A anonymous VPN program, how does it work? I program so don't be too simple, but here's what I envision after reading the below:
1. after you install the anonymizer software, your browser can, if configured correctly, connect to the anonymizer company's servers via HTTPS. Thus the data from your PC to the anonymizer's servers cannot be read by your ISP, or a Wi-Fi 'hotspot' such as at a hotel.
2. when the data (encrypted via HTTPS as in step 1) gets to the anonymizer company's servers, one of two things must happen. First, either the ultimate destination must support HTTPS (by ultimate destination I mean say you want to connect to Facebook), or, the anonymizer company's servers must decrypt from HTTPS and send your data to the ultimate destination unencrypted. In this second case, everybody inbetween the anonymizer's servers and the ultimate destination can read your data, but at least your ISP or hotel hotspot could not.
BTW, I think the most popular sites like Facebook, Yahoo, Hotmail do have HTTPS web services, so the first option in 2. is available, but I think most website do not. That was the implication I got reading between the lines from another passage.
Further, I think that Steganos Internet Anonym is pretty good, albeit a bit expensive at $99, since it allows you faster access to their servers than the free services like CyberGhost VPN, which is too slow from what I've read (unless you upgrade to the premium version).
The Software - this is the nuts and bolts of the anonymity machine that deals with network data traffic and where to route it. Normally, our network data flows straight through to our ISP and out, which means our ISP keeps tabs on us all the time. Specialised software allows us to encrypt our network data so that when it passes through our ISP, they won't be able to see what it is.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 03:59:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote: > A anonymous VPN program, how does it work?
Yeah, I remember when Ray was trolling the fitness and weights newsgroups and BBs trying to get medical advice on why his one of his nuts hurt. He refused to admit to what was an obvious fact to all of us that was when you whack-off 6-10x/day, and are RHanded, chances are your going to have a sore right testicle. *lol*
[I'm following up to Ari because my news server doesn't have the original article. I don't have anything to say about Ari's off-topic ranting.]
Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 03:59:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote:
> > A anonymous VPN program, how does it work?
Not very well, I should imagine.
The purpose of a VPN is to join together several geographically separate networks or hosts so that they can communicate as if they were connected by a secure physical network, even though they really only have the hostile public Internet. Inviting the adversary into your secure network seems like a really stupid plan.
You might be interested in deniably authenticating VPNs. The one I use has this property.
On Nov 20, 9:49 pm, m...@distorted.org.uk (Mark Wooding) wrote:
> > > A anonymous VPN program, how does it work?
> Not very well, I should imagine.
> The purpose of a VPN is to join together several geographically separate > networks or hosts so that they can communicate as if they were connected > by a secure physical network, even though they really only have the > hostile public Internet. Inviting the adversary into your secure > network seems like a really stupid plan.
> You might be interested in deniably authenticating VPNs. The one I use > has this property.
Thanks. Perhaps you missed my OP. I repeat it below.
Am I right about how it works? Please let's ignore the semantics...how does Steganos Internet Anonym work?
RL
A anonymous VPN program, how does it work? I program so don't be too simple, but here's what I envision after reading the below: 1. after you install the anonymizer software, your browser can, if configured correctly, connect to the anonymizer company's servers via HTTPS. Thus the data from your PC to the anonymizer's servers cannot be read by your ISP, or a Wi-Fi 'hotspot' such as at a hotel. 2. when the data (encrypted via HTTPS as in step 1) gets to the anonymizer company's servers, one of two things must happen. First, either the ultimate destination must support HTTPS (by ultimate destination I mean say you want to connect to Facebook), or, the anonymizer company's servers must decrypt from HTTPS and send your data to the ultimate destination unencrypted. In this second case, everybody inbetween the anonymizer's servers and the ultimate destination can read your data, but at least your ISP or hotel hotspot could not. BTW, I think the most popular sites like Facebook, Yahoo, Hotmail do have HTTPS web services, so the first option in 2. is available, but I think most website do not. That was the implication I got reading between the lines from another passage. Further, I think that Steganos Internet Anonym is pretty good, albeit a bit expensive at $99, since it allows you faster access to their servers than the free services like CyberGhost VPN, which is too slow from what I've read (unless you upgrade to the premium version). Did I get it right? RL http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-anonymous-surfing-service.h... The Software - this is the nuts and bolts of the anonymity machine that deals with network data traffic and where to route it. Normally, our network data flows straight through to our ISP and out, which means our ISP keeps tabs on us all the time. Specialised software allows us to encrypt our network data so that when it passes through our ISP, they won't be able to see what it is.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:50:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote: > 1. after you install the anonymizer software, your browser can, if > configured correctly, connect to the anonymizer company's servers via > HTTPS. Thus the data from your PC to the anonymizer's servers cannot > be read by your ISP, or a Wi-Fi 'hotspot' such as at a hotel.
