[tor-relays] Is Kaspersky right to be concerned?

ra r.a at posteo.net
Sun Mar 9 15:17:42 UTC 2014

On Sunday 09 March 2014 14:02:39 Andrew Lewman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:03:32PM -0800, beatthebastards at inbox.com wrote 
1.0K bytes in 0 lines about:
> : Tor hidden services – a safe haven for cybercriminals
> : The inevitable move - 64-bit ZeuS has come enhanced with Tor
> : ChewBacca - a new episode of Tor-based Malware
> Replace the word "Tor" with "TCP/IP" and you can re-live the computer
> news headlines of the 1990s.
> Replace the word "Tor" with "peer to peer" and you can re-live the
> computer news headlines of the 2000s.

Though you are right to some extent, I think one has to distinguish between 
Tor and Tor hidden services. While Tor has it's socially laudable 
applications, the vast majority of Tor hidden service usage are in fact not. I 
would even go one step further and say: If hidden service usage does not 
change drastically, it would be better for Tor's credibility to remove the 
hidden service code base. But I am open for discussion on that.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20140309/0235e9c0/attachment.sig>

More information about the tor-relays mailing list