[Noisebridge-discuss] oh sysadmins of noisebridge, i have a question for ye

[Jacob Appelbaum]

Ian wrote:
> jake,
> 
> thanks for your well constructed response. i agree with you that tor
> is the superior technology in terms of anonymity.

I think it's better for security, privacy and many other things; it's
not just about anonymity. Anonymity just happens to be an essential
component in those other desired buzzwords.

>although i dont know
> the details of this, is it possible for iran to block ips/ports so
> that iranian citizens cannot use tor? i would imagine there was a
> reason why they would ask for proxies in addition to tor. it could
> also be hard for some people to get the tor client software.

First of all, it's possible to configure Tor to use a proxy first
(usually this is for corporate networks but in principle it will work
when a user needs a proxy in other cases). This is a simple access
issue. You'll still get all of the useful Tor security properties.
Though that may seem odd, I assure you that this is not so bad.

Additionally, the answer to your question is: Yes, the Iranian telecoms
can filter Tor's server list and block access. This is precisely why we
took the next step in the arms race and implemented bridging. If you use
a bridge, it's essentially the same as using a private (not in a
directory) proxy as your first hop:
https://www.torproject.org/bridges.html

Here's a few bridges to get you started:
http://bridges.torproject.org/

If you don't have a copy of Tor, you can always request it via email:
https://www.torproject.org/finding-tor#Mail

> whatever the reason, i hear you on all the complications of one-hop
> proxies. i was thinking that they would be ssl and no logs be kept on
> the server. it is, however, a high-risk proposal which is why i asked
> for everyone's input.
> 

Let me know when your Tor server is up and running! I'm more than happy
to let you know it's working properly. :-)

Best,
Jake