496fe58675 You didn't do this, you were obviously aware of it and let it go on for days without warning users. > Roger suggested that concerned Tor users study the Tor-related papers at the freedom host archive Please do not confuse with something by the name of 'freedom host'. I'm glad I worked there for a summer – I wanted to learn if it was the sort of place I wanted to work at more, and I learned that it sure wasn't. Every day will bring new challenges, new solutions to find and new ways to prove that you're one of the best. On September 12th, 2013 Anonymous said: why not release MD5 or CRC32 hashes ? Those are easy as pie to check on windows. Where will you run them such that their ISP, or their ISP's ISP, or so on up the chain, is out of reach of large attackers? Plus if you run your own relays and you use them preferentially, and an attacker knows this, and the attacker sees some anonymous person using them, he can guess that it's more likely you than the average Tor user. poisoning the "evil" algorithms with false identities.
As a little tidbit to add: I hear Chrome is giving up on the certificate revocation check – it's a big hassle for usability and speed, but most importantly a local attacker could just prevent that connection on the network, preventing your browser from learning whether any revocation has happened. I used which gave me: As you scan through the decoded string of characters you see a string embedded in it which starts to look familiar: ww.whtsisilguoectsrehsri.eocu./klbtehcel y And if you do a simple swap of alternate characters you find you have another web address: www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/bletchley Sure enough this is the next stop on the journey, and Bletchley is the next answer for the main page: The newly-revealed webpage contains a new stream of characters: 2910404C21CF8BF4CC93B7D4A518BABF34B42A8AB0047627998D633E653AF63A873C 8FABBE8D095ED125D4539706932425E78C261E2AB9273D177578F20E38AFEF124E06 8D230BA64AEB8FF80256EA015AA3BFF102FE652A4CBD33B4036F519E5899316A6250 840D141B8535AB560BDCBDE8A67A09B7C97CB2FA308DFFBAD9F9 It looks very much like a modern cipher stream so one has to assume there is a key for decrypting it which of course we were just given on the previous page. Which looks like it could be the password! But it doesn't work :-( The headers showed nothing interesting. How to crack GCHQ's hacker recruitment puzzle Alan Woodward October 22, 2013 3:36 pm Filed under: Encryption, Law & order 5 43SHARESShareonTwitterShareonFacebookGoogleLinkedinRedditWhatsappBuffer Alan Woodward is a visiting professor at the University of Surrey's department of computing. If you stick to Moore's law of computation power doubling every 18 months, then the change between 128-bit and 256-bit is 192 years, not 5 years. But I'll try being more concrete: "Give us a specific proposal? Because every previous specific proposal that anybody has ever come up with has been broken." As for the second paragraph, the main reason Tor is slow right now is from queueing inside the relays. It'd be pretty cool (though of course a little tedious) to cross reference the latest bundle's hash on the downloads page with one posted on EFF.org and with, say The Colbert report's website and that of Senator Wyden.
Savafyacr replied
459 weeks ago