![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Let us say person X is using the Company Y's internet with his own computer. He uses Tor for surfing on the internet.
- Will the network-admin of Company Y be able to see what X is doing on the internet, what X is surfing to, downloading, etc.? Or is it completely impossible for the admin to see any traffic X is routing through Tor?
- Will the ISP of Company Y be able to see what X is doing on the internet, what sites X is visiting, what X is writing, etc.? Or is it completely impossible for the ISP to see any traffic X is routing through Tor?
- Who will actually see what X is doing on the internet, and will this person/corporation be able to link X's trafic to X's identity? Speaking in practical/realistic terms, of course. I know that in the most extreme of cases, everything can be done, but if X uses Tor, who can actually SEE (see traffic) what X is doing on the web, and who can realistically LINK this to X's identity? (And what are the chances of this happening?)
Specific answers with specific examples will be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.183.32 ( talk) 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.114.118 ( talk) 14:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just removed revision 223333529 as I could not find any valid sources backing it up. If anyone thinks it does need mentioning, please provide a trustworthy reference. So far I did not find any bug reports or credible sources, merely (as far as I can see) FUD on the Mozilla review page. — Ewald || contact talk | email || info user | contrib || posted on 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding these edits:
02:23, 13 July 2008 (→Central sites: delete links that cannot be accessed without special software, per WP:NOTDIR) 02:22, 13 July 2008 (→Central sites: remove link to a wiki-site, that does not meet WP:RS)
I don't think those reasons are vald. I read WP:NOTDIR, and nowere does it say anything about links that cannot be accessed without special software. Since the link to Xiandos is not being used as a source, it does not fall within the scope of WP:RS. If don't like having these links in the article, please, just say so. Checking behind you like this is a massive waste of time. 90.134.69.135 ( talk) 11:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I could not find that vandalism in the history. I am curious as to what that refers. 83.189.50.224 ( talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It has happened again. The logs do not make it clear as to why. What page-move vandalism occured? What edit summaries were removed? It seems strange that people would want to vandalize this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.136.113.151 ( talk) 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The effort put forth to educate the readers about the various node flags is commendable. However, these are implementation details that virtually nobody wants or needs to know about. I propose that there instead be information about how Tor's implementation of onion routing is different from onion routing as described in the onion routing article. (Tor uses telescoping circuits.) An easy-to-understand explanation of the path data takes, and how it is encrypted and anonymized, would be great! I can't edit the article because I do not have a Wikipedia account. 83.189.125.144 ( talk) 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Adding reliable information about the legality of exit nodes to the 'legal issues' section might be useful. Since the ip address of the exit node is what the destination machine sees, the exit nodes may be the primary target of the police in some cases. Things like "can I suddenly become an exit node while running TOR" and "can I get arrested if I was a TOR exit node that routed an attack on some computer system", I think more people would like to know this before deciding to use this software. Theultramage ( talk) 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
> BitTorrent "Due to the high bandwidth usage caused by the use of this protocol, it is considered impolite and inappropriate to use the Tor network for BitTorrent transfers"
I would assume that, like torrents, since EDonkey and Kademlia are similarly high traffic p2p services, and their usage is extensive, that they would not be polite or appropriate to use. Someone more familiar with the TOR community should probably indicate, if I am correct, that the usage of these on TOR would be equally discouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.219.28 ( talk) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Are there any major differences between the alpha and stable versions, aside from the obvious reasons?
Can someone please fix those links (the ones with random crap in them like oldd6th4cr5spio4.onion and l6nvqsqivhrunqvs.onion). I looks like someone tried redirecting them. And yes, complaining here is easier than creating an account and waiting 4 days. I see more "view source" button than "edit" pages these days... so much for that whole "anyone can edit" thing. 75.4.156.210 ( talk) 08:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
In the Implementation section "The rationale for using C is that Tor requires routers to run fast. "
Should acutally be
"The rationale for using C is that Tor requires routers to run quickly."
" Due to the high bandwidth usage caused by the use of this protocol, it is considered impolite and inappropriate to use the Tor network for BitTorrent transfers. By default, the Tor exit policy blocks the standard BitTorrent ports."
I dont think this is true. Can someone confirm if this is true, or should I remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.22.21 ( talk) 10:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There's an awesome opensource Windows-only client that in my opinion is far superior in usability to the horrible* Vidalia. (* - Personal opinion)
It's called "Advanced Onion Router" or AdvOR. It allows you to select exit country from the UI, without restarting, and various similar options. You can easily tune it for hard anonymity, or speed and obfuscation (for example to circumvent country IP address blocks and ISP-level access restrictions - like to use Facebook from the PRC).
I think it should be included in the implementations list. Link is: [2]
38.125.36.194 ( talk) 14:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This article now says that it's Tor and was previously TOR which was/is an acronym for The Onion Router. Tor was never TOR. Here's what we know: The Tor Project FAQ says that Tor was originally an acronym and that it's called Tor "Because Tor is the onion routing network." Onion-router.net refers to "The Onion Routing program...made up of projects..." That site's list of publications goes on to refer to Tor as "Tor (the Onion Routing)" in reference to "Deploying Low-Latency Anonymity: Design Challenges and Social Factors", IEEE Security & Privacy, September/October 2007 (Vol. 5, No. 5), pp. 83-87. ( Plaintext). In reference to "Challenges in deploying low-latency anonymity", NRL CHACS Report 5540-625, 2005. ( PDF) it refers to Tor as "Tor (the second generation onion routing network)". Finally, the original Tor presentation entitled "Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router", in Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2004. ( PDF), in addition to its title, refers to a "second-generation Onion Routing system" and "The Onion Routing project..." It would be nice to know if there is one definitive acronym that Tor once was. Almost every time I've seen it used, "routing" was used rather than "router." Looking back at Tor mailing lists dating back to 2002 and the source code and documentation from Tor 0.0.0, there is never any reference from people within the project to the capitalization TOR. 94.222.101.57 ( talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This block of text has gone back and forth a few times. I'm not clear what's controversial. It sounds like the IP removing it has a problem with what the source says rather than its inclusion here, but I might be mistaken. --— Rhododendrites talk | 17:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There is now a thread about this at the reliable sources noticeboard. --— Rhododendrites talk | 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding this material over and over again until the issue is resolved! Every time this information reappears, it gets cached by Google. 88.75.125.199 ( talk) 10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You're presenting the same kind of arguments repeatedly and have not convinced anybody. In fact now you're just pointing fingers. It's hard to point at anyone else as edit warring when you're waging a one-person campaign to remove this material several others have now added. Rather than persist along this same course, I recommend you seek satisfaction at the BLP or NPOV noticeboard. --— Rhododendrites talk | 23:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
My objection to including the Dingledine material is that the source is primary. We have to be careful using primary sources. It has been shown to be unreliable in faithfully conveying quoted material and should not be relied upon. There is no way to verify if Roger said anything like this. 118.91.161.38 ( talk) 12:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I commented on the use of the Brian Fung article from the Washington Post's The Switch blog when the topic was brought to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard a few weeks ago. An editor has asked me to comment here.