You would want to client-shell side implement your hash, this is very important to the connection solidarity.
> 2. when the data (encrypted via HTTPS as in step 1) gets to the > anonymizer company's servers, one of two things must happen. First, > either the ultimate destination must support HTTPS (by ultimate > destination I mean say you want to connect to Facebook), or, the > anonymizer company's servers must decrypt from HTTPS and send your > data to the ultimate destination unencrypted. In this second case, > everybody inbetween the anonymizer's servers and the ultimate > destination can read your data, but at least your ISP or hotel > hotspot > could not.
Wrong! You forget the "Alfredo Attack", very simple!
> BTW, I think the most popular sites like Facebook, Yahoo, Hotmail do > have HTTPS web services, so the first option in 2. is available, but > I > think most website do not. That was the implication I got reading > between the lines from another passage.
You wont find anything in the Bible passages ????
> Further, I think that Steganos Internet Anonym is pretty good, albeit > a bit expensive at $99, since it allows you faster access to their > servers than the free services like CyberGhost VPN, which is too slow > from what I've read (unless you upgrade to the premium version). > Did I get it right? > RL > http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-anonymous-surfing-service.h... > The Software - this is the nuts and bolts of the anonymity machine > that deals with network data traffic and where to route it. Normally, > our network data flows straight through to our ISP and out, which > means our ISP keeps tabs on us all the time. Specialised software > allows us to encrypt our network data so that when it passes through > our ISP, they won't be able to see what it is.
On Nov 21, 8:46 pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:50:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote: > > 1. after you install the anonymizer software, your browser can, if > > configured correctly, connect to the anonymizer company's servers via > > HTTPS. Thus the data from your PC to the anonymizer's servers cannot > > be read by your ISP, or a Wi-Fi 'hotspot' such as at a hotel.
> You would want to client-shell side implement your hash, this is very > important to the connection solidarity.
Are you talking about password security and length of password, using more than just alphabet letters, etc? I assume so.
> Wrong! You forget the "Alfredo Attack", very simple!
Googling this I could not find it. What is it? It's not a food item is it? " Fettucine Alfredo (aka "Heart Attack on a Plate")
> > Further, I think that Steganos Internet Anonym is pretty good, albeit > > a bit expensive at $99, since it allows you faster access to their > > servers than the free services like CyberGhost VPN, which is too slow > > from what I've read (unless you upgrade to the premium version). > > Did I get it right? > Well done wont worlk but nice try
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:43:27 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote: > On Nov 21, 8:46 pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:50:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote: >>> 1. after you install the anonymizer software, your browser can, if >>> configured correctly, connect to the anonymizer company's servers via >>> HTTPS. Thus the data from your PC to the anonymizer's servers cannot >>> be read by your ISP, or a Wi-Fi 'hotspot' such as at a hotel.
>> You would want to client-shell side implement your hash, this is very >> important to the connection solidarity.
> Are you talking about password security and length of password, using > more than just alphabet letters, etc? I assume so.
No the computational length of the positioned algorithm.
>> Wrong! You forget the "Alfredo Attack", very simple!
> Googling this I could not find it. What is it? It's not a food item is > it? " Fettucine Alfredo (aka "Heart Attack on a Plate")
Sorry, I meant "Alfresco Attack", binary bit bump-replacement.
>>> Further, I think that Steganos Internet Anonym is pretty good, albeit >>> a bit expensive at $99, since it allows you faster access to their >>> servers than the free services like CyberGhost VPN, which is too slow >>> from what I've read (unless you upgrade to the premium version). >>> Did I get it right?
