I have nothing to hide so I don't think of it.

>>62196949
And a good day to you sir agent Johnson of NSA

>>62196959
You're not funny

honeypot

>>62197360
Sure, the NSA probably hosts lots of exit nodes around the world, but does that really matter? If youre using it to browse the plebnet, any site that youre likely to give a fuck about serve over HTTPS, which means that they cant see anything that youre doing. And even better, if youre using it to browse the networks internal .onion pages, youll never even hit a single exit node.
I am not trying to shill for anyone, Im just not aware of a working attack against the network that could be used by a third party to de-anonymize specific users. Of course the po-po could physically compromize a server and find identifying things there, but that isnt the networks fault. If there exists something like that though, you can feel free to educate me.

>>62197459
I believe HTTPS is impossible through TOR.

>>62197473
Hmm, this sounds interesting. Is this true, or is it something that you just believe? Do you have any documentation to back that up?
I cant figure out why it wouldnt be possible, but if it really isnt, that sounds scary as hell. Please elaborate.

>>62196912
I use it when I need to scrape lot of data from some service and don't want one IP to have thousands entries in logs

File: 138384038127.png (223KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 501x585px

>>62196989
SHUTUP
H
L
O
M
O

>>62197473
No it isn't.

What if the NSA controls an entry node and gets your IP? Then they monitor your network with possible help from your ISP for suspicious activity and you get put on the watch list?

>>62197473
>>62197614
>>62197575
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but it is. SSL/TLS. Tor already provides encryption, another layer of encryption would not only be redundant, but TLS deanonymizes the server (because of certificates), which would obviously defeat the purpose of Tor in the first place.

It could be improved, and is being improved, but is the best anonymous overlay network currently available for widespread general use with a useful anonymity set.

>>62197473
Incorrect. Firstly almost all traffic flowing through Tor exit nodes is HTTPS. Secondly, it's spelled Tor, not TOR (a surefire sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about).

>>62198568
They have no easy way of knowing that they are the entry node. Correlation with your ISP would give them no additional information. If they also correlated with an exit node they controlled, however, they may be able to perform a traffic confirmation attack.

At the time of writing, the NSA TAO are not hosting any Tor nodes configured as relays, bridges, directories, entries or guard nodes. GCHQ Bude and Cheltenham have previously done so, as part of operations conducted for research presented at the REMATION conferences. Attacks were mostly unsuccessful, and operational attacks instead usually focus on side-channel information leakage via onion site server misconfiguration and targeted exploits such as IP beacons delivered by malicious JavaScript targeting the For Browser Bundle, and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, etc. Those are user errors, and will almost always be more fruitful than platform attacks.

>>62197459
What if the first node your client connects to is compromised?

it literally has your IP since you connection is yet to be bounced to another node

>>62196912
its shit for poor people that cant, wont take VPN and trust exit nodes because its free it must be good right...

>Let childporn, illegal weapon sales, drug deals, and other illegal nonsense stay up
>Block racists because you disagree with them
F E D C O N T R O L L E D

>>62199199
the first node sees your ip address, but it cant see anything else. the connection is encrypted.
i admit that this can get you put on a black list, if you connect to an NSA controlled node. that means that theyll start snooping on you even more than they did before, and if you make a mistake on the clearnet, for example use the same username on twitter as you use on your favorite child porn site, theyll be able to add two and two together.

>>62199263
i dont think theyve blocked stormer, it should not even be possible. theyve only encouraged node operators to throttle the traffic that goes there.

>>62199215
VPNs are much more shady though, theyre usually commercial services which i would not trust my data with. the open nature of tor is very good indeed, even for the sake of security.

>>62198657
i think that first guy was talking about using clearnet services over https, which of course is possible. they would not encourage the use of https by having https everywhere pre-installed in TBB, if it didnt work properly. EFF wrote a pretty good article about this a couple of years ago i think.

SJW

>>62196912
I use it for most things. Better than nothing or a VPN.

>>62196949
That like saying "I dont need free speech because I got nothing to say"

>>62199385
>Better than nothing
Probably
>or a VPN
huh?

>>62199432
VPN has a nearly 100% chance your VPN operator is wathcing your traffic.

>>62199432
like that one guy already said, VPNs are commercial services, run by privately owned companies that want to make profit. fuck that shit, should not be worth anyones trust.