The Tor anonymity network article being discussed on this Talk page currently contains the following statement, with a citation of Fung's piece:
One of the founders of the project, Roger Dingledine, stated that the DoD funds are less similar to being a procurement contract and are more simiar to a research grant. Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the U.S. federal government, the Tor service did not necessarily collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users.
As I wrote in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion, [4] the Fung article is not reliable for saying, "Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the U.S. federal government, the Tor service did not necessarily collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users." This line should be removed, unless another, more reliable source can be found that supports it.
I agree that this matter is both a reliable sources issue and a BLP issue.
BLP policy says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards" ( WP:BLPREMOVE)
and
"contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources". ( WP:BLPSOURCES)
In this particular case, Lewman never mentioned the word NSA, and he did not specifically say that Tor did not/does not necessarily collaborate to reveal identities of users. We can directly read what Lewman actually wrote and confirm that he did not say what Fung says he said. So Fung is unreliable on this point, and attributing a statement to a living person in the absence of a reliable source showing that the person actually made the claimed statement is a BLP violation. The effect of the misattribution does not have to be negative for a BLP violation to have occurred; the policy says, again, "This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."
If there is a consensus here to include statements from Lewman and Dingledine, then it would be more faithful to the sources to write what they said rather than Fung's interpretation of what they said. An example might be:
In August 2013, Tor Executive Director Andrew Lewman commented in a Tor Project mailing list discussion on government funding of Tor. Responding to a question which asked, "Can anyone working for the Tor project comment on its U.S. Department of Defense funded activities beyond what appears when searching [the Tor Project's financial statements for the Department of Defense's funding award number]?", Lewman wrote: "We don't accept secret work, contracts, nor money from anyone.... [T]he parts of the US and Swedish Governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future. Don't assume that 'the government' is one coherent entity with one mindset." [5] Lewman also said that legal restrictions bar the Tor Project from disclosing direct ties between their contracts and the specific work the Tor Project produces. [6] Roger Dingledine, a founder of the Tor Project, told Washington Post technology correspondent Brian Fung that funding the Tor Project receives from the U.S. Department of Defense is for "general research and development on better anonymity, better performance and scalability and better blocking-resistance". Dingledine also said that Tor project publishes all of its work in the open for review by the public and that the U.S. government has never asked the Tor Project to install a backdoor. [7]
Dezastru ( talk) 17:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
We should cover this (
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-stinks-nsa-presentation-document) and some of the suggestions above too. There is a comment from the crypto community somewhere the "TOR Stinks" doesn't reveal any new weaknesses - that should be included too if possible. I will attempt to return to this some time, if no-one else fixes it first. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tor (anonymity network)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "tor":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tor_Browser_Bundle. 92.78.157.181 ( talk) 12:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw this addition mentioning use of Tor in domestic abuse cases where digital surveillance is involved. It didn't seem to fit in "controversy over illegal activities" but to my surprise there really wasn't anywhere it did fit. Does a "Uses" section make sense to add? Seems like one of the more common questions people have about Tor is what people use it for (and, based on some of the press it's received, what legal uses it has). Thoughts? --— Rhododendrites talk | 22:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
In the section Third party, the following is stated:
Since the first three are part of the British Commonwealth, either this is redundant or the part about British Commonwealth countries means something other than what is normally assumed. Should is just as "and other British Commonwealth..." or should someone clarify what the intent of the statement is. 99.245.230.104 ( talk) 04:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Philg88: I removed this section about mailtor. Specific hidden services like that (even the notable ones) aren't really covered here as just one service people use on top of Tor, rather than an implementation. The AfD furthermore was closed as redirect, not merge, and only because it was mentioned elsewhere by the page creator -- not because it's notable (and in fact the sources you carried over are all pretty unreliable). --— Rhododendrites talk | 18:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This source gives a history of Tor and could be used to develop this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The article contains Tor encrypts the original data, including the destination IP address, multiple times... which is not accurate. The payload data is encrypted with the final destination code described, and then the result is re-packaged and re-encrypted with the next destination node address so that there are nested encryption constructs, the text reads as if the destination payload is encrypted multiple times without routing instructions being added at each layer.
I suppose it does not matter, people looking for more technical aspects of Tor will go to the official Tor web site and download the specifics. Still, it's inaccurate. Does anyone care to propose better text? Damotclese ( talk) 21:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Tor (anonymity network) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
![]() | This
edit request to
Tor (anonymity network) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Weaknesses, Some protocols leak IP addresses: a couple of articles are missing from this subsection. Syrak ( talk) 21:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
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:
Using these techniques, researchers were able to identify other streams initiated by users, whose IP addresses were revealed.
---
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)
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)
@ Twillisjr: Why you removed a bunch of content without any explanation? -- RezonansowyakaRezy ( talk | contribs) 08:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
References
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)
I was introduced to TorFlow today, a striking visualization of the data flowing over the Tor network, but I am unsure how to incorporate it into the article. Suggestions?
https://torflow.uncharted.software/
kencf0618 ( talk) 23:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tor (anonymity network). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice against a new discussion with a different proposed title. Jenks24 ( talk) 06:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Tor (anonymity network) →
Tor (network) – A shorter name, easier to remember
Deku-shrub (
talk) 09:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted.
Natg 19 (
talk)
17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - sufficient disambiguation sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Anonymity is Tor's raison d'être. Network qua network is needlessly unhelpful and generic. kencf0618 ( talk) 22:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - per Kencf0618, though I can see present title is clunky. 'Network' isn't helpful as it has many non-IT meanings. It also isn't accurate, since (in IT) the term normally applies to the hardware rather the software, though present title is equally wrong in that sense. Suggest you find a better title, 'Tor (software)'? Pincrete ( talk) 23:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposed disambiguation is not considered an adequate description of the bulk of the content. No prejudice against future discussion as most participants did seem keen on some sort of move. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Tor (anonymity network) →
Tor (software) – Simpler to remember name, more accurately describe the software that simply forms the basis of the implemented network
Deku-shrub (
talk)
17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
– "Tor" is currently a disambiguation page. Because there are other move requests suggesting that a move would be desirable, and because this article gets lots of traffic and the other articles for "tor" do not, this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and so should occupy the title "Tor". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Traffic:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved both. The previous move discussion was only a month ago, but it did not address long-term historical significance. Consensus can change, and the consensus of this wider set of editors is clear that when long-term historical significance is considered, the anonymity network is not the primary topic. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
– Request move is only admin, Itwiki6666 ( talk) 06:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is pathetic. Nobody cares about a damn rock formation. This is almost as pathetic as the Java article, where it is about an island in Indonesia no one cares about, instead of the programming language that obviously everyone wants to know more about. Incendiary Iconoclasm 22:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose move Because if this page is moved it will be deleted and the record of this move discussion will disappear.
Ottawahitech (
talk)
22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)please
ping me
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure). sst✈ 16:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Tor (anonymity network) →
Tor (technology)
Tor (information technology) –
WP:PRECISE: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that"; see also
information technology and
virtual technology.
fgnievinski (
talk)
23:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Should we summarily close any requested moves until September 1st, 2016?