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:49:24 +0000, Mark Wooding wrote: > [I'm following up to Ari because my news server doesn't have the > original article. I don't have anything to say about Ari's off-topic > ranting.]
> Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 03:59:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote:
Don't apologize. This jerk who is trying to recruit suckers into his cause is probably not even participating in the activity himself. He wants you to do the destructive dirty work and then pay the penalty for your fall when caught.
>> Study: Anonymous hacktivists not very anonymous
> Very good article!
One sided, pro-USA and good as in "there is good shit and bad shit".
NOT.
These kiddie-hackers are certainly going down the tubes and they have a great deal in common with you and the rest of your Anonymousie-kiddie, dull witted, inexperienced and naive posters on the privacy groups.
You children don't get it, not even close, you think you can overcome, hide, outwit or "pop upside the head and run" the intelligence agencies of the world collectively or separately.
When corrected of this eight grade delusion of kiddie grandeur, by either reality or Ari, you scream, run home to Mommy and whine about how you got done in by Mr. Head Hacker.
>>> Study: Anonymous hacktivists not very anonymous
>> Very good article!
> One sided, pro-USA and good as in "there is good shit and bad shit".
> NOT.
> These kiddie-hackers are certainly going down the tubes and they have > a great deal in common with you and the rest of your > Anonymousie-kiddie, dull witted, inexperienced and naive posters on > the privacy groups.
> You children don't get it, not even close, you think you can overcome, > hide, outwit or "pop upside the head and run" the intelligence > agencies of the world collectively or separately.
> When corrected of this eight grade delusion of kiddie grandeur, by > either reality or Ari, you scream, run home to Mommy and whine about > how you got done in by Mr. Head Hacker.
> You pay for your arrogance and stupidity in life, one way or the > other. Thank Yahweh.
Just so you know, and to further humiliate you, at the bottom of this associated article:
"@ lisa_chang LOL. You think that helps you? You are one funny person. Run sewer rat. Run. If you really think that the combined forces of local, state, federal, and yes since you are fraking with international sites, and internal resources can't track you down you are as delusional as your stance that everything should be free and open. I would like to introduce you to the real world where every damn person , company, and government on this planet has secrets. even you since you aren't willing to ID yourself. *shrugs* Doesn't really matter. You leave fingerprints behind no matter where you go and no matter what proxies you have in place. Do you have any idea why type of computer forensics tools the gov has at its disposal? :D *sits back with popcorn waiting for the first arrest or extradition request to occur.*
Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:49:24 +0000, Mark Wooding wrote:
> > [I'm following up to Ari because my news server doesn't have the > > original article. I don't have anything to say about Ari's off-topic > > ranting.]
> > Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 03:59:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote:
> >>> A anonymous VPN program, how does it work?
> > Not very well, I should imagine.
> Not my post dumbass which is why killfiles and other bullshit losers > like you use fuck up Usenet threads.
You're obviously almost as stupid as you are offensive. You randomly crosspost your followup to two additional groups (namely alt.privacy and sci.crypt), a followup whose original contribution is limited to a semiliterate and somewhat crude anecdote; fail to comprehend the fairly clear notice I wrote at the top of my article, and the completely conventional use of Usenet quoting (indeed, I would have been remiss had I failed to acknowledge my use of a second-hand source); and then complain that this somehow messes up threads, which is obviously wrong because I preserved the References headers correctly.
(No, the problem wasn't with killfiles: my news server simply doesn't carry alt.computer.security. It is a long established fact that not all Usenet sites carry all groups.)
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:14:05 +0000, Mark Wooding wrote: > Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:49:24 +0000, Mark Wooding wrote:
>>> [I'm following up to Ari because my news server doesn't have the >>> original article. I don't have anything to say about Ari's off-topic >>> ranting.]
>>> Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 03:59:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>>> A anonymous VPN program, how does it work?
>>> Not very well, I should imagine.
>> Not my post dumbass which is why killfiles and other bullshit losers >> like you use fuck up Usenet threads.
