Thanks, but I'm well aware. Tor is not bulletproof and has vulnerabilities. I recommend you learn more about it, because it sounds like you've got a false sense of security. Your link is misleading and leaves out details. I'm not sure if the writer is ignorant, or intentionally misleading.
VPNs are more secure than Tor if you trust the provider.
My systems have different results dependent on use, all chosen by me. Only one is a unique, the rest are generics.
Thanks, but I'm well aware. Tor is not bulletproof and has vulnerabilities. I recommend you learn more about it, because it sounds like you've got a false sense of security. Your link is misleading and leaves out details. I'm not sure if the writer is ignorant, or intentionally misleading.
VPNs are more secure than Tor *if you trust the provider*.
My systems have different results dependent on use, all chosen by me. Only one is a unique, the rest are generics.
Relax, I'm not sure why you think I was attacking you. Try reading it in a more casual tone.
I don't know of what you are and aren't aware..
And that's why I told you. I didn't expect you to know. I even said thanks.
I'm confused why that made you angry.
I've been using Tor Browser as my primary browser for over a decade and have had the Tor Project blog in my RSS feed for a very long time.
Not relevant.
I've found people usually make things about others like above when they don't have points to make.
What are you talking about?
I count a strawman (I never said Tor was bulletproof or invulnerable),
No. that's not what strawman means. I didn't say it to counter anything you said. I said it to further illustrate my point that tor is not any better. Your statement here, ironically, does fit the definition of strawman, though.
an unfounded attack on my credibility (that I'm unlearned on Tor)
Back up, when you assume I don't know something, it's ok because I'm a stranger, but when I assume you don't know something (after you display a seemingly unfounded trust in tor), I'm a villain?
You can't have it both ways. Assuming you don't know, is not an 'attack'. It wasn't when you did, nor when I did.
an unfounded speculation to my mental state (that I have a false sense of security)
Unfounded? I provided my reasoning. You have stated that you think you are safer with tor. That is not an assessment of you 'mental state', it is an assessment of your knowledge.
unsubstantiated attacks on the link I posted ("misleading" - how? "leaves out details" - which?), an unfounded character attack on the author ("ignorant"), and further unfounded speculation to his mental state as well ("intentionally misleading" - how can you know his intentions?).
Its a shit blog-like post that speaks for itself. You are right that I did not back that claim up, and that it is an accusation.
It is not 'unfounded' though. The evidence I offer is your link. Read it and I believe my accusations will become clear, and if not, it doesn't really matter to me. I feel no need to try and convince you.
I wasn't trying to get into an argument
Then what is this all about? If you weren't trying, why did you do it?
We both added information we thought was relevant. Good.
But then you had a tantrum. That is uncalled for. Bad Mario.
Just because we don't agree doesn't mean anyone needs to have hurt feelings.
Trust and insecurity are pretty synonymous, and imprecise abstractions like these are not often useful because they don't make any falsifiable statement. I'd recommend people read through "The Design and Implementation of the Tor Browser," which is useful, precise, concrete, and answers most questions on Tor security in more depth than most would need.
That's better.
I was light on details because I wasn't interested in arguing details, just trying to make a general statement. More specifically: VPNs (if provider is trustworthy) do a better job of hiding an IP.
I'm gonna leave it there, because it doesn't matter if we agree, and I don't think you're having fun, or even trying to hear me out.
You didn't answer the question of how many identifying bits your setup returns on Panopticlick.
Check again, I did answer. My results are tailored.
Relax, I'm not sure why you think I was attacking you. Try reading it in a more casual tone.
> I don't know of what you are and aren't aware..
And that's why I told you. I didn't expect you to know. I even said thanks.
I'm confused why that made you angry.
> I've been using Tor Browser as my primary browser for over a decade and have had the Tor Project blog in my RSS feed for a very long time.
Not relevant.
> I've found people usually make things about others like above when they don't have points to make.
What are you talking about?
> I count a strawman (I never said Tor was bulletproof or invulnerable),
No. that's not what [strawman means](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I didn't say it to counter anything you said. I said it to further illustrate my point that tor is not any better. Your statement here, ironically, does fit the definition of strawman, though.
> an unfounded attack on my credibility (that I'm unlearned on Tor)
Back up, when you assume I don't know something, it's ok because I'm a stranger, but when I assume you don't know something (after you display a seemingly unfounded trust in tor), I'm a villain?
You can't have it both ways. Assuming you don't know, is not an 'attack'. It wasn't when you did, nor when I did.
> an unfounded speculation to my mental state (that I have a false sense of security)
Unfounded? I provided my reasoning. You have stated that you think you are safer with tor. That is not an assessment of you 'mental state', it is an assessment of your knowledge.
> unsubstantiated attacks on the link I posted ("misleading" - how? "leaves out details" - which?), an unfounded character attack on the author ("ignorant"), and further unfounded speculation to his mental state as well ("intentionally misleading" - how can you know his intentions?).
Its a shit blog-like post that speaks for itself. You are right that I did not back that claim up, and that it is an accusation.
It is not 'unfounded' though. The evidence I offer is your link. Read it and I believe my accusations will become clear, and if not, it doesn't really matter to me. I feel no need to try and convince you.
> I wasn't trying to get into an argument
Then what is this all about? If you weren't trying, why did you do it?
We both added information we thought was relevant. Good.
But then you had a tantrum. That is uncalled for. [Bad Mario](https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=zTHhwvTJyMU).
Just because we don't agree doesn't mean anyone needs to have hurt feelings.
> Trust and insecurity are pretty synonymous, and imprecise abstractions like these are not often useful because they don't make any falsifiable statement. I'd recommend people read through "The Design and Implementation of the Tor Browser," which is useful, precise, concrete, and answers most questions on Tor security in more depth than most would need.
That's better.
I was light on details because I wasn't interested in arguing details, just trying to make a general statement. More specifically: VPNs (if provider is trustworthy) do a better job of hiding an IP.
I'm gonna leave it there, because it doesn't matter if we agree, and I don't think you're having fun, or even trying to hear me out.
> You didn't answer the question of how many identifying bits your setup returns on Panopticlick.
Check again, I did answer. My results are tailored.
21 comments
Thanks, but I'm well aware. Tor is not bulletproof and has vulnerabilities. I recommend you learn more about it, because it sounds like you've got a false sense of security. Your link is misleading and leaves out details. I'm not sure if the writer is ignorant, or intentionally misleading.
VPNs are more secure than Tor if you trust the provider.
My systems have