I think we should include this information in the article to put weaknesses in perspective. "At the most basic level, an attacker who runs two poisoned Tor nodes—one entry, one exit—is able to analyse traffic and thereby identify the tiny, unlucky percentage of users whose circuit happened to cross both of those nodes. At present the Tor network offers, out of a total of around 7,000 relays, around 2,000 guard (entry) nodes and around 1,000 exit nodes. So the odds of such an event happening are one in two million (1/2000 x 1/1000), give or take." Source: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/building-a-new-tor-that-withstands-next-generation-state-surveillance/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.77.121 ( talk) 02:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose expanding the "Reception, impact, and legislation" section (6) to emphasize Tor's sources of public and private funding:
"Tor has received funding from U.S. government agencies including the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; the National Science Foundation; the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; and DARPA. Some have proposed that the government values Tor's commitment to free speech, and uses the darknet to gather intelligence.[19] Private sponsors include Reddit, Google, and Human Rights Watch.[20]"
19. Moore, Daniel; Rid, Thomas. "Cryptopolitik and the Darknet". Survival. Feb2016, Vol. 58 Issue 1, p7-38. 32p.
20. Inc., The Tor Project,. "Tor: Sponsors". www.torproject.org. Retrieved 2016-10-28.
Atticusbixby ( talk) 21:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
How do u sign up for darkweb? Aphe de.soul ( talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I asked Jimmy Wales about creating a Tor hidden service (just like Facebook has one) for Wikipedia on his talk page here.
This would be good for improving Wikipedia's resilience and allow people to anonymously read, and potentially/preferably also write, Wikipedia.
I'd be interested in what you think of this. Do you have some concerns with this or could you provide help in implementing this?
For instance I guess improving anonymous write-access to Wikipedia also opens doors to some types of malicious edits and hence I'd suggest to have all edits made via Tor remain pending (or alike) even if the page is unprotected.
I also suggested an I2P eepsite and some other cybersecurity measures in the talk page entry.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 18:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
An editor is wanting to remove the following material, with an edit summary of "Removed mouse fingerprinting as it's not actually a TOR network specific weakness it's a browser "issue" - mouse fingerprinting or browser profiling could be used to "identify" the same unique user in most web browsers":
And I'm not sure the material should be removed. On the one hand the point is well taken that mouse fingerprinting is not Tor-specific. On the other hand, apparently mouse fingerprinting is specifically a problem for people trying to be anonymous, which ties in with Tor, and all three of the refs talk about Tor specifically. Because of this I've restored the material for now, subject to discussion. It may well be that it doesn't belong though. The article is already pretty long. Herostratus ( talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"Tor" means "gate" in German. Then I first learned of Tor, I assumed that this was the reason for the choice of that name. I don't know much about this, but my guess is that, when people came up with the acronym for "The Onion Router", it immediately occurred to them that this would be a great name because of the meaning in German. I would be interested to see whether anyone can shed more light on this. --- Dagme ( talk) 09:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tor (anonymity network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi lovely Wikipedia folks. Concerning section 3.3 of the tor article (Arm status monitor) the project was renamed in November 2017 to Nyx. I've been asked to leave leave maintenance of this article to others since I'm a Tor dev and author of Nyx/Arm. If you have any questions just let me know. :)
Atagar ( talk) 20:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The name "hidden service" has been deprecated in favor of "onion service" (at least in part due to the fact that, at least by volume of traffic, most of them are things like Facebook, which aren't hidden at all). [1] Since almost everyone affiliated with the Tor Project, related projects, and researchers have all switched over to the new terminology, [2] [3] [4] I'm going to switch the name used here in this article (as well as other places on Wikipedia.) I figure this change should be pretty non-controversial, since it is so universal by now, but wanted to explain more why I'm doing it, since I know there are still a few holdouts who use the older terminology (either because they don't know, or just old habits die hard, I suppose).
References
Tga ( talk) 04:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Would Recommend Editing to include mention of the HiddenServiceAuthorizeClient / HiddenServAuth commands within Tor which could plausibly give rise to what is popularly known as the "shadow net", as opposed to the "dark net". See The Tor Manual for more information on this. 12.32.207.164 ( talk) 13:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The article currently has this:
"Tor is also used for illegal activities, e.g., to gain access to censored information, to organize political activities, or to circumvent laws against criticism of heads of state. "
But this is problematic. For example, it does not explain why "gain access to censored information" would be an illegal activity.
Any random state could make any random law that would prohibit something, at any moment in time.
Then the comment about "circumvent laws against criticism of heads of state". Well, in any dictatorship-like setup criticism is usually forbidden.
I think the wording is problematic. It's fine if the wording is changed to explain it in more detail, while retaining the general aim of the sentence, but the way it is currently worded is very peculiar. After all, what constitutes an "illegal activity"? This is also different from country to country. I don't think the wording can be correct in the general sense without being explicit about the country at hand and the laws there. 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 09:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Current wording of Wikipedia block on Tor (anonymity network) at the lead of the article (as described at WP:LEAD) is unable to get verified. Need a good source (not a WP:BLOG, WP:USG, WP:UNRELIABLE, ect) to verify content and that weird link to Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor completely unrelated. Wikipedia is not being discussed and there is no reference in body to verify lead. User:Saschaporsche what rule did you apply here? Would discuss this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.58.239.252 ( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Current wording of lead:
For example, the MediaWiki TorBlock extension automatically restricts edits made through Tor, although Wikipedia allows some limited editing in exceptional circumstances. [6]
References cited to support inclusion:
A New York Times article is being cited which discusses about a current situation of Wikipedia block in Turkey, which has received extensive media coverage. The news article discusses about the Virtual Private Network block on Wikipedia which is discussed extensively on the article, not Tor's block on Wikipedia. A link to Wikipedia namespace does look problematic as it is not being well aligned to WP:WIKILINK which states to use Mainspace links instead of Wikipedia: namespace links.
Text of reference is (NYT; attribution of fair use to demonstrate unverifiability and incorrect reference):
ISTANBUL — Baris Dede, a game design student, had a question: How easily did Viking longboats glide through the water? Dilara Diner, a psychologist, wanted to double-check a symptom of hysteria.
But these Turks were not able to quickly find out what they wanted. Since late April the Turkish government has blocked one of the world’s go-to sources of online information, Wikipedia.
After Wikipedia refused to remove unflattering references to Turkey’s relationship with Syrian militants and state-sponsored terrorists, officials simply banned the whole site.
Several weeks into the ban, some Turks are still struggling to remove Wikipedia searches from their muscle memory.
Yaman Akdeniz, a law professor, turned by habit to Wikipedia to find out when the latest “House of Cards” season was released.
“You forget that it’s blocked, and then you click on it and then — boomph, nothing: You realize you can’t access it,” said Professor Akdeniz, describing his personal form of digital whiplash. Many people didn’t realize until after it was blocked, he said, that Wikipedia “was so much a part of our lives.”
Mr. Dede said he mourned the loss of “part of your memory.” Even in his academic world, where Wikipedia is sometimes scorned, the website was secretly seen as a good starting place for research, he said.
But beyond the problems it has created for the curious, Turkey’s Wikipedia ban is a reminder of something darker, government critics say: a wholesale crackdown on free expression and access to information, amid wider oppression of most forms of opposition.
