Except that with the money that the government has, they broke it a while ago. Notwithstanding zero days, one can essentially brute-force it with enough funding
Do you have an actual source? Anyone can break anything with enough effort as nothing is perfect. They key is that it makes targeting all users difficult.
It sounds like they just don’t want you to use Tor. If there was some better program that might be different but Tor is better than no Tor
The US probably runs a huge number of TOR nodes, and can therefore do correlation analysis* to unmask TOR users. I’m not an expert, so don’t take this statement at face value, but that’s my understanding. Also keep in mind that if your threat model includes the NSA or similar agencies, you are probably overly paranoid or else you are fucked.
*edit to add: this is called a “Sybil” attack. Look it up in relation to TOR. Again, this doesn’t mean that TOR isn’t perfectly secure for most threat models, but neither is it impervious.
They do run lots of nodes. And thank god too, the more the better it is for us all.
The ability for them to use those nodes to track Tor users is laughingly fleeting, if you’re running an up-to-date version of TAILS and not doing something stupid like checking your [email protected] at the same time as you’re uploading docs to SecureDrpp
How would I have specific evidence that US intelligence (who created TOR, btw) runs a large number (majority?) of exit nodes? I happen to think it is quite likely, but if you read my comment carefully, you can see that I did not present a statement of fact. It’s not ‘misinformation’ but I would understand if you wanted to call it FUD.
Lol. Doesn’t matter if you don’t believe me, but you’d be insane to think that the NSA hasn’t actively tried to exploit the TOR network for surveillance
That would make Qubes+Whonix an absolute nightmare for the NSA.
Except that’s not true
Tor is way harder for the NSA to break than anything else.
Funny because they created Tor
They actually didn’t. That would be the DoD. Also that changes nothing. Tor is the best tool we have against surveillance and censorship.
Except that with the money that the government has, they broke it a while ago. Notwithstanding zero days, one can essentially brute-force it with enough funding
Do you have an actual source? Anyone can break anything with enough effort as nothing is perfect. They key is that it makes targeting all users difficult.
It sounds like they just don’t want you to use Tor. If there was some better program that might be different but Tor is better than no Tor
The US probably runs a huge number of TOR nodes, and can therefore do correlation analysis* to unmask TOR users. I’m not an expert, so don’t take this statement at face value, but that’s my understanding. Also keep in mind that if your threat model includes the NSA or similar agencies, you are probably overly paranoid or else you are fucked.
*edit to add: this is called a “Sybil” attack. Look it up in relation to TOR. Again, this doesn’t mean that TOR isn’t perfectly secure for most threat models, but neither is it impervious.
They do run lots of nodes. And thank god too, the more the better it is for us all.
The ability for them to use those nodes to track Tor users is laughingly fleeting, if you’re running an up-to-date version of TAILS and not doing something stupid like checking your [email protected] at the same time as you’re uploading docs to SecureDrpp
Do you have evidence of this? Because without evidence you are just spreading misinformation
How would I have specific evidence that US intelligence (who created TOR, btw) runs a large number (majority?) of exit nodes? I happen to think it is quite likely, but if you read my comment carefully, you can see that I did not present a statement of fact. It’s not ‘misinformation’ but I would understand if you wanted to call it FUD.
What your describing is a fallacy
Neat.
This is exactly what they did
Lies.
Lol. Doesn’t matter if you don’t believe me, but you’d be insane to think that the NSA hasn’t actively tried to exploit the TOR network for surveillance
Classic motte and bailey argument.