[tor-talk] tor project website change

[dns1983 at riseup.net]

I'm not in the position to talk about the architecture or other 
technical aspects because I'm not expert enough. I don't say that the 
network doesn't have problems.

But i think that some things you said are a bit of stretch; for example, 
why adversaries should finance tor project and publicly it if they have 
a malicious intent?

It would be interesting to me to know what other people think about what 
you said.


Il 29/03/19 03:08, grarpamp ha scritto:
> On 3/28/19,dns1983 at riseup.net  <dns1983 at riseup.net>  wrote:
>> I think you are affected by cognitive bias.
> Tor is effected by lack of external thought.
>
>> You are blindly looking only for bad things.
> Your adversaries are assuredly looking at those things and more.
> If you are not looking at them, you're done in mate.
>
>> Of course the network is not perfect, but is the best we have
> That's apologist talk to avoid clean slate researching
> and creating better architectures, even to the
> then at that point possibly legit point of being
> able to actually make that declaration.
>
>> and we should make our best to improve it.
> Tor is and will always be 20 year old architecture
> from time before current adversary models were
> say matured if not known. Tor's relatively
> simple and effectively static with only marginal
> improvements left. And has outright traded off
> and/or discarded design models that others
> might not today.  (And obviously Tor arch cannot
> be substantially changed while still calling itself Tor.)
>
> Before declaring Tor sufficient against today threats
> you need to analyse it against today threats
> vs new networks being research and deploy
> against today threats.
>
>> trying to delegitimate everything.
> Those concerned with messengers vs
> messages are prone to miss some dead canaries.