Wikipedia is just one of 127,000 websites blocked in Turkey, estimated Professor Akdeniz, who has led legal challenges against the Wikipedia ban and other web restrictions. An additional 95,000 pages, like social media accounts, blog posts and articles, are blocked on websites that are not otherwise restricted, Mr. Akdeniz said.
Some of these sites are pornographic. But many contain information and reporting that the government finds embarrassing. Sendika, an independent news outlet, is now on the 45th iteration of its website. The previous 44 were blocked.
For web activists in Turkey, Wikipedia is simply the latest victim of a wave of online censorship that grew steadily from 2015 onward and then surged significantly after last year’s failed coup.
The coup attempt gave President Recep Tayyip Erdogan the political cover to expand a crackdown on his opponents, including in the traditional news media. Since the coup, 190 news organizations have been banned and at least 120 journalists jailed.
“The international community noticed this issue by reference to the Wikipedia block, but it’s not a new thing from our point of view,” Mr. Akdeniz said. “Critical media is under stress on a daily basis — and what made that visible is the Wikipedia ban.”
For students, the ban could not have come at a worse time: just as they were knuckling down for exams.
“It’s a big obstacle,” said Ege, a 17-year-old high school student, whose surname has been withheld at the wishes of his headmaster. “Wikipedia is the source of the sources — you can find everything there.”
While studying Jean Anouilh’s French adaptation of a Greek tragedy, “Antigone,” Ege’s friends had wanted to know more about the heroine’s father: the mythical King Oedipus, who mistakenly married his mother.
“The Oedipus bloodline, what he did, the curse that was put on his family,” Ege’s classmate Yusuf said. “Reaching that information wasn’t exactly easy.”
Wikipedia use has fallen by 85 percent in Turkey since April, but some have managed to circumvent the ban with a VPN, or virtual private network, a tool that helps web users gain access to blocked websites.
According to GlobalWebIndex, a group that researches worldwide internet activity, Turkey has the third-highest VPN prevalence in the world. More than 45 percent of Turks ages 16 to 64 who have web access used a VPN in the first quarter of 2017, and the practice has become second nature even for some beginners.
“My mom learned to send an email two years ago,” Mr. Dede said. “The next thing, she’s learning how to access a VPN.”
But VPN use comes with an unwelcome side effect. Because Wikipedia does not allow VPN users to edit articles, Turks are unable to correct or update information posted on the site or write new articles.
“Turkey has lost its voice online because of its inability to edit Wikipedia,” said Alp Toker, a co-founder of Turkey Blocks, a group that tracks Turkish internet censorship.
In addition, some VPNs are also banned. Those that remain are often slow, particularly on cellphones, so using one is sometimes not worth the hassle.
As a result, some students are getting desperate about their final exams.
“Dear President of the Republic, the Leader, open up Wikipedia at least until the end of the finals week,” one wrote on Twitter. “President, I am overwhelmed, hear me out.”
No mention of Wikipedia's block of Tor (although it has a article and a extension to enforce them).
References
The result of the move request was: CONSENSUS TO NOT MOVE. --- Coffeeand crumbs 02:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This page, Tor (anonymity network), gets the most traffic. See the pageview analysis of the articles on the disambiguation page. Because of this high traffic the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "tor" is this page.
There were a series of similar move requests in 2015-16. I participated in those. What is new now is that we have these traffic analytics tools which make it easy to identify a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with data by running a query. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at your user pages, and you all are British. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 07:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I missed the entire move request, which is fine since I agree with the outcome. :) However, I wanted to note a couple points for future reference in case it becomes relevant later:
Again, I think that the decision not to make this the primary topic is the right one, but also think it's important to understand the actual situation. — Tga ( talk) 22:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states "Tor does not prevent an online service from determining when it is being accessed through Tor." However, this CAN be incorrect under certain circumstances. This is because the means via which we determine whether or not a given IP is a tor node is based upon the lists provided for by Tor which come from the mainstream public directory authorities. Most users use the public directory authority in actual practice, but it is possible to form your own directory authority, if you were to have enough nodes join your directory authority. Simply put, the ability to learn if a machine is a tor node is dependent upon the given directory authority publishing to the public in some way or another that the information that it is a tor node. While the Tor project does this for the mainstream public directory authorities, other directory authorities may not necessarily do this, though the nodes would still very much be "Tor" nodes within the classical sense. 66.90.153.184 ( talk) 00:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion on the boards (e.g. reddit) about the security of webm, especially regarding the protection of the user’s IP address when using HTML5. This is a very active discussion right now in the context of using TOR even over VPN, especially on iOS and possibly other mobile platforms. I did not see any discussion of this on other security-focused wiki pages nor on the webm Wikipedia page. Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge than I could consider adding something to this section of this page on this topic? I also will added a note to the webm Wikipedia page about this. Mike-c-in-mv ( talk) 17:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article_size recommends dividing from a size of 60k and strongly recommends it from above 100k. This article is 137k. What part should be moved to a different article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streepjescode ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It focuses too much on outdated attack methods. It references some really old studies (2009, really?) and methods that as of 2020 are patched. Why not talk about a current problem, such as malicious relays running SSLStrip? or hidden services being DoSed? I suggest rewriting the entire section, focusing on relevant stuff, and actually referencing Tor's blog. https://blog.torproject.org/bad-exit-relays-may-june-2020 https://blog.torproject.org/stop-the-onion-denial https://blog.torproject.org/ IveGonePostal ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
People relying on Tor as a 'safety-critical' piece of software, that if it were to fail would result in being busted, etc... but it has not been written to such standards.
Also it an open open secret within the internet service provider community that it is not secure, because anyone with a "God's eye" view of the network can break it. That means pretty much all governments and many law enforcement agencies. So the software could be considered a honeypot because it provides a false sense of security, and innocent people who are not true criminals are likely to end up being prosecuted because of draconian 'thought crime' computer crime laws.
Wrong word, should be resistant rather than resilient...so it seems to me. "In spite of known weaknesses and attacks listed here, a 2009 study revealed Tor and the alternative network system JonDonym (Java Anon Proxy, JAP) are considered more resilient to website fingerprinting techniques than other tunneling protocols." 2603:6080:800:6A:A8C6:987B:33B:52BE ( talk) 04:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not really a computer expert per se, but I have been using linux since about 20 years. What I would love to see on wikipedia is an article that focuses on technical aspects (implementation details) BUT without assuming the user is very clever; without assuming the user is very dumb, either. Wikipedia is quite good, but some articles are way too complicated whereas others lack some detail. Anyway - would it be possible for a longer document to be integrated into the main article here BUT perhaps linked in from the main website (here, on wikipedia about tor), so that not everyone has to read it as-is? This new article should focus on technical aspects, implementation details and so forth. I understand the general gist of how Tor works but not really where the limitations start and end; for example the "torbrowser" is implemented via firefox I assume, so it may share some design limitations incurred by firefox (I assume here). The article is ok but it is a bit convoluted and should probably be re-arranged entirely. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F ( talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Let us say person X is using the Company Y's internet with his own computer. He uses Tor for surfing on the internet.