File: faggotry.png (111KB, 560x315px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 560x315px

>>62199367
You don't say.

>>62199567
Imagine living your life thinking flat hipster cartoons are in any way acceptable and not grounds for execution.

>>62196912
Their browser still doesn't block JavaScript by default so I have mixed feelings about the whole thing in general

>>62199396
this

>>62199712
This^

I can't understand why they keep it enabled by default, it's stupid.

>>62196912
uuhhh...
((()))

>>62197473
What do you mean? You can normally connect to https sites via tor.

>>62196912
>Without TOR: You are amongst millions of other internet users. No reason for NSA to specifically target you because you blend in the crowd.

>Using TOR: You gain temporary """""security""""" before connecting to a compromised entry node and put on the black list. NSA is now targeting you and looking for any slip ups and excuses for them to put you in jail.

>>62196912
It's very progressive!

>>62198657
>but it is
Nobody sane who runs a hidden service uses it, however that does not mean that it is not possible to use it. (see facebook for example)
That being said, sane people would avoid it.

>>62200155
>NSA is now targeting you and looking for any slip ups and excuses for them to put you in jail.

Please don't be alarmed but they've probably already implanted tracking and listening devices under your skin and in your teeth wokebro.

>>62199349
>i dont think theyve blocked stormer, it should not even be possible. theyve only encouraged node operators to throttle the traffic that goes there.

topkek

>>62200155
The NSA is already tracking you, idiot. It's tracking everyone.

>>62199263
>childporn
>illegal weapon sales
>drug deals
What is wrong with these?

>Block racists because you disagree with them
They did not block anyone.

>>62196949
Really? Post nudes, right now.

>>62199712
This
Same for the security level on the tor button not being at max by default.

>>62197473
I believe the Internet is impossible for you to understand.

File: 1503147814725.png (61KB, 424x389px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 424x389px

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-project-defends-human-rights-racists-oppose

>>62200276
Lying on the internet? https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-abuse.html.en

>>62200217
they are watching but it doesnt mean they see you. generic mass surveillance is different from targeted surveillance and using tor/vpn is more likely to get you targeted

i used it regularly like 9 months ago when the wikileaks blockchain stuff moved from end to oc
havent really thought about it for a good five months or so now
i2p is preferable, freenet maybe moreso

File: 3d5d410c190b84ae479ac91eebb4404b.png (140KB, 253x343px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 253x343px

>>62200434
>tfw forgot to attach anime image

File: 1481187691351.gif (538KB, 318x400px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 318x400px

>>62200457
Please be more careful next time

>>62200155
You don't blend into the crowd though. If you aren't using Tor Browser, then you have a totally unique fingerprint which makes you identifiable as a unique individual. You can be tracked individually.

If you're using Tor Browser, then you no longer have a unique fingerprint. You just appear as a generic Tor Browser user, and can't be picked out from other Tor Browser users.

File: tor_levels.png (450KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1024x768px

1/8

File: unknown-2.png (288KB, 1200x872px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1200x872px

2/8

File: unknown-3.png (118KB, 540x482px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 540x482px

3/8

File: unknown-5.png (314KB, 1200x872px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1200x872px

4/8

>>62201100
>If you aren't using Tor Browser, then you have a totally unique fingerprint which makes you identifiable as a unique individual.

That's bullshit. If you use the most common browser on the most common operating system with the most common settings (ie-default), you look like most other people. You get "fingerprinted" by being uncommon.

File: unknown-6.png (138KB, 540x482px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 540x482px

5/8

File: unknown-7.png (133KB, 540x482px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 540x482px

6/8

File: unknown.png (65KB, 500x414px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x414px

7/8

File: unknown4.png (78KB, 500x414px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x414px

8/8

>>62201216
>>62201231
You should probably kill yourself. Thought crimes are not real crimes.

>>62201251
>>62201271
>>62201283
>>62201316
What is wrong with CP?

>>62201269
Everyone looks uncommon though because by default browsers leak information. Heck among your household your browsers probably aren't unique so theoretically just with your IP and user agent (and possibly browser extensions, fonts etc) it's possible to develop a fingerprint.

In addition to this there's things like transparent png and canvas fingerprinting. You can be fingered regardless of what browser you use. You can take steps to prevent this but since you ultimately have to trust the code a web page runs it's pointless (I'm not saying it's pointless to try just saying if someone wants to fingerprint you online they can and will perhaps the only way to stop this is to use a browser without cookies and javascript but even then the URL could be used for tracking / fingerprinting).

