Talk:Tor (anonymity network)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Networking / Software / Security (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Cryptography / Computer science  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Free Software / Software  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Mass surveillance (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Tor (anonymity network) is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

partial impartiality[edit]

"An extract of a Top Secret appraisal by the National Security Agency (NSA) characterized Tor as "the King of high secure, low latency Internet anonymity" with "no contenders for the throne in waiting"."

"As of 2012, 80% of The Tor Project's $2M annual budget came from the United States government,"

hahaha. oh dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.16.6 (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015[edit]

65.35.47.185 (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC) first off, your isp can and will track your use of tor or the onion router. if you use an isp, which you have to unless you are cracking into someone elses router, you will and can be tracked. the packets coming and going, they can and will be cracked, if you are online for more than a little while, you can and will have your ip tracked, your ip addressed snooped, and the isp you are using will begin to break down what you have been doing. using tor does not surmise the ability to browse anonymously, only the fact that you can't usually be tracked by normal "bots". this page is wrong in so many ways i want to puke. this is why no one really, other than dumb people who will believe anything on the internet, will use your site fore definitions. change this. unless of course you are expecting people to use tor and get caught doing something wrong, in that case, congratulations, you are a troll and a person which most of the underworld would call a rat. yes, you have my ip address. yes, you know who i am if u search hard enough. that's exactly what the isp or internet service provider, will do to the people using this program. please, in further notes, make sure you have complete facts, i have checked this, done my research, and made sure i know the navy came out with this, just to set traps for people that are being stupid and doing something against the government. this is why im doing this from a firefox browser, on my windows machine, and not at all in the essence of someone that would care to know if u tracked me if i sent this. do a google search. it helps. your site is like.. retarded just looking at this ONE page. it tells me, an intelligent person, that both a. you let bad opinions become fact, and b. let good facts back up bad opinions therefore creating rumors.

seriously. bad wiki, no cookie.

-Fr0z7y

Cookie.jpg
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. and Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Seriously, you deserve a cookie for typing out such a giant wall of text. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015[edit]

Please change the follwing (A) to (B) as the current downloaded size is ~32.7 MB (A) | size = 2–3 MB (B) | size = ~32 MB

I've made it around 32 MB for simple understanding. However, verify it from "Download Tor Browser" page. Joy-CS (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joy-CS: Thanks. Though I didn't add the infobox myself, I imagine the 2-3 MB figure was for Tor itself, which I've just verified is about that (although I changed it to 2-4). On the download page this is called either "standalone" or "expert bundle" depending on OS. That said, the Tor Browser is the standard download, and based on OS that appears to vary from 32-41 MB. I've updated the infobox to reflect both figures. I'd welcome others to weigh in on how I formatted it, though (using smalltext on separate lines). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a separate infobox further down titled "Tor Browser". As I understand it, the "Tor" infobox at the top of the article is dedicated to (as Rhododendrites put it) the stand-alone Tor (which is 2-4 MB) and the "Tor Browser" infobox is dedicated to the Tor Browser implementation (which is 32-41 MB). I think we should keep these infoboxes separate. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point -- I forgot there was a separate infobox. Maybe since that one is so far down on the page it's worth still clarifying the top figure? Something like "2-4MB (without browser)" (without the separate size for the browser)? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
How about "2-4MB (implementations vary in size)"? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
While it makes sense, the length would make it bleed over to a second line for most people, I think, which is undesirable. If you don't think "stand-alone" or "without browser" works, I suppose we could also just restore the version with no parenthetical :) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I've now restored the first Infobox to how it was and added a hidden notification: diff. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Torbrowser 4.0.3 released[edit]

Looks like I can't edit. Torbrowser hat been updated to 4.0.3 https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-browser-403-released This page says 4.0.2 is the latest release. Can someone please edit this. THanks --Alfonx (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Grammar in the Weaknesses section[edit]

Weaknesses, Some protocols leak IP addresses: a couple of articles are missing from this subsection. Syrak (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Syrak: Could you please elaborate? How does this relate to grammar? By missing articles, do you mean that the Tor (anonymity network)#Some protocols leak IP addresses section does not contain all notable research done on that topic? In that case, could you please point to the articles you are referring to? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dodi 8238: I am suggesting the following changes:

Some protocols leak IP addresses[edit]

Researchers from French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control (INRIA) showed that Tor dissimulation technique+s in BitTorrent can be bypassed by an attacker controlling Tor exit node+s. The study was conducted by monitoring 6 exit nodes for a period of 23 days. Researches used three attack vectors:[1]

Inspection of BitTorrent control messages
Tracker announces and Extension Protocol handshakes may optionally contain client's clients' IP addresses. Analysis of collected data revealed that 35% and 33% of respective messages contained real addresses of clients.[1]:3
Hijacking trackers' responses
Due to lack of encryption or authentication in communication between tracker and peer, a typical man-in-the-middle attack allows an attacker to determine a peer's IP address and even verify the distribution of content. This attack works when Tor is used only for tracker communication.[1]:4
Exploiting distributed hash tables (DHT)
This attack exploits the fact that distributed hash table (DHT) connections through Tor are impossible, so an attacker is able to reveal their target's IP address by looking it up in a (the ?) DHT even if the target uses Tor to connect to other peers.[1]:4–5

