof? Where the fuck do you download the list from? The tor site that's where. If I go to normiebook and they give me a list of tor nodes, then facebook is the authority giving me the nodes.

>>944658

>The tor site that's where

But how do you have proof that all eight people who manage the directory servers are colluding?

Again, it's trivial to prove that they're not restricting which IPs can and cannot be nodes to only allow NSA nodes. Just create your own node and wait until the next directory list is published. Look for your own node, and if you see it you'll know that the list isn't tampered with.

>>944660

>Just create your own node and wait until the next directory list is published. Look for your own node, and if you see it you'll know that the list isn't tampered with.

They are either trivially vulnerable to sybil attacks. Or the tor foundation has complete control over the node list. Guess which one is the answer.

>>944660

>It's okay that the authority is totally centralized because they can approve of your node

LOL

>>944663

>They are either trivially vulnerable to sybil attacks

This is the preferred solution. Because as long as there are a large number of nodes pulling off a sybil attack becomes harder, as opposed to compromising a fewnodes which is easier.

>>944665

Why don't you put on that thinking cap and think a bit. The Tor directory doesn't know you're testing it. You don't announce to them "hey, I'm setting up this node to see whether or not non-NSA nodes are allowed in the directory list." So if they approve of your node, that means they approve of every new node that is set up. Because your node looks no different than any other new node.

>>944666

>o if they approve of your node, that means they approve of every new node that is set up.

Yep. And they can trivially give a different answer to any individual they want to attack.

>>944668

>if they approve of your node, that means they approve of every new node that is set up

Show me how they differentiate between your new node and any other new node.

>>944671

They don't. My node is there. But the person they are attacking won't get it.

Somebody please drop an onion link to the isdarat site or one of its replacements. so-called twitter journalists keep spying on it so they can have a monopoly of content to report on and then they get the site taken down so they can preserve their little twitter journalism monopoly.

>>944676

So look at the size of your directory list, and compare it to publicly available information on the Tor network size. If your list only includes NSA nodes, there will be far fewer total nodes.

>>944680

>publicly available list

you mean the list you are getting from the tor foundation.

>>944682

I mean the list of the total number of servers currently in the network you can get from Tor metrics. Or hell, you don't even have to do that. Try connecting to the network from your local Starbucks; somewhere where you won't have the same IP as at home. See if you get a different list while hopping between a bunch of random IPs. If you do, the list is being tampered with. If you don't, it probably isn't.

>>944687

Yes anon and you could monitor every packet that leaves your machine to tell when the IME is getting commands to take over your system. There will always have to be a packet after all.

>>944706

*enters or leaves

>>944706

It's far easier to do a diff of three or four directory lists every week or so than it is to monitor every single packet leaving your computer.

>>944708

Yep. And 99.99% of users will never do this. Until then it's the illusion of security in a centralized system.

>>944709

>And 99.99% of users will never do this

That's a user problem. I've done it before; and if I can do it anyone can.

>>926527 (OP)

Even facebook has tor service access. What's the problem?

>>944711

Yes goy intel ME is very safe. I have audited my network packets before. If I can do it anyone can.

>>944711

And where is the open source tool that does this for me all day for months? You really expect us to manually audit the tor network every time we want to be secure?

>>927847

The Black Couldron had a great interface btw

I'm never anonymous and you fickers never take the time to track me down and hangout. No One ever collects my data and collated it. What am I doing wrong?

>>926527 (OP)

>VPN->TOR->proxy->????->profit

>>926547

8chan gave board owners the option to block TOR

>>926645

I hate recaptcha. It takes 5-10 minutes on a VPN. Anyone know how to force it to do just checkboxes or old captcha?

>>926825

>Creating a browser fingerprint

>>926867

Honestly the only two differences are the government is elected or appointed by elected officials and the government can be tried for violating the bill of Rights.

>>944805

The gooberment and haxors typically don't target the laymen

Be an anomaly and you'll be put on a watchlist. Ironically using Tor is considered being an anomaly

>>944734

Show me where I claimed ME is safe, you disingenuous little faggot.

>>944738

It's literally just downloading some files from different locations and running 'diff' on them. If you can't even do that basic shit to keep yourself secure, you deserve to get v&. Dipshits like you think security is a program you download and run, and that if you can't be 100% secure by double clicking on some .exe and then leaving your brain on autopilot, that's a problem. You use Flash while using Tor, then blame Tor when you get your v&, because why didn't Tor inform you that allowing random remote third parties to run arbitrary code on your computer that runs as a separate process and therefore is not subject to the same proxy settings as your browser is potentially dangerous? What's that? I should have used my fucking brain to realize that was a bad idea? Nah, that's just too much work!