- Will the network-admin of Company Y be able to see what X is doing on the internet, what X is surfing to, downloading, etc.? Or is it completely impossible for the admin to see any traffic X is routing through Tor?
- Will the ISP of Company Y be able to see what X is doing on the internet, what sites X is visiting, what X is writing, etc.? Or is it completely impossible for the ISP to see any traffic X is routing through Tor?
- Who will actually see what X is doing on the internet, and will this person/corporation be able to link X's trafic to X's identity? Speaking in practical/realistic terms, of course. I know that in the most extreme of cases, everything can be done, but if X uses Tor, who can actually SEE (see traffic) what X is doing on the web, and who can realistically LINK this to X's identity? (And what are the chances of this happening?)
Specific answers with specific examples will be greatly appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.183.32 ( talk) 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.114.118 ( talk) 14:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just removed revision 223333529 as I could not find any valid sources backing it up. If anyone thinks it does need mentioning, please provide a trustworthy reference. So far I did not find any bug reports or credible sources, merely (as far as I can see) FUD on the Mozilla review page. — Ewald || contact talk | email || info user | contrib || posted on 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding these edits:
02:23, 13 July 2008 (→Central sites: delete links that cannot be accessed without special software, per WP:NOTDIR) 02:22, 13 July 2008 (→Central sites: remove link to a wiki-site, that does not meet WP:RS)
I don't think those reasons are vald. I read WP:NOTDIR, and nowere does it say anything about links that cannot be accessed without special software. Since the link to Xiandos is not being used as a source, it does not fall within the scope of WP:RS. If don't like having these links in the article, please, just say so. Checking behind you like this is a massive waste of time. 90.134.69.135 ( talk) 11:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I could not find that vandalism in the history. I am curious as to what that refers. 83.189.50.224 ( talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It has happened again. The logs do not make it clear as to why. What page-move vandalism occured? What edit summaries were removed? It seems strange that people would want to vandalize this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.136.113.151 ( talk) 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The effort put forth to educate the readers about the various node flags is commendable. However, these are implementation details that virtually nobody wants or needs to know about. I propose that there instead be information about how Tor's implementation of onion routing is different from onion routing as described in the onion routing article. (Tor uses telescoping circuits.) An easy-to-understand explanation of the path data takes, and how it is encrypted and anonymized, would be great! I can't edit the article because I do not have a Wikipedia account. 83.189.125.144 ( talk) 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Adding reliable information about the legality of exit nodes to the 'legal issues' section might be useful. Since the ip address of the exit node is what the destination machine sees, the exit nodes may be the primary target of the police in some cases. Things like "can I suddenly become an exit node while running TOR" and "can I get arrested if I was a TOR exit node that routed an attack on some computer system", I think more people would like to know this before deciding to use this software. Theultramage ( talk) 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
> BitTorrent "Due to the high bandwidth usage caused by the use of this protocol, it is considered impolite and inappropriate to use the Tor network for BitTorrent transfers"
I would assume that, like torrents, since EDonkey and Kademlia are similarly high traffic p2p services, and their usage is extensive, that they would not be polite or appropriate to use. Someone more familiar with the TOR community should probably indicate, if I am correct, that the usage of these on TOR would be equally discouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.219.28 ( talk) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Are there any major differences between the alpha and stable versions, aside from the obvious reasons?
Can someone please fix those links (the ones with random crap in them like oldd6th4cr5spio4.onion and l6nvqsqivhrunqvs.onion). I looks like someone tried redirecting them. And yes, complaining here is easier than creating an account and waiting 4 days. I see more "view source" button than "edit" pages these days... so much for that whole "anyone can edit" thing. 75.4.156.210 ( talk) 08:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
In the Implementation section "The rationale for using C is that Tor requires routers to run fast. "
Should acutally be
"The rationale for using C is that Tor requires routers to run quickly."
" Due to the high bandwidth usage caused by the use of this protocol, it is considered impolite and inappropriate to use the Tor network for BitTorrent transfers. By default, the Tor exit policy blocks the standard BitTorrent ports."
I dont think this is true. Can someone confirm if this is true, or should I remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.22.21 ( talk) 10:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There's an awesome opensource Windows-only client that in my opinion is far superior in usability to the horrible* Vidalia. (* - Personal opinion)
It's called "Advanced Onion Router" or AdvOR. It allows you to select exit country from the UI, without restarting, and various similar options. You can easily tune it for hard anonymity, or speed and obfuscation (for example to circumvent country IP address blocks and ISP-level access restrictions - like to use Facebook from the PRC).
I think it should be included in the implementations list. Link is: [2]
38.125.36.194 ( talk) 14:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
This article now says that it's Tor and was previously TOR which was/is an acronym for The Onion Router. Tor was never TOR. Here's what we know: The Tor Project FAQ says that Tor was originally an acronym and that it's called Tor "Because Tor is the onion routing network." Onion-router.net refers to "The Onion Routing program...made up of projects..." That site's list of publications goes on to refer to Tor as "Tor (the Onion Routing)" in reference to "Deploying Low-Latency Anonymity: Design Challenges and Social Factors", IEEE Security & Privacy, September/October 2007 (Vol. 5, No. 5), pp. 83-87. ( Plaintext). In reference to "Challenges in deploying low-latency anonymity", NRL CHACS Report 5540-625, 2005. ( PDF) it refers to Tor as "Tor (the second generation onion routing network)". Finally, the original Tor presentation entitled "Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router", in Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium, August 2004. ( PDF), in addition to its title, refers to a "second-generation Onion Routing system" and "The Onion Routing project..." It would be nice to know if there is one definitive acronym that Tor once was. Almost every time I've seen it used, "routing" was used rather than "router." Looking back at Tor mailing lists dating back to 2002 and the source code and documentation from Tor 0.0.0, there is never any reference from people within the project to the capitalization TOR. 94.222.101.57 ( talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This block of text has gone back and forth a few times. I'm not clear what's controversial. It sounds like the IP removing it has a problem with what the source says rather than its inclusion here, but I might be mistaken. --— Rhododendrites talk | 17:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There is now a thread about this at the reliable sources noticeboard. --— Rhododendrites talk | 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding this material over and over again until the issue is resolved! Every time this information reappears, it gets cached by Google. 88.75.125.199 ( talk) 10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You're presenting the same kind of arguments repeatedly and have not convinced anybody. In fact now you're just pointing fingers. It's hard to point at anyone else as edit warring when you're waging a one-person campaign to remove this material several others have now added. Rather than persist along this same course, I recommend you seek satisfaction at the BLP or NPOV noticeboard. --— Rhododendrites talk | 23:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
My objection to including the Dingledine material is that the source is primary. We have to be careful using primary sources. It has been shown to be unreliable in faithfully conveying quoted material and should not be relied upon. There is no way to verify if Roger said anything like this. 118.91.161.38 ( talk) 12:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I commented on the use of the Brian Fung article from the Washington Post's The Switch blog when the topic was brought to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard a few weeks ago. An editor has asked me to comment here.
The Tor anonymity network article being discussed on this Talk page currently contains the following statement, with a citation of Fung's piece:
One of the founders of the project, Roger Dingledine, stated that the DoD funds are less similar to being a procurement contract and are more simiar to a research grant. Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the U.S. federal government, the Tor service did not necessarily collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users.
