this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
161 points (96.5% liked)

Privacy

31278 readers
600 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 46 minutes ago

I have considered Tor safe for illicit activities for at least half a decade. Luckily, there's no need for me to be on there. But this is bad news for people living in places where speech is heavily regulated plus journalists and would-be whistle-blowers.

[–] h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 hours ago

As I read, they used timing analysis which should be preventable by using an anonymous VPN to connect to tor and streaming something over the VPN connection at the same time. Some of them support multi-hop, like mullvad, which will further complicate the timing analysis because of the aggregated traffic.

[–] sumguyonline@lemmy.world 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

First, randomize your mac, shutdown anything that can "dial home" (updates, sync, logged in apps, etc) then connect to internet then anonymous VPN, then connect to the tor network, use an anonymized browser with NO java enabled, never download anything -copy paste text, and screen cap images-, if your network drops the popo's are trying to do a "reconnect" attack to see if they can get an unprotected connection to the material you were looking at. Use a livedisk on USB and you likely won't get bios level attacks, as live disks make it harder to access your bios. Source: a boring ass individual that just wants the gov off their jock strap, suck it Joe my FBI agent, you know what you did.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 3 points 5 hours ago

a boring ass individual that just wants the gov off their jock strap, suck it Joe my FBI agent, you know what you did.

I also prefer my feds to earn their keep, I pay them good money for it.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 9 hours ago

What are you going to use instead?

Tor is the best tool you just need to know how to use it

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 36 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

The TOR network itself is safe - at least assuming the TLAs don't control at least half of the nodes, which is far from impossible. But let's assume...

The weak point comes from the browser: that's how the fuzz deanonymizes users. The only safe browser to use on TOR is the TOR browser, and that's the problem: it disables so many unsafe functionalities that it's essentially unusable on a lot of websites. So people use regular browsers over TOR, the browser leaks identifying data and that's how they get caught.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 3 points 4 hours ago

I mean, the advice I've heard for one who's threat model is "the feds are actively trying to identify me" is to have a dedicated burner computer that you do all of your illegal activities on and no other activities. Then of course on top of that avoid saving secrets onto the device and type them in manually every time (ephemeral distros like Tails are good for that)

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

My understanding is that Tor Browser works fine, there's just some dumb website owners that block Tor traffic by IP address.

[–] CCRhode@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And ... guess what ... www.bleepingcomputer.com, the source of the story, is one of those.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Maybe email them and let them know about the misconfiguration

Let them know that tor users can't read their article about Tor

[–] chappedafloat@lemmy.wtf 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Do you think it's better to use a VPN if you aren't using TOR Browser?

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

All VPNs do is change who has your browsing data: your ISP or the VPN operator. You may or may not trust either of them not to keep records, in either case you have no way of verifying this.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 12 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

ISPs definitely keep records. At least some VPNs claim that they don't, and that their networks are set up in such a way that they can't. Some organizations claim to validate the claims of the VPNs, but it's unclear if they're trustworthy.

So your choice is to use something that definitely keeps logs, or to use a company that at least says that they don't/can't.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The VPN company themselves may not keep logs. However, they might be a little black box somewhere in the data center...

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago

As Proton made evident, VPNs can be legally compelled to start keeping logs on specific accounts as the result of a court order. So if you're gonna do something incriminating, then I guess you should create a new account each time.

[–] communism@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, and there's also the fact that some VPNs such as Mullvad let you be anonymous so even if Mullvad were keeping logs, if you pay privately they have no way of knowing whose logs they are (unless the content itself of your internet history reveals your identity). Meanwhile your ISP definitely knows who you are, and absolutely will collaborate with the police if asked to.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You can pay anonymously, but if you regularly connect from your home IP address, it hardly matters.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I think the point here is to deny ISP data to sell.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

Yeah I use mullvad for mostly that reason myself.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 hours ago

I mean, you could set up your own VPN on a VPS and ensure it doesn't keep logs. You could also get a VPS in a different legal jurisdiction from where you're at.

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 20 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

If I understand correctly, stream isolation will route different connections through different circuits. If you're doing two different things of a sensitive nature, open different browsers and applications, use random user-induced delays in your actions/responses and PGP-encrypt everything. And listen to what the TOR project says about the mitigations. I have some reading to do myself I guess

[–] chappedafloat@lemmy.wtf 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

whonix docs is very good to learn about this stuff

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 9 hours ago

Heh, whonix docs for privacy have become the arch wiki for Linux

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

PGP? That's for email and isn't great

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 6 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

That's for encrypting text, regardless of the medium. Explain "not very good"?

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It uses the same public key unless you manually change it. You don't get the rolling keys provided by other systems

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I don't think I understand what you're implying. Are you arguing that PGP implements less secure operations because it doesn't have perfect forward secrecy? As far as I know there's not much out there in terms of encryption schemes for data at rest which includes PFS. Even AGE didn't have it last time I checked. If you know about something that does provide PFS for data at rest, let me know

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Well it's not very good, it's just pretty good.

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Possiblylinux127 seemed like he had founds faults in PGP's encryption which got me interested

[–] unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, I was just interested in making a pun based on the name. 😂

To be perfectly honest I was under the impression that we had collectively bailed on PGP in favor of GPG, but based on the Wikipedia article it seems like PGP is still getting updates so maybe that's not the case?

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

PGP is the protocol, GPG is the implementation. People tend to use GPG because it is FOSS.

Thank you for distilling that down, cleared up all of the confusion I had. Cheers.

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 53 points 1 day ago (14 children)

This attack has been known for years now. And tor is simply not able to defend against it without a complete redesign.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 30 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The potential for timing attacks has been known since the beginning of Tor. In other words, more than a decade. But that doesn't mean you can't defend against it. One way to defend against it is by having more nodes. Another way is to write clients that take into account the potential for timing attacks. Both of these were specifically mentioned in the article.

Based on what was in the article and what's in the history books, I'm not sure how to interpret your comment in a constructive way. Is there anything more specific you meant, that isn't contradicted by what's in the article?

[–] ShortN0te@lemmy.ml 6 points 15 hours ago

Yes, sorry i worded it incorrectly you can try to make it harder but timing attacks are still possible.

Nope, just a summary that this is just old news. There is nothing new in the article.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›