[tor-talk] Not comfortable with the new single-hop system merged into Tor
cannon at cannon-ciota.info
Wed Dec 21 09:40:00 UTC 2016
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 12/21/2016 04:38 AM, hikki at Safe-mail.net wrote:
> I just think that this new single-hop system should have been reserved for a
> different Tor source/installation, dedicated only to non-anonymous hidden
> services, not merge it with the regular Tor software. And this for security.
> I once witnessed a software (non-Tor related) that had a special function
> which was disabled by default, but was accidentally enabled due to a bug
> that occured during special circumstances, causing big trouble for some. In
> this case it caused a big money loss for some, but with the Tor software we
> are talking about the lives and wellbeing of humans.
> How do I know that my hidden service is really running anonymously, and not with just 1-hop, besides just trusting the config defaults?
> Please prove me wrong. I'm just concerned here, and just want some feedback.
> Thanks for understanding!
I believe the new single-hop is a great option for some situation such as if a website does not need to be anonymous but yet would still like to have a .onion address so users can still remain anonymous or take advantage of the higher security of .onion addresses over that of clearnet, and with advantage of less latency over that of a full hidden service.
However you do bring up a good point. This new single-hop system should remain a feature, but should not come as default but should be an "add-on pack" that should have to be downloaded or compiled seperately.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
PGP Fingerprint: 2BB5 15CD 66E7 4E28 45DC 6494 A5A2 2879 3F06 E832
Email: cannon at cannon-ciota.info
NOTICE: ALL EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE NOT SIGNED/ENCRYPTED WITH PGP SHOULD BE CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY FORGED, AND NOT PRIVATE.
If this matters to you, use PGP or bitmessage.
More information about the tor-talk