As I wrote in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion, [4] the Fung article is not reliable for saying, "Andrew Lewman, the executive director of the Tor project, stated that even though it accepts funds from the U.S. federal government, the Tor service did not necessarily collaborate with the NSA to reveal identities of users." This line should be removed, unless another, more reliable source can be found that supports it.
I agree that this matter is both a reliable sources issue and a BLP issue.
BLP policy says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards" ( WP:BLPREMOVE)
and
"contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources". ( WP:BLPSOURCES)
In this particular case, Lewman never mentioned the word NSA, and he did not specifically say that Tor did not/does not necessarily collaborate to reveal identities of users. We can directly read what Lewman actually wrote and confirm that he did not say what Fung says he said. So Fung is unreliable on this point, and attributing a statement to a living person in the absence of a reliable source showing that the person actually made the claimed statement is a BLP violation. The effect of the misattribution does not have to be negative for a BLP violation to have occurred; the policy says, again, "This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."
If there is a consensus here to include statements from Lewman and Dingledine, then it would be more faithful to the sources to write what they said rather than Fung's interpretation of what they said. An example might be:
In August 2013, Tor Executive Director Andrew Lewman commented in a Tor Project mailing list discussion on government funding of Tor. Responding to a question which asked, "Can anyone working for the Tor project comment on its U.S. Department of Defense funded activities beyond what appears when searching [the Tor Project's financial statements for the Department of Defense's funding award number]?", Lewman wrote: "We don't accept secret work, contracts, nor money from anyone.... [T]he parts of the US and Swedish Governments that fund us through contracts want to see strong privacy and anonymity exist on the Internet in the future. Don't assume that 'the government' is one coherent entity with one mindset." [5] Lewman also said that legal restrictions bar the Tor Project from disclosing direct ties between their contracts and the specific work the Tor Project produces. [6] Roger Dingledine, a founder of the Tor Project, told Washington Post technology correspondent Brian Fung that funding the Tor Project receives from the U.S. Department of Defense is for "general research and development on better anonymity, better performance and scalability and better blocking-resistance". Dingledine also said that Tor project publishes all of its work in the open for review by the public and that the U.S. government has never asked the Tor Project to install a backdoor. [7]
Dezastru ( talk) 17:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
We should cover this (
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-stinks-nsa-presentation-document) and some of the suggestions above too. There is a comment from the crypto community somewhere the "TOR Stinks" doesn't reveal any new weaknesses - that should be included too if possible. I will attempt to return to this some time, if no-one else fixes it first. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tor (anonymity network)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "tor":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tor_Browser_Bundle. 92.78.157.181 ( talk) 12:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw this addition mentioning use of Tor in domestic abuse cases where digital surveillance is involved. It didn't seem to fit in "controversy over illegal activities" but to my surprise there really wasn't anywhere it did fit. Does a "Uses" section make sense to add? Seems like one of the more common questions people have about Tor is what people use it for (and, based on some of the press it's received, what legal uses it has). Thoughts? --— Rhododendrites talk | 22:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
In the section Third party, the following is stated:
Since the first three are part of the British Commonwealth, either this is redundant or the part about British Commonwealth countries means something other than what is normally assumed. Should is just as "and other British Commonwealth..." or should someone clarify what the intent of the statement is. 99.245.230.104 ( talk) 04:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Philg88: I removed this section about mailtor. Specific hidden services like that (even the notable ones) aren't really covered here as just one service people use on top of Tor, rather than an implementation. The AfD furthermore was closed as redirect, not merge, and only because it was mentioned elsewhere by the page creator -- not because it's notable (and in fact the sources you carried over are all pretty unreliable). --— Rhododendrites talk | 18:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This source gives a history of Tor and could be used to develop this article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The article contains Tor encrypts the original data, including the destination IP address, multiple times... which is not accurate. The payload data is encrypted with the final destination code described, and then the result is re-packaged and re-encrypted with the next destination node address so that there are nested encryption constructs, the text reads as if the destination payload is encrypted multiple times without routing instructions being added at each layer.
I suppose it does not matter, people looking for more technical aspects of Tor will go to the official Tor web site and download the specifics. Still, it's inaccurate. Does anyone care to propose better text? Damotclese ( talk) 21:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Tor (anonymity network) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
![]() | This
edit request to
Tor (anonymity network) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Weaknesses, Some protocols leak IP addresses: a couple of articles are missing from this subsection. Syrak ( talk) 21:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
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:
Using these techniques, researchers were able to identify other streams initiated by users, whose IP addresses were revealed.
---
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)
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)
@ Twillisjr: Why you removed a bunch of content without any explanation? -- RezonansowyakaRezy ( talk | contribs) 08:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
References
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)
I was introduced to TorFlow today, a striking visualization of the data flowing over the Tor network, but I am unsure how to incorporate it into the article. Suggestions?
https://torflow.uncharted.software/
kencf0618 ( talk) 23:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tor (anonymity network). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice against a new discussion with a different proposed title. Jenks24 ( talk) 06:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Tor (anonymity network) →
Tor (network) – A shorter name, easier to remember
Deku-shrub (
talk) 09:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted.
Natg 19 (
talk)
17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Support - sufficient disambiguation sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 02:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Anonymity is Tor's raison d'être. Network qua network is needlessly unhelpful and generic. kencf0618 ( talk) 22:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - per Kencf0618, though I can see present title is clunky. 'Network' isn't helpful as it has many non-IT meanings. It also isn't accurate, since (in IT) the term normally applies to the hardware rather the software, though present title is equally wrong in that sense. Suggest you find a better title, 'Tor (software)'? Pincrete ( talk) 23:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposed disambiguation is not considered an adequate description of the bulk of the content. No prejudice against future discussion as most participants did seem keen on some sort of move. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Tor (anonymity network) →
Tor (software) – Simpler to remember name, more accurately describe the software that simply forms the basis of the implemented network
Deku-shrub (
talk)
17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
– "Tor" is currently a disambiguation page. Because there are other move requests suggesting that a move would be desirable, and because this article gets lots of traffic and the other articles for "tor" do not, this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and so should occupy the title "Tor". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Traffic:
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved both. The previous move discussion was only a month ago, but it did not address long-term historical significance. Consensus can change, and the consensus of this wider set of editors is clear that when long-term historical significance is considered, the anonymity network is not the primary topic. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
– Request move is only admin, Itwiki6666 ( talk) 06:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is pathetic. Nobody cares about a damn rock formation. This is almost as pathetic as the Java article, where it is about an island in Indonesia no one cares about, instead of the programming language that obviously everyone wants to know more about. Incendiary Iconoclasm 22:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
*Oppose move Because if this page is moved it will be deleted and the record of this move discussion will disappear.
Ottawahitech (
talk)
22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)please
ping me
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure). sst✈ 16:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Tor (anonymity network) →
Tor (technology)
Tor (information technology) –
WP:PRECISE: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that"; see also
information technology and
virtual technology.
fgnievinski (
talk)
23:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Should we summarily close any requested moves until September 1st, 2016?
