Talk:AnoNet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

what happened to this website, its offline? did they shut down? vpn servers dont work either —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Speaking Man (talkcontribs) 09:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that at least the public OpenVPN server (the 'client port') for AnoNet has gone away. Whatever sits there now does not listen to any OpenVPN connections, it seems. Crakkpot (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please use this page as a place to ask questions about AnoNet, so that the FAQ on the AnoNet public website can be updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.57.85.123 (talkcontribs).

Hi Anon,

followed instruction on your website, using Linux, used lsmod to see if 'Tun' is installed, it is. Placed all required files into /etc/openvpn. Currently getting the following error,

Cannot load certificate file client.crt: error:02001002:system library:fopen:No such file or directory: error:20074002:BIO routines:FILE_CTRL:system lib: error:140AD002:SSL routines:SSL_CTX_use_certificate_file:system lib

Did download the zipped files for a second time again, in case files were corrupted, still getting the same error

Any help appreciated

The anthill mob (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)The_Anthill_Mob


No, this is not the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. They exist so we can discuss the contents and quality of the article (which I think there is plenty of room for given the current state of the article). Haakon 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Haakon,

Apologies, but this is what the ano*** website states, to forward any queries, via this route. Cannot find any other source, do you know an alternative ??

The anthill mob (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)the Anthill Mob


fails to meet quality standards[edit]

  • Is not NPOV
  • Incomplete -- needs info on typical usage and relevance of anoNet.

I think the phrase "Even in the most liberal democratic nations, law enforcement authorities have been known to engage in privacy-breaching activities." is somewhat slanted. While it is /true/ it's patently unfair to characterize every FBI activity that involves such a network as a breach of privacy.

If someone is on Freenet or anoNet is trading child pornography, I fully support tracking them down and bringing them in. I am trying to rewrite it but it's hard not to devolve into a full-scale war over whether anonymous online networks are a good idea. Suggestions appreciated. Wrath0fb0b 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen the POV before I edited it heavily. Some POV, like the one you pointed out, still remains. I suspect it can more or less simply be ripped out. You can avoid flamewars simply by not adding more POV (such as whether traceability is good or bad etc). Haakon 09:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree Haakon, regardless of the activities being performed, it's still a breach of privacy. Rhetoric about saving the children does not change that the police would be raiding someplace that they were not wanted nor invited maas15 02:14AM, 25/5/07

I am one of the founders of anoNet and this article is horribly out of date. I am going to try and clean it up, but my wiki skills are not the best so please bear with me. Rn zippy 01:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

With the chaotic nature of random addressing, it is not necessary to hide link IP addresses. These are already known.[edit]

The current article states "With the chaotic nature of random addressing, it is not necessary to hide link IP addresses. These are already known." I don't quite understand. Does it mean "ISP provided IP addresses are known only by the members who you directly connect to." ? What about the fact that all documents published by the same author will be associated with the same VPN IP address ? It could help spies to build a database of facts about this author and/or do traffic analysis in order to find who he really is. Touisiau

CP's port number[edit]

Would it be possible to add port 80, 81 or 8080 to the ovpn config? This I ask because of the nature of some of our employers filtering by the port level and like to only allow certain port numbers and can't set up a server at home for various reasons to do this. So instead of port no. 5555, would the previous mentioned no.'s be appropriate or available? It *IS* a big thing to ask, but hopefully the CP admin will be able to fulfill this inquiry..

One more thing. Those of us who have actually peered with the CP's admin, will the only change that's needed is the IP listed in the new CP .conf listed on anonet.org?

Thanks!


No route to host[edit]

Hi, I followed instruction in anonet.org , I downloaded anonet.conf and the others files needed but on connecting with openvpn --config anonet.conf , I get : us=360349 read UDPv4 [EHOSTUNREACH]: No route to host (code=113) I got a similar error if I try with the other conf file (the one who use port 22) : us=77546 TCP: connect to 203.174.86.106:22 failed, will try again in 5 seconds: No route to host (errno=113) So I cannot even connect the first time to anonet, What should I do? —noname


CA doesnt match Client Port Certs[edit]

Doing some research, I have found that the CA provided in the zip file for the client port doesn't match the Client Certificates.

Can this be fixed soon?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narfzorttroz (talkcontribs) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

TLS Handshake failed : self signed certificate in certificate chain[edit]

I tried to connect after the update of 1/12/2008 and renaming the files in the zip according to clientport.conf but I get : Jan 4 21:39:54 2009 us=628033 VERIFY ERROR: depth=1, error=self signed certificate in certificate chain: /C=AN/ST=AN/L=Anonet/O=Anonet/CN=Anonet_CA/emailAddress=null@anonet.org Sun Jan 4 21:39:54 2009 us=628195 TLS_ERROR: BIO read tls_read_plaintext error: error:14090086:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_SERVER_CERTIFICATE:certificate verify failed Sun Jan 4 21:39:54 2009 us=628237 TLS Error: TLS object -> incoming plaintext read error Sun Jan 4 21:39:54 2009 us=628260 TLS Error: TLS handshake failed Sun Jan 4 21:39:54 2009 us=628424 TCP/UDP: Closing socket Sun Jan 4 21:39:54 2009 us=628485 SIGUSR1[soft,tls-error] received, process restarting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.198.13 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)