11–16 of 16 posts
Hardly. They got to the people operating accounts on those sites. On the other hand, Anonymous has actually pulled off something that revealed users on Tor. http://pastebin.com/hquN9kg5
Hardly. They got to the people operating accounts on those sites. On the other hand, Anonymous has actually pulled off something that revealed users on Tor. http://pastebin.com/hquN9kg5
Again, this is not something that any anonymity network system is going to defend against. The fact that the attackers had to resort to hacking a server and then socially engineering users to download and agree to run the malware shows that Tor was working well.
On the other hand, the way they describe using a DDoS against specific exit nodes and correlating that with outages against a specific hidden service could be considered an attack on this feature of Tor. However, there's little to no data presented and it's mixed in with a lot of other odd factors so I'm very skeptical.
Opdarknet looked different to me from the other operations of Anonymous. My guess is that it was some unrelated entity using Anonymous as a cover. It's weird how they spend as much time bashing specific Tor developers as they do on the CP criminals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not entirely true, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29#Wea... "security consultant, revealed that he had intercepted usernames and passwords for a large number of email accounts by operating and monitoring Tor exit nodes.[27] As Tor does not, and by design cannot, encrypt the traffic between an exit node and the target server, any exit node is in a position to capture any traffic passin…
Silk Road is only available via TOR, so there is no exit node involved.
As another commenter suggested in the article, the government probably found the man because of factors external to TOR, such as the delivery address and the payment processor/information he used. I don't believe the TOR network was compromised just yet, although I wouldn't test that assertion by buying drugs on it...
None of the security work that protects civil liberties makes it 'impossible' for LEO's to do their job, it just keeps it more expensive. The debate over GPS trackers, where the FBI claims they should be allowed since they could also just follow them around in a car makes this point boldly. Then just follow them around. Is the correct response, not "Here is a way to make the economics of liberty impairment work in your favor."