File: Several people are typing.png (7KB, 405x48px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 405x48px

>>62201520
>What is wrong with CP

File: 1481316926836.jpg (29KB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x480px

>>62201570
Yes, I wonder, what is wrong with it? Nobody gets harmed after all if some fat neet browses CP on tor.
Thought crimes are not real crimes.

And what is that picture supposed to mean?

>>62201269
You can test it yourself:
https://firstpartysimulator.org/

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>62201602
Nowhere did it say there were any thought crimes, just pointing out the autism in the few Tor users who use don't use Tor for illegal shit. And if you really don't think there's anything wrong with CP then you need to seek help.

>>62201696
>Nowhere did it say there were any thought crimes
At some parts it said "I support CP" like it is a bad thing.

>just pointing out the autism in the few Tor users who use don't use Tor for illegal shit
What is wrong with using tor for legal shit? Everyone is being tracked. Also, who told you that they are not using tor for illegal shit? They would deny it themselves ofc.

>if you really don't think there's anything wrong with CP then you need to seek help.
How so?

>>62201269
You are fingerprinted by your IP anyway.

>>62196912
Botnet.

>>62201692
does not work without js

>>62201734
Please show me exactly where it said that it was a thought crime. Only thing is it didn't, but you're perceiving it to say that because you yourself know it's wrong and you're just a sick baiter. And supporting CP is a bad thing.

Using Tor for legal shit supports the network for the illegal shit including CP.

Children are not sexual beings. They don't have or understand sexuality. CP is sexually abusing children. It's disgusting. Children are innocent.They are being abused if they are in porn.

File: 4chan-catalog.png (12KB, 1352x609px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1352x609px

>>62201757
4chan does not work without javascript

>>62201823
I make an exception.

>>62201789
See >>62201283

>And supporting CP is a bad thing.
Why?

>Using Tor for legal shit supports the network for the illegal shit including CP.
And?

>Children are not sexual beings. They don't have or understand sexuality
Sure, but we are talking about CP, not children.

>CP is sexually abusing children
No, raping children sexually abuses children. Watching CP does not.

>It's disgusting
For you. For me as well, but giant tits, old hags and 3dpd non-anime porn is also disgusting to me, however just because it is disgusting for me it does not mean that I will support for it to be banned.

>Children are innocent
Again, so what?

>They are being abused if they are in porn.
No, they are being abused if someone rapes them, not if they are in porn or if anyone watches said porn.

File: 1503689078179.png (119KB, 273x313px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 273x313px

SINCE WHEN DID 4CHAN BECOME SUCH PUSSIES???

IS IT BECAUSE OF SPOILED AUTISTIC CHILDREN THAT GOT BULLIED BY THE COOL KIDS OR SOMETHING?

>>62201852
>is
*are

>>62201789
DO YOU REALIZE THAT TOR IS USED FOR OTHER THINGS BESIDES CP THAT ARE NOT UNETHICAL BUT STILL BANNED BY EVIL AUTHORITARIANS??

TOR IS THE ONLY OPTION FOR ANYTHING THAT THE EVIL STATE DOES NOT DEEM ACCEPTABLE.

IF THE STATE WAS LIBERTARIAN AND NOT SUCH GAY JEWS THEN THEY WOULDNT HAVE TO SUPPORT CP BY PROXY.

>>62201883
What is capslock?

>>62201857
>>62201883
Why the roddit formatting?

>>62201831
>I only let 4chan owners fingerprint me.

File: 1503157461197.jpg (319KB, 1200x1194px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1200x1194px

>>62196912
It's a piece of shit made by retarded sjw.

>>62201944
What do you suggest instead then?

>>62201944
And why are you lying? https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-abuse.html.en

>>62201852
We might not be harmed but children were harmed in the making of that CP

>>62202007
Sure, they were harmed in making it, not in watching it however nor in distributing it.
So, tell me, what is wrong with CP on tor?

Hypocritical pieces of shit. Like, you can say I'm actually blue-pilled but the shit they did disgruntled me

>>62202022
It wouldn't be produced (as much) if it was much more difficult for it to be distributed. It's a circle. The problem is that they were harmed in making it. Not to mention that CP is also illegal. By watching and distributing it, you're encouraging the continuation of making CP.

>>62202084
>It wouldn't be produced (as much) if it was much more difficult for it to be distributed
I doubt that. The rapists rape people for their own pleasure.

>The problem is that they were harmed in making it.
that does not mean that there is anything wrong with watching it

>>62200434
Thank you for recommending it, but despite its technical advantages, I2P does have a smaller anonymity set and far fewer outproxies to mix with (they are not an inherent part of the I2P protocol or client and therefore quite rare, whereas most Tor traffic is from the internet). It may very well be that Tor is a better tool for your needs right now. I2P was particularly invaluable as a research project and learning exercise, and I'm quite sure future projects will be inspired by lessons learned in its creation and maintenance. For example, Bitcoin wouldn't have been created without it.

With the greatest respect to Ian Clarke et al, and recognising the important contributions it has made, I would find it extremely difficult to recommend that you should use, or even load, Freenet in 2017. Plausible deniability via probabilistic store-and-forward in a distributed datastore has, on numerous recent occasions, not survived contact with real world threat models, and due to the small anonymity set, bolting on an overlay network as an afterthought has not materially improved matters. I don't know what your use case is, but I can't think of any use case whose day would be improved by using Freenet.

>>62200399
Trying to convince people who are worried about surveillance not to use the only known really effective countermeasure to surveillance doesn't make a lot of sense unless you're on the side doing the surveilliance.

In fact, the usage of Tor, VPNs and/or proxies is common enough that really even at best, it is only useful to someone operating a mass surveillance system as an additional selector to narrow down a search already in progress, but wouldn't be a very useful constraint in any search. By itself it would not yield any useful information and would not get you "targeted" because it would target too many people, even in countries where such usage is unlawful. Visiting this thread would probably already have tagged you in the same way, by the way.

File: 1503049681170.jpg (385KB, 1296x1028px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1296x1028px

>>62196912
retards that like cp but get mad when they see a website with words that they dont like.

>>62200155
i2p is a thing

>>62196912
Realistically speaking, only pedos and criminals use it.

>>62201894
Cruise control bro

>>62202399
While that's true, it doesn't materially change the argument in the post you're replying to.

The post you're replying to is, of course, also ass-backwards. The anonymity set of someone not using an anonymity protocol is zero.

>>62201269
I don't think you understand the ridiculous number of ways you can be fingerprinted. Tor Browser is the only real way to fight against all of these things.

>>62199712
This
You also need to disable the Referrer

>>62202277
>By itself it would not yield any useful information and would not get you "targeted" because it would target too many people, even in countries where such usage is unlawful.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Tor/VPN/Proxies is what, maybe 5-10% of all internet traffic? They are widely used but far from being common to the average internet user. An agency like NSA could easily allocate extra resources to monitor those traffic more closely or log and decrypt in the future when processing power is more powerful.

I fucking hate /pol/. You can't have a discussion about Tor without /pol/yps ruining it with their shit memes.

>>62203334
Really ?

File: j1.png (129KB, 1013x659px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1013x659px

>>62203334
why do redditors hate /pol/ so much?

Oh hi /pol/

Tor is only as secure as the hardware you use it on, and that which it is hosted on. Despite being a rather perfect system in a vacuum, and when used correctly, it will fails in the number of attack vectors it provides. Nodes that aren't already hosted by the NSA likely have hardware and software backdoors. The computer which you connect to Tor with likely has the same issues if it's from the past decade.

TL;DR: Shit's fucked; write letters

File: 1451768311370.png (378KB, 847x469px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 847x469px

>>62203686
Because /pol/ is a bunch of crossboarding redditors

>>62203082
You're way overestimating that in terms of volume, but the number of users is still too high to be useful as anything but a tertiary selector at best.

Keys are ephemeral, and the buffers roll over. They only get full-take feeds for about 72 hours, and sure they can be selected after the fact using that, and pull out a fraction of traffic, but recording metadata that Tor/VPN/proxies have been used is often more useful than the actual data transferred.

Corporate VPNs, on the other hand, those are goldmines. That traffic gets squirreled away for forever, in case they get PSKs. (Never use PSKs.)

>>62196912
Well it was okay when it was just hitmen, illegal drugs and flooded with CP rape videos, but now those evil right wingers are spreading their evil lies about the religion of peace there, so it MUST go.