Security is a mindset and a set of procedures, and treating it otherwise will get you v&.

>>944817

>using the Tor browser or setting another browser's user agent to that used by the Tor browser is "creating a browser fingerprint"

Maybe instead of just regurgitating half-thought-out ideas you should actually try understanding the diarrhea pouring out of your mouth.

>>944850

> Dipshits like you think security is a program you download and run

Nope. In fact if you were not a total fuckwit you would no I am complaining about exactly that. Trusting a single authority where you get all your "security" from.

>>944857

>Trusting a single authority where you get all your "security" from

Yep. Sure. Please ignore the specific method I mentioned, which is dirt simple and can be done automatically if you have any knowledge of shell scripting, to detect such tampering. You're right. I'm wrong. You may now knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like you've won.

>>944851

>Being this triggered

I didn't read your post, I skimmed and understood you suggested to change a browser setting

>>944858

>Just write your own framework making sure this centralized program is not actively fucking you over

Yeah writing software to properly manage identity systems is totally fucking trivial. It's not at all a massive research subject with no actual solution. JFC tor fags are retarded.

>>945111

>Yeah writing software to properly manage identity systems

Ah, I get it. You're trolling. There's no other way you could turn "write a bash script that downloads the directory list, prompts you to go to a new location, then does it a second time and then compares the two lists" into "writing software to properly manage identity systems."

10/10 trolling m8. You really had me going for a minute there.

>>945142

>Manually comparing the list every single time I want to use my computer securely

you are fucking retarded

>>945143

>manually comparing

I'm not replying anymore. Clearly you're either retarded or trolling.

http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/diff.1.html

>>945146

>Don't worry goy this centralized piece of shit is totally safe! Just manually run a dif list and go through the result by hand every time you connect to the network.

I am tired of all the Tor shills acting like their shit is okay. If any other organization pushed that you faggots would be screaming.

>>945148

Tor isn't centralized

>>945157

The authority is. Just like windows 10 p2p updating.

If it didn't protect your anonymity they would allow it.

>>945173

Tor is legal.

I'm joining this flamewar as a brainlet sitting on the fence but kind of favoring OP.

My problem with Tor is that I really, really don't like the entry guard business. I maintain the view that entry guards are a bad idea due to the sheer amount of traffic they absorb from a single client, which uses them for months on end. The smart people keep shaking percentages of possibility for circuit compromise but me being an honest brainlet I don't give a shit. All I see is that the same damn node keeps MITM'ing all my circuits ever. Ideally it should be a different entry guard for each different site I visit and you can keep those unchanged for 100 years for all I care, as long as one node doesn't proxy ALL my traffic.

>>945253

>The smart people keep shaking percentages of possibility for circuit compromise

The smart people are right. With entry guards there's an x% chance you're using a compromised entry and exit node. Without entry guards there's a 1 - (1 - x)^n chance you've used a compromised circuit, where n is the number of circuits you've formed (quite high since Tor forms a new circuit at least every ten minutes). To give a concrete example, if there's a 10% chance that any given circuit is compromised and you've used Tor for six hours now (so x = 0.1 and n = 36), the probability of compromise with entry guards is 10%. The probability of compromise without is 1 - (1 - 0.1)^36 = 97.75%. And the probability of compromise without entry guards increases asymptotically to 100% the longer you use Tor, whereas with entry guards it stays flat at 10% (in this example).

What's even better is that because your exit node still changes every ten minutes, you aren't using the same entry/exit pair for the entire time that you're using the same entry guard and so it is not the case that you are compromised 100% of the time if you happen to choose a bad entry guard. If the first circuit you use is bad, the second one has a chance not to be, because although the entry node has not changed, the exit node has, so there's a chance you've picked a non-compromised exit node.

>same damn node keeps MITM'ing all my circuits ever

It's not MITM-ing anything. The entry node can't see your traffic, nor can it see which sites you're using or even which exit node you're using. It can't see anything except what the next hop in the circuit is.

>different entry guard for each different site I visit

Along with that being bad for the reason listed above, that isn't possible. Tor multiplexes connections to different sites over the same circuit, so if you visit two, five, or five hundred sites over the same 10 minute period, all that traffic will be over the same circuit. Since the timing for circuit regeneration is time-based and not site-based, you can't use a different entry guard for each site without creating a new circuit for each site.