> You're obviously almost as stupid as you are offensive. You randomly > crosspost your followup to two additional groups (namely alt.privacy and > sci.crypt), a followup whose original contribution is limited to a > semiliterate and somewhat crude anecdote; fail to comprehend the fairly > clear notice I wrote at the top of my article, and the completely > conventional use of Usenet quoting (indeed, I would have been remiss had > I failed to acknowledge my use of a second-hand source); and then > complain that this somehow messes up threads, which is obviously wrong > because I preserved the References headers correctly.
Wrong.
Not my post you quoted and all your oratorical diversions won't change the facts. So take your arrogance and double-downed idiocy and shove them directly up your oversized asscrack.
Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes: > Not my post you quoted and all your oratorical diversions won't change > the facts.
The article I followed up was either posted by you or is a fine forgery, posted from the correct news server and with convincing looking headers.
Do you deny that you quoted the first line of RayLopez99's original article with that specific attribution? If so, you have my apologies, for I was misled though I acted in good faith; though I should have expected an explicit claim of forgery rather than a tirade of baseless accusations aimed at myself.
It appears clear, sir, that you are neither interested nor capable of a reasoned argument on this point. Good day.
> You children don't get it, not even close, you think you can overcome, > hide, outwit or "pop upside the head and run" the intelligence > agencies of the world collectively or separately.
You dumbfucking fascist serf. Nobody can break today's freely available crypto when you use it the right way and they probably don't even have enough power to go after you on TOR. Even if they could figure out how to trap you on TOR unless you're a motherfucking raghead terrorist they won't have time for you. Now that WikiLeaks has everybody running scared what little cooperation between 3LA's there was is going to dry up. Nobody is going to waste time busting small time punks and expose what they can do when they have bigger fish to fry. Its all a balance.
You've been screeching at remailer users for years because nobody was ever busted for posting their comments using one. Ha ha fuckhead statist! Eat shit!
Not every "privacy service" is worth anything (most aren't) but it doesn't mean there aren't ways to insure privacy and anonymity. You're too stupid and arrogant to be able to realize the difference between ones that work and ones that don't.
You can't rule out rubberhose crypto or George W. Bush Official Waterboard Crypto but if you use anonymous tools the right way its not going to be worth finding who you are unless you're a motherfucking raghead terrorist.
> Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes: > Not my post you quoted and all your oratorical diversions won't change > the facts. > The article I followed up was either posted by you or is a fine forgery, > posted from the correct news server and with convincing looking headers. > Do you deny that you quoted the first line of RayLopez99's original > article with that specific attribution? If so, you have my apologies, > for I was misled though I acted in good faith; though I should have > expected an explicit claim of forgery rather than a tirade of baseless > accusations aimed at myself. > It appears clear, sir, that you are neither interested nor capable of a > reasoned argument on this point. Good day.
See the post below as to what you are dealing with here:
Subject : Ari Silverstein Newsgroups : alt.privacy Message ID : <6f578044685e363c9f359a39e78b2...@dizum.com>
On 14 Dec 2010 23:50:56 -0000, Kulin Remailer wrote:
>> You children don't get it, not even close, you think you can overcome, >> hide, outwit or "pop upside the head and run" the intelligence >> agencies of the world collectively or separately.
> You dumbfucking..
<snipped bullshit unread and binned>
Here's the way this works. If you want to post Amonymousily, go right ahead. But don't quote yourself in doing so.
Idiots. I guess this is why they post anonymousily, hide their fears of being publicly exposed as mentally retarded.
On 14 Dec 2010 23:50:56 -0000, Kulin Remailer wrote:
> You dumbfucking fascist serf.
PooseyII, here, loyal American. :)
> Nobody can break today's freely available crypto when you use it the > right way and they probably don't even have enough power to go > after you on TOR.
Since you did not name the aggressor nor the cryptography I guess I will have to agree. /shrug/
> Even if they could figure out how to > trap you on TOR unless you're a motherfucking raghead terrorist they won't > have time for you.
Only terrorists are tracked for Internet use? Good news for international firearms dealers and drug lords :)
> Now that WikiLeaks has /everybody/ running scared what little > cooperation between 3LA's there was is going to dry up. Nobody is > going to waste time busting small time punks and expose what they > can do when they have bigger fish to fry. Its all a balance.
I forgot to run, what is it I am to be scared?
> You've been screeching at remailer users for years
No, I haven't.
> because nobody was ever busted for posting their comments using one. > Ha ha fuckhead statist!