Using these techniques, researchers were able to identify other streams initiated by users, whose IP addresses were revealed.[1]

---

I meant article (grammar). I'm not a native English speaker and not familiar with the technical details of the topic either, so some of these corrections may still be incorrect, and I may have missed some as well. --Syrak (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference manils-compromising was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

heavily biased "Tor can be used for" statement with no counterpoint to balance it[edit]

Here is the counterpoint:

The counterpoint to this criticism is that just because a tool can be misused does not mean it should be banned. A hammer can be used to murder a person or a valued pet, or for committing vandalism, but few argue that they should be only available to police and government officials, or that owning a hammer should require a permit and background check. Water can also be used to kill and torture but is it nefarious?

The other problems with the "Tor can be used for" sentence is that a regular web browser can be used for many of those things, although with less chance of successful anonymity. And, more importantly, it is still debatable how much anyone can rely upon Tor for anonymity. Given that, can it indeed be used for the things this Wikipedia sentence claims it can be used for? Or, should the sentence say "Tor appears to be useful for"?

The sentence reads like it was written by an authoritarian government trying to scare people into handing over even the promise of privacy and anonymity online. If the article is going to retain that sentence and the agenda it pushes it should at least provide some basic counterpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The section could use work, but it's not like these sorts of positive views are not present. Could you reframe your proposed changes in terms of how to better summarize currently cited sources or could you supply additional sources to justify changes? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Last edits by Twillisjr[edit]

@Twillisjr: Why you removed a bunch of content without any explanation? --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 08:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Rezonansowy Thanks for monitoring the article and restoring the content. Content which is backed by WP:RS should not be removed from Wikipedia articles without an explanation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The sources in the removed section consist of some IRS tax forms (WP:SYNTH) and a dead link to a Washington post blog, which leads me to believe that perhaps someone here didn't bother checking whether the sources exist when restoring the section. I'm just saying. The WP reference appears to be at [ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/08/attacks_prompt_update_for_tor.html ], and does not appear to support claims such as "The EFF acted as The Tor Project's fiscal sponsor in its early years".
None of this implies that removal was a good idea, of course. It should have been tagged with citation needed. Would one of you gentlemen or ladies who restored the material care to add reliable secondary sources that support the claims made in the material before we continue this discussion? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If we're talking about fiscal sponsorship in particular, the WP article does say EFF hosted the Tor site and the list of sponsors on Torproject.org lists EFF for 2004-2005. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(Full disclosure: every year I donate to both the EFF and the TOR project, and I have a strong positive bias regarding both organizations.) I have no doubt as to the accuracy of the claims, but I am having trouble with WP:V and WP:WEIGHT here. When a bunch of claims are based upon a blog post and a bunch of WP:PRIMARY sources, I want at the very least for the blog post to contain the actual claims made. Who, other than the TOR project, says the EFF gave them fiscal sponsorship - a phrase that implies more than just letting them have space on a server? Who said that it was significant? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If the sources are not good then remove that content - I do not object. No, I did not check them all. About claims by about 10 different sources were removed. Some of that looked good enough to restore pending an explanation. I encourage others to delete what they see as insufficiently sourced. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Casual look for sources[edit]

Regarding eff being a sponsor to tor in 2004, both the tor project and eff makes that statement on their own corresponding websites. While both are primary, primary are allowed in direct straightforward and descriptive statements. However, I also did a lazy google search which provided articles from wired, one from salon, and one at time.

Since the removal covered a quite large amount of content and sources, and my time is limited, it would greatly help if people used in-line tags or prioritized down 2-4 statements which urgently need better sources. Belorn (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Last edits by Deku-shrub[edit]

Deep Web

@Deku-shrub: Why you think that Deep Web image is misleading? Do you have any suggestion what would improve its accurance? --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 20:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, this is a complicated one, but hear me out. I've been working on the Deep Web, currently edited and redirected to Deep Web (search indexing). The term Deep Web has a colourful past. It started as a search indexing term Mike Bergman invented and went on to use at his company Bright Planet. Now historically the dark web / dark net was entirely un search indexable and such formed a part of the deep web. No doubt Bright Planet was selling the first tor data mining software at this point. Continuing for a few years, coverage of the deep web and the emerging darknet/web started coming out simultaneously, often through short info graphics with Deep Web 'facts' juxtaposed with onion links. This image is just another one of a range.
Here are some examples: 1 2 3
Here's a really ambiguous one: 1
Now here are some different ones with facts about the deep web, search indexing term, 1
In my opinion, and that of the term's inventors, Bright Planet[1] and the dictionary.com blog[1], there is significant confusion and conflation of the two terms. Combined with the fact the Darknet (networking) page now has significant covered of the Dark Web too now, it seems natural to move to separate the ideas, as I see little way of combining the wiki articles usefully. Phew! Deku-shrub (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Impact on search engine results[edit]

Are there any references that show what the impact of using Tor is on the results returned by a search engine?--Nowa (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b "Clearing Up Confusion – Deep Web vs. Dark Web". BrightPlanet.