This would be catastrophically bad, as it would leak information on how long you were spending on every site you visited to every part of the circuit and all observers. Your middle node, entry node, and all the ISPs and routers your circuit traveled over between your ISP and the middle node's ISP would be able to see how long you were spending on every site you visited. This would be bad enough even if you assume every site is non-compromised, as it leaks information about your browsing habits, but it's even worse if an adversary controls any of the sites you visit. If they do, they can keep track of how long all Tor users stay connected to their server and correlate this with information from your ISP regarding how long each of your circuits lasted, allowing them to relatively easily deanonymize you by looking for similarly long Tor circuits around the same time as the connection the site is investigating was made.

>>945208

(((Cloudflare))) is working hard to disallow Tor.

>>945435

Because they get spammed from it.

>>943197

The fact that you think cuckflare is for stopping spam proves you're a fucking retard. You put the captcha IN THE POST FORM for the comment box. Not to VIEW PAGES or DO ANYTHING AT ALL PERIOD on the website and its subdomain that does nothing but serves static files (e.g one captcha to view index.html on mygayasswebsite.io and another captcha to view jquery.js on cdn.mygayasswebsite.io). But _none of that even matters_, because now cuckflare whitelists the Tor User-Agent header, so even if it was intended to stop spam, it wouldn't at all period. How has it been 4 years or whatever the fuck on this imageboard and there are _still_ cocksucking faggots like you who pop into every cuckflare discussion with your retarded ignorance?

>>945656

No you retard. They already whitelisted* Tor over a year ago because it turns out Tor posed no problem to anything. Their claim years before that was that Tor has evil haxxors (which obviously it does, because that's by definition true for any big proxy), but then they realized blocking an IP for that reason is stupid.

*Provided you use the correct User-Agent header

>>945671

You sure that's the reason they "whitelisted" it - after claiming FOR YEARS that most of its traffic is "malicious" ?

>>945671

If by whitelisted you mean giving you a captcha every single time you connect to a page then yes they allow it.

>>945670

>Comment spam is the only type of spam.

>Spam bots are the only type of malicious bots

What kind of retard are you?

>>945675

>>945688

No there's no captcha anymore once you use tor browser or mimick it (as I am doing). It's been like this for over a year now. They will probably undo that the moment they see any type of abuse though, because they are cucks.

>>945690

What kind of fucktard are you? Cuckflare is not for stopping spam. It's a WAF. Really WAFs serve no purpose, but the marketing reason for it is that it makes your site "secure" by blocking haxors. It turns out people also use cuckflare to mitigate DDoS because Cuckflare needs to eat lots of bandwidth to provide a WAF to millions of websites, and for this reason there's another meme out there that Cuckflare is the solution to DDoS.

>>945690

Wait I didn't realize you acknowledged that it's there to block haxors. So yeah, you're right. But it's utterly pointless snakeoil that only the odd nigger sysadmin from the late 90's have done up until cuckflare took over the web.

>>928481

t. knees bend to the back.

>>945891

>It's almost like the are only taking action against shit once it becomes an actual problem! How fucked is that am I right? Not reasonable at all.

no, you fuck. malicious traffic isn't a reason to block an IP for a year. they will literally reconnect from another IP 3 seconds later after working out how to get around the filter. or better yet, solve the captcha and reconnect with a new attack vector

what kind of retard do you have to be to not understand it's more expensive to serve a captcha than static content? if DDoS was the reason for the block (it isn't, as they officially stated), they would block the whole TCP connection

>>945994

>they would block the whole TCP connection

Yes goy they should just block the ENTIRE TOR NODE instead of filtering the users out with their bandwidth so they don't damage the endpoints.

>it's more expensive to serve a captcha than static content

LOL no

>malicious traffic isn't a reason to block an IP for a year.

You're right. They should filter it with captchas.

>they will literally reconnect from another IP 3 seconds later

And when that address becomes associated with spam / attacks it's gonna get black listed 2.

>>945891

>that watermark

kill yourself for having that

>>927444

Nice information, but just wanted to say that copying the user agent ALONE does not work. You still get the ONE MORE STEP pages. So you probably need all the headers (chrome + firefox user agent does not work...)

No the fact is that you can't use it almost anywhere. I use it on literally 98% of sites, the other two percent can't be scraped and read without js or requires js. And all this without ever enabling Javascript.