I'll take your word although I doubt that you can produce verification.
> Eat shit!
Before or after tonight Duck la Orange?
> Not every "privacy service" is worth anything (most aren't) but it doesn't > mean there aren't ways to insure privacy and anonymity. You're too stupid > and arrogant to be able to realize the difference between ones that work and > ones that don't.
Yes, tell me, which ones do and which ones don't!
> You can't rule out rubberhose crypto or George W. Bush Official Waterboard > Crypto but if you use anonymous tools the right way its not going to be > worth finding who you are unless you're a motherfucking raghead terrorist.
You hung on that word "raghead". I'll have to Google and see if there are any other terrorists.
>Nobody can break today's freely available >crypto when you use it the right way and they probably don't even have >enough power to go after you on TOR.
Actually, since the TOR network is so small, recovering traffic analysis information about a significant fraction of TOR traffic doesn't require huge resources and it is quite easy to build the required systems.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:52:03 +0000 (UTC), Kristian Gj steen wrote: > Kulin Remailer <remai...@reece.net.au> wrote: >>Nobody can break today's freely available >>crypto when you use it the right way and they probably don't even have >>enough power to go after you on TOR.
> Actually, since the TOR network is so small, recovering traffic analysis > information about a significant fraction of TOR traffic doesn't require > huge resources and it is quite easy to build the required systems.
Now strictly speaking that's mostly true, for someone who is watching *only* your internet connection; but it does give anyone except the well clued-up the impression that Tor prevents people like NSA from learning what sites you visit - which Tor doesn't.
The quote gives people a false sense of security, and there is nothing on the front webpage which indicates that Tor is pretty well useless against major agencies (or at the very least, it does not reliably protect the user's traffic data against them).
And that is bad.
It should say there, in big bold letters: "Tor won't protect you against the NSA or similar agencies". -- "The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. - Zbigniew Brzezinski
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:52:03 +0000 (UTC), Kristian Gjøsteen wrote: > Kulin Remailer <remai...@reece.net.au> wrote: >>Nobody can break today's freely available >>crypto when you use it the right way and they probably don't even have >>enough power to go after you on TOR.
> Actually, since the TOR network is so small, recovering traffic analysis > information about a significant fraction of TOR traffic doesn't require > huge resources and it is quite easy to build the required systems.
I am no expert on this matter but what I do know, I agree. Traffic analysis in a ToR network for those with the resources does not appear to be complex.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 03:03:17 -0500, PooseyII wrote: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:52:03 +0000 (UTC), Kristian Gj steen wrote:
>> Kulin Remailer <remai...@reece.net.au> wrote: >>>Nobody can break today's freely available >>>crypto when you use it the right way and they probably don't even have >>>enough power to go after you on TOR.
>> Actually, since the TOR network is so small, recovering traffic analysis >> information about a significant fraction of TOR traffic doesn't require >> huge resources and it is quite easy to build the required systems.
> I am no expert on this matter but what I do know, I agree. Traffic > analysis in a ToR network for those with the resources does not appear > to be complex.
Mark Wooding wrote: > Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:49:24 +0000, Mark Wooding wrote: >> > [I'm following up to Ari because my news server doesn't have the >> > original article. I don't have anything to say about Ari's off-topic >> > ranting.]
>> > Ari Silverstein <AriSilverst...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 03:59:39 -0800 (PST), RayLopez99 wrote:
>> >>> A anonymous VPN program, how does it work?
>> > Not very well, I should imagine.
>> Not my post dumbass which is why killfiles and other bullshit losers >> like you use fuck up Usenet threads.
> You're obviously almost as stupid as you are offensive. You randomly > crosspost your followup to two additional groups (namely alt.privacy and > sci.crypt), a followup whose original contribution is limited to a
<snip>
That's Sliverdick's contribution in total, and those two groups in particular are places where ol' Sliverdick has been handed some of his most amusing ass kickings. ;)
P.S.
If you want to see one of those thrashings in all its glory look up the "Bar Code Encryption" idiocy Sliverdick god reamed over in the privacy groups. Quite laughable in that phatetic sorta way, and a real insight into the way an emotionally stunted mind deals with being corrected. Some of my best work ever I tell ya'!