I think we should include this information in the article to put weaknesses in perspective. "At the most basic level, an attacker who runs two poisoned Tor nodes—one entry, one exit—is able to analyse traffic and thereby identify the tiny, unlucky percentage of users whose circuit happened to cross both of those nodes. At present the Tor network offers, out of a total of around 7,000 relays, around 2,000 guard (entry) nodes and around 1,000 exit nodes. So the odds of such an event happening are one in two million (1/2000 x 1/1000), give or take." Source: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/building-a-new-tor-that-withstands-next-generation-state-surveillance/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.77.121 ( talk) 02:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose expanding the "Reception, impact, and legislation" section (6) to emphasize Tor's sources of public and private funding:
"Tor has received funding from U.S. government agencies including the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; the National Science Foundation; the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; and DARPA. Some have proposed that the government values Tor's commitment to free speech, and uses the darknet to gather intelligence.[19] Private sponsors include Reddit, Google, and Human Rights Watch.[20]"
19. Moore, Daniel; Rid, Thomas. "Cryptopolitik and the Darknet". Survival. Feb2016, Vol. 58 Issue 1, p7-38. 32p.
20. Inc., The Tor Project,. "Tor: Sponsors". www.torproject.org. Retrieved 2016-10-28.
Atticusbixby ( talk) 21:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
How do u sign up for darkweb? Aphe de.soul ( talk) 13:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I asked Jimmy Wales about creating a Tor hidden service (just like Facebook has one) for Wikipedia on his talk page here.
This would be good for improving Wikipedia's resilience and allow people to anonymously read, and potentially/preferably also write, Wikipedia.
I'd be interested in what you think of this. Do you have some concerns with this or could you provide help in implementing this?
For instance I guess improving anonymous write-access to Wikipedia also opens doors to some types of malicious edits and hence I'd suggest to have all edits made via Tor remain pending (or alike) even if the page is unprotected.
I also suggested an I2P eepsite and some other cybersecurity measures in the talk page entry.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 18:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
An editor is wanting to remove the following material, with an edit summary of "Removed mouse fingerprinting as it's not actually a TOR network specific weakness it's a browser "issue" - mouse fingerprinting or browser profiling could be used to "identify" the same unique user in most web browsers":
And I'm not sure the material should be removed. On the one hand the point is well taken that mouse fingerprinting is not Tor-specific. On the other hand, apparently mouse fingerprinting is specifically a problem for people trying to be anonymous, which ties in with Tor, and all three of the refs talk about Tor specifically. Because of this I've restored the material for now, subject to discussion. It may well be that it doesn't belong though. The article is already pretty long. Herostratus ( talk) 17:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"Tor" means "gate" in German. Then I first learned of Tor, I assumed that this was the reason for the choice of that name. I don't know much about this, but my guess is that, when people came up with the acronym for "The Onion Router", it immediately occurred to them that this would be a great name because of the meaning in German. I would be interested to see whether anyone can shed more light on this. --- Dagme ( talk) 09:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tor (anonymity network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi lovely Wikipedia folks. Concerning section 3.3 of the tor article (Arm status monitor) the project was renamed in November 2017 to Nyx. I've been asked to leave leave maintenance of this article to others since I'm a Tor dev and author of Nyx/Arm. If you have any questions just let me know. :)
Atagar ( talk) 20:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The name "hidden service" has been deprecated in favor of "onion service" (at least in part due to the fact that, at least by volume of traffic, most of them are things like Facebook, which aren't hidden at all). [1] Since almost everyone affiliated with the Tor Project, related projects, and researchers have all switched over to the new terminology, [2] [3] [4] I'm going to switch the name used here in this article (as well as other places on Wikipedia.) I figure this change should be pretty non-controversial, since it is so universal by now, but wanted to explain more why I'm doing it, since I know there are still a few holdouts who use the older terminology (either because they don't know, or just old habits die hard, I suppose).
References
Tga ( talk) 04:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Would Recommend Editing to include mention of the HiddenServiceAuthorizeClient / HiddenServAuth commands within Tor which could plausibly give rise to what is popularly known as the "shadow net", as opposed to the "dark net". See The Tor Manual for more information on this. 12.32.207.164 ( talk) 13:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The article currently has this:
"Tor is also used for illegal activities, e.g., to gain access to censored information, to organize political activities, or to circumvent laws against criticism of heads of state. "
But this is problematic. For example, it does not explain why "gain access to censored information" would be an illegal activity.
Any random state could make any random law that would prohibit something, at any moment in time.
Then the comment about "circumvent laws against criticism of heads of state". Well, in any dictatorship-like setup criticism is usually forbidden.
I think the wording is problematic. It's fine if the wording is changed to explain it in more detail, while retaining the general aim of the sentence, but the way it is currently worded is very peculiar. After all, what constitutes an "illegal activity"? This is also different from country to country. I don't think the wording can be correct in the general sense without being explicit about the country at hand and the laws there. 2A02:8388:1604:CA80:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 09:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Current wording of Wikipedia block on Tor (anonymity network) at the lead of the article (as described at WP:LEAD) is unable to get verified. Need a good source (not a WP:BLOG, WP:USG, WP:UNRELIABLE, ect) to verify content and that weird link to Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor completely unrelated. Wikipedia is not being discussed and there is no reference in body to verify lead. User:Saschaporsche what rule did you apply here? Would discuss this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.58.239.252 ( talk) 07:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Current wording of lead:
For example, the MediaWiki TorBlock extension automatically restricts edits made through Tor, although Wikipedia allows some limited editing in exceptional circumstances. [6]
References cited to support inclusion:
A New York Times article is being cited which discusses about a current situation of Wikipedia block in Turkey, which has received extensive media coverage. The news article discusses about the Virtual Private Network block on Wikipedia which is discussed extensively on the article, not Tor's block on Wikipedia. A link to Wikipedia namespace does look problematic as it is not being well aligned to WP:WIKILINK which states to use Mainspace links instead of Wikipedia: namespace links.
Text of reference is (NYT; attribution of fair use to demonstrate unverifiability and incorrect reference):
ISTANBUL — Baris Dede, a game design student, had a question: How easily did Viking longboats glide through the water? Dilara Diner, a psychologist, wanted to double-check a symptom of hysteria.
But these Turks were not able to quickly find out what they wanted. Since late April the Turkish government has blocked one of the world’s go-to sources of online information, Wikipedia.
After Wikipedia refused to remove unflattering references to Turkey’s relationship with Syrian militants and state-sponsored terrorists, officials simply banned the whole site.
Several weeks into the ban, some Turks are still struggling to remove Wikipedia searches from their muscle memory.
Yaman Akdeniz, a law professor, turned by habit to Wikipedia to find out when the latest “House of Cards” season was released.
“You forget that it’s blocked, and then you click on it and then — boomph, nothing: You realize you can’t access it,” said Professor Akdeniz, describing his personal form of digital whiplash. Many people didn’t realize until after it was blocked, he said, that Wikipedia “was so much a part of our lives.”
Mr. Dede said he mourned the loss of “part of your memory.” Even in his academic world, where Wikipedia is sometimes scorned, the website was secretly seen as a good starting place for research, he said.
