Re: Suggested IT Text... Edit or destroy as fitting.

Bill Weiss wrote:
> Michael(cozzi <at> cozziconsulting.com) <at> Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:44:03AM -0400:
>   
>
> Similar to all of these:
>
>  * To troubleshoot connectivity problems from the outside of their network
>    (i.e. to see what parts of the internet can or can't see their site).
>   

    Hi Bill,

    I like it.

    By using "ExitNodes" and "StrictExitNodes" you could specify which 
exit relay you would use for testing.

    Excellent- I hadn't thought of that.

    Michael

Re: Obfuscated URLs?

Max wrote:
> already in here:
> http://offsystem.sf.net <http://offsystem.sf.net/>

I've had a look at OFF system and I think I'd rather stick with Freenet
for such purposes.

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Martin Fick <mogulguy <at> yahoo.com
> <mailto:mogulguy <at> yahoo.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Obfuscated URL Paths?
> 
>     Would it be possible to create a URL or some longer string that
>     describes a hidden path through the tor network to a specific
>     hidden URL and to implement a routing mechanism to access
>     documents (files) using this "Obfuscated URL"?
> 
>     I am fully aware of hidden services, and I am suggesting something
>     that I think is quite different.  I am suggesting a way to point
>     someone to a file on the normal non-hidden internet without
>     telling them where I am pointing to!
> 
>     I envision an onion encrypted URL along with the exact path through
>     tor (the three hops) also onion encrypted.  This would be similar
>     to the way a client normally wraps requests through tor, but the
>     wrapping would happen up front and then the wrapper would become
>     the "Obfuscated URL" which could be handed off to someone else
>     obfuscating both the path through tor and the final destination to

Re: Obfuscated URLs?

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Fick <mogulguy <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

> In my scenario, the point of hard coding the path is to 
> obfuscate the final URL, how could this be done 
> differently?  In this scenario, it requires all 3 nodes 
> to decrypt the final URL, one node by itself cannot, 
> this should provide the same protection that you get
> today by surfing with tor, should it not?

It should. But hidden services provide this functionality already. I do
understand the potential difficulties in setting up a hidden service.
But I think it would be easier to automate this aspect of Tor then to
write a new protocol. (some more thoughts on this below)

 
> I don't see why this is more open to abuse than the
> general tor network, could you explain your reasoning?

Agreed.. I'm a security minded IT guy and since drive-by-downloads are
the top vector for computer infection any time I hear "obvascated URL"
and "Untraceable" in the same paragraph the is a knee jerk reaction to
see the security implications.

> 
> As for use cases, I envision that as a simple whistle 
> blower or reporter, I would post my content on various 
[snip]

OK I now have a clearer idea of what you are wanting to do:

FYI: router BillyGoat is offline

Re: FYI: router BillyGoat is offline

Unfortunately some ISPs just aren't willing to deal with the issues;
that's how it works. You could always run a non-exit relay if you wish
to, since they'll pretty much never have abuse complaints
(theoretically, you could receive complaints related to an end user
connecting to you, but that's quite unlikely). It's basically
impossible to run an exit node with an ISP that doesn't understand tor
or isn't willing to stand up for you in the instance of abuse
complaints; i've got an informal relationship with mine where all
abuse complaints are forwarded (as per their policy) and I reply to
them and the original sender with a template letter about Tor. I've
never had anything go beyond the first mailing, and never a complaint
from the ISP.

Anyway, rambling aside, if you wish to keep contributing, consider a
non-exit node (ExitPolicy reject *:*); other than the bandwidth, your
ISP would have no reason to complain about that.

  - John Brooks

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Kyle Williams<kyle.kwilliams <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> So some ass thought it would be great to spam from my node, because today I
> got a complaint about abuse.
>
> The node "BillyGoat" (FP: 12b9b187422b2a7752f861aa0b86e4d99fa88dc0) has been
> taken offline because of this.  I'm not going to argue with my hosting
> company as they support my websites, and I like having them.  I gave them
> the informational lecture about Tor and how it helps people, but they only
> care about the abuse.  Further more, the people on the other end of the
> phone don't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed.  This is the second
> time this has happened within a week of firing up a Tor server, and now I
> remember why I do not like running a exit node.
> Consider this just a FYI, router BillyGoat is down and will not be back
> online.
>
> Best regards,
> Kyle

Re: FYI: router BillyGoat is offline

Kyle Williams wrote:
> So some ass thought it would be great to spam from my node, because 
> today I got a complaint about abuse.
>
>
> The node "BillyGoat" (FP: 12b9b187422b2a7752f861aa0b86e4d99fa88dc0) 
> has been taken offline because of this.  I'm not going to argue with 
> my hosting company as they support my websites, and I like having 
> them.  I gave them the informational lecture about Tor and how it 
> helps people, but they only care about the abuse.  Further more, the 
> people on the other end of the phone don't seem like the sharpest tool 
> in the shed.  This is the second time this has happened within a week 
> of firing up a Tor server, and now I remember why I do not like 
> running a exit node.
>
> Consider this just a FYI, router BillyGoat is down and will not be 
> back online.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kyle

    Kyle,

    Just from an informational standpoint, what were your exit policies?

    Michael

Re: FYI: router BillyGoat is offline

Re: FYI: router BillyGoat is offline

Kyle Williams wrote:
> reject 0.0.0.0/8:* <http://0.0.0.0/8:*>
> reject 169.254.0.0/16:* <http://169.254.0.0/16:*>
> reject 127.0.0.0/8:* <http://127.0.0.0/8:*>
> reject 192.168.0.0/16:* <http://192.168.0.0/16:*>
> reject 10.0.0.0/8:* <http://10.0.0.0/8:*>
> reject 172.16.0.0/12:* <http://172.16.0.0/12:*>
> reject 66.109.20.52:*
> accept *:80
> accept *:443
> accept *:43
> reject *:*

    Kyle,

    One more question if you would indulge my curiosity. What service 
was the course of the "spam"?

    Michael

Re: FYI: router BillyGoat is offline

Michael wrote:
> Kyle Williams wrote:
>> reject 0.0.0.0/8:* <http://0.0.0.0/8:*>
>> reject 169.254.0.0/16:* <http://169.254.0.0/16:*>
>> reject 127.0.0.0/8:* <http://127.0.0.0/8:*>
>> reject 192.168.0.0/16:* <http://192.168.0.0/16:*>
>> reject 10.0.0.0/8:* <http://10.0.0.0/8:*>
>> reject 172.16.0.0/12:* <http://172.16.0.0/12:*>
>> reject 66.109.20.52:*
>> accept *:80
>> accept *:443
>> accept *:43
>> reject *:*
>
>    Kyle,
>
>    One more question if you would indulge my curiosity. What service 
> was the course of the "spam"?
>
>    Michael

    I'm replying to my own post because my comment makes me look like a 
moron.

    I was wondering if the complaint was about abuse of whois servers or 
web based services.

    Michael

Re: FYI: router BillyGoat is offline