Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
What makes TorChat so dangerous?
Pardon? I don't believe it is terribly dangerous. I mean it isn't 100% safe, but as far as anonymous encrypted conversations go, it's basically the best option I know of. Everything else either reveals your identity or isn't encrypted at all. Really what TorChat does is set up a hidden Tor service that people connect to in order to chat with you. It's about as safe as any hidden Tor service, such as the Silk Road site (or any onion site). I'm not sure who said it's dangerous...?
QuoteTor doesn't encrypt!
It only hides your ip and with that , the place where you are, nothing more !
You are talking complete bullshit. The Tor network is fully encrypted with PGP/AES encryption. Noone can read the information sent through it.
The only thing that can be read is if you use clearnet sites via tor, because the connection from the last tor node to the actual website is a standard http connection and therefore unencrypted. Connections to hidden services are completely unreadable.
The additional Pgp encryption we use on Silkroad is in case LE or someone else gains control over the physical server.
In a very rough sense, yes.
As a regular Tor user, your client makes requests and open connections to other servers. When you (effectively) become a server, because your client is a hidden service, others can open connections to you. That's where new attacks come in.
It's *kind of* like broadcasting your online status, and allowing strangers to find you.
mephedrone
I am curious to kow why...
just a quick FYI:
Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
Hebephilia is one of several types of chronophilia (a preference for a sexual partner who appears to be of a specific age), in this case a primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11–14 years old
Pedophilia is characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13
Yeah that is how the rings with producers operate. I suppose there is an argument for making it illegal to request somebody molests a child. It is already illegal to ask for somebody to kill a person, and I do not have a problem with this law. So I am okay to keep it illegal to ask another person to molest a child, but I am still entirely against making it illegal for a person to view the images of the molestation if they did not ask for them to be produced or produce them themselves.Even without requesting it, viewers can still reward the producer of child pornography by heightening his status in the community (by giving him rep points, karma, thanking him, complimenting him, or donating bitcoins to him).
I am more concerned about protecting the victims of child pornography than the consumers of it. The freedom to view child pornography is not a freedom worth protecting in view of the damage that it indirectly causes to children (not to mention the viewers themselves, who are corrupted by viewing such material). Freedom is not an end in itself; it should be subordinate to the fulfillment of one's primary responsibilities to humanity, which include protecting children from abuse.
Allowing child pornography encourages abuse. It may be free, but abusers are encouraged to produce pornographic material by the respect they earn from other pedophiles in the forums in which they distribute their material.
For example, a pedophile might start start a thread entitled 'My 5 Year Old Daughter'. Other posters will respond by posting 'requests' in which they ask the original poster to perform a specified sexual activity upon the child and post photographs of this activity. After posting the requested photographs, the original poster will then receive a higher status in the community (indicated by positive reputation points or 'karma'). Some members may even donate bitcoins to him.
This isn't just speculation. This is how internet pedophile rings actually operate.
really? The majority of Tor hard-candy sites seem to be paid ones. And what about like third-world porn studios that charge for reuests? Is what Im describing even a thing?
I dont know if it's just about youth and fertility, or maybe something more. I dont really know, but I often find a picture of a 14-year old more attractive than of an 18 year-old. Almost as if theres an appeal to a girl that is sensitive, and not quite, but mostly fully sexually developed. though maybe it might just be because Im 16, or maybe that most of the underage pornography I'm exposed to is of girls I personally know
Apparently, the self-driven enterprises of self-employed cam whores is also one of the results of teen nudity that is considered negative. But if youre a girl who decides that youre going to make some money by cam-whoring, you take the initiative to get that set up, and youre smart enough to have jumped through all the necessary hoops(like all the .onion teen camwoheres, who had to have been tech-savvy and enterprising enough to have set up both Tor and Bitcoin), then youre probably also fairly secure about your sexuality, have a moderately high self-esteem, and have a certain degree of mental stability.
This wouldnt excuse people who were to extort girls, but extortion of below 18 girls is a lot more common than for adults. If an adult woman's Facbeook gets hacked and filled with nude pics of that woman, it's not going to be nearly as devestating to her social life as it would be if she was 16. Underage sexuality has largely been painted as something to be ashamed of. The shame of being a slut applies a lot less to adults. Thus, underage-nude-picture extortion wouldnt soon fail to carry a lot of it's impact, if sexuality of 15+ girls was accepted.
1 bit of entropy, where do you get that?
If the attacker knows it's only upper or lower case characters, then it's 270 log2 52, or 1539 bits.
If the attacker knows that it's composed of English words, then it's 53 log2 80000, or 836 bits, for 53 words and assuming a standard dictionary of 80,000 words.
I suppose an attacker could use statistics on word patterns in English sentences to lower the overall entropy, since some words are more likely to follow other words, and some words never follow each other, but I imagine it would still be in the hundreds of bits. Maybe in that sense it would be 200-500 bits.
We present an estimate of an upper bound of 1.75 bits for the entropy of characters in printed
English, obtained by constructing a word trigram model and then computing the cross-entropy
between this model and a balanced sample of English text. We suggest the well-known and widely
available Brown Corpus of printed English as a standard against which to measure progress in
language modeling and offer our bound as the first of what we hope will be a series of steadily
decreasing bounds.
We do not doubt that one can reduce the cross-entropy below 1.75 bits per charac-
ter. A simple way to do this is to find more reliable estimates of the parameters of the
model by using a larger collection of English text for training.
(English prose has only
1-2 bits of entropy per character, and provides very bad passphrases),