But beyond the problems it has created for the curious, Turkey’s Wikipedia ban is a reminder of something darker, government critics say: a wholesale crackdown on free expression and access to information, amid wider oppression of most forms of opposition.
Wikipedia is just one of 127,000 websites blocked in Turkey, estimated Professor Akdeniz, who has led legal challenges against the Wikipedia ban and other web restrictions. An additional 95,000 pages, like social media accounts, blog posts and articles, are blocked on websites that are not otherwise restricted, Mr. Akdeniz said.
Some of these sites are pornographic. But many contain information and reporting that the government finds embarrassing. Sendika, an independent news outlet, is now on the 45th iteration of its website. The previous 44 were blocked.
For web activists in Turkey, Wikipedia is simply the latest victim of a wave of online censorship that grew steadily from 2015 onward and then surged significantly after last year’s failed coup.
The coup attempt gave President Recep Tayyip Erdogan the political cover to expand a crackdown on his opponents, including in the traditional news media. Since the coup, 190 news organizations have been banned and at least 120 journalists jailed.
“The international community noticed this issue by reference to the Wikipedia block, but it’s not a new thing from our point of view,” Mr. Akdeniz said. “Critical media is under stress on a daily basis — and what made that visible is the Wikipedia ban.”
For students, the ban could not have come at a worse time: just as they were knuckling down for exams.
“It’s a big obstacle,” said Ege, a 17-year-old high school student, whose surname has been withheld at the wishes of his headmaster. “Wikipedia is the source of the sources — you can find everything there.”
While studying Jean Anouilh’s French adaptation of a Greek tragedy, “Antigone,” Ege’s friends had wanted to know more about the heroine’s father: the mythical King Oedipus, who mistakenly married his mother.
“The Oedipus bloodline, what he did, the curse that was put on his family,” Ege’s classmate Yusuf said. “Reaching that information wasn’t exactly easy.”
Wikipedia use has fallen by 85 percent in Turkey since April, but some have managed to circumvent the ban with a VPN, or virtual private network, a tool that helps web users gain access to blocked websites.
According to GlobalWebIndex, a group that researches worldwide internet activity, Turkey has the third-highest VPN prevalence in the world. More than 45 percent of Turks ages 16 to 64 who have web access used a VPN in the first quarter of 2017, and the practice has become second nature even for some beginners.
“My mom learned to send an email two years ago,” Mr. Dede said. “The next thing, she’s learning how to access a VPN.”
But VPN use comes with an unwelcome side effect. Because Wikipedia does not allow VPN users to edit articles, Turks are unable to correct or update information posted on the site or write new articles.
“Turkey has lost its voice online because of its inability to edit Wikipedia,” said Alp Toker, a co-founder of Turkey Blocks, a group that tracks Turkish internet censorship.
In addition, some VPNs are also banned. Those that remain are often slow, particularly on cellphones, so using one is sometimes not worth the hassle.
As a result, some students are getting desperate about their final exams.
“Dear President of the Republic, the Leader, open up Wikipedia at least until the end of the finals week,” one wrote on Twitter. “President, I am overwhelmed, hear me out.”
No mention of Wikipedia's block of Tor (although it has a article and a extension to enforce them).
References
The result of the move request was: CONSENSUS TO NOT MOVE. --- Coffeeand crumbs 02:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This page, Tor (anonymity network), gets the most traffic. See the pageview analysis of the articles on the disambiguation page. Because of this high traffic the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "tor" is this page.
There were a series of similar move requests in 2015-16. I participated in those. What is new now is that we have these traffic analytics tools which make it easy to identify a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with data by running a query. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at your user pages, and you all are British. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 07:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I missed the entire move request, which is fine since I agree with the outcome. :) However, I wanted to note a couple points for future reference in case it becomes relevant later:
Again, I think that the decision not to make this the primary topic is the right one, but also think it's important to understand the actual situation. — Tga ( talk) 22:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The article states "Tor does not prevent an online service from determining when it is being accessed through Tor." However, this CAN be incorrect under certain circumstances. This is because the means via which we determine whether or not a given IP is a tor node is based upon the lists provided for by Tor which come from the mainstream public directory authorities. Most users use the public directory authority in actual practice, but it is possible to form your own directory authority, if you were to have enough nodes join your directory authority. Simply put, the ability to learn if a machine is a tor node is dependent upon the given directory authority publishing to the public in some way or another that the information that it is a tor node. While the Tor project does this for the mainstream public directory authorities, other directory authorities may not necessarily do this, though the nodes would still very much be "Tor" nodes within the classical sense. 66.90.153.184 ( talk) 00:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion on the boards (e.g. reddit) about the security of webm, especially regarding the protection of the user’s IP address when using HTML5. This is a very active discussion right now in the context of using TOR even over VPN, especially on iOS and possibly other mobile platforms. I did not see any discussion of this on other security-focused wiki pages nor on the webm Wikipedia page. Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge than I could consider adding something to this section of this page on this topic? I also will added a note to the webm Wikipedia page about this. Mike-c-in-mv ( talk) 17:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article_size recommends dividing from a size of 60k and strongly recommends it from above 100k. This article is 137k. What part should be moved to a different article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streepjescode ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It focuses too much on outdated attack methods. It references some really old studies (2009, really?) and methods that as of 2020 are patched. Why not talk about a current problem, such as malicious relays running SSLStrip? or hidden services being DoSed? I suggest rewriting the entire section, focusing on relevant stuff, and actually referencing Tor's blog. https://blog.torproject.org/bad-exit-relays-may-june-2020 https://blog.torproject.org/stop-the-onion-denial https://blog.torproject.org/ IveGonePostal ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
People relying on Tor as a 'safety-critical' piece of software, that if it were to fail would result in being busted, etc... but it has not been written to such standards.
Also it an open open secret within the internet service provider community that it is not secure, because anyone with a "God's eye" view of the network can break it. That means pretty much all governments and many law enforcement agencies. So the software could be considered a honeypot because it provides a false sense of security, and innocent people who are not true criminals are likely to end up being prosecuted because of draconian 'thought crime' computer crime laws.
Wrong word, should be resistant rather than resilient...so it seems to me. "In spite of known weaknesses and attacks listed here, a 2009 study revealed Tor and the alternative network system JonDonym (Java Anon Proxy, JAP) are considered more resilient to website fingerprinting techniques than other tunneling protocols." 2603:6080:800:6A:A8C6:987B:33B:52BE ( talk) 04:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not really a computer expert per se, but I have been using linux since about 20 years. What I would love to see on wikipedia is an article that focuses on technical aspects (implementation details) BUT without assuming the user is very clever; without assuming the user is very dumb, either. Wikipedia is quite good, but some articles are way too complicated whereas others lack some detail. Anyway - would it be possible for a longer document to be integrated into the main article here BUT perhaps linked in from the main website (here, on wikipedia about tor), so that not everyone has to read it as-is? This new article should focus on technical aspects, implementation details and so forth. I understand the general gist of how Tor works but not really where the limitations start and end; for example the "torbrowser" is implemented via firefox I assume, so it may share some design limitations incurred by firefox (I assume here). The article is ok but it is a bit convoluted and should probably be re-arranged entirely. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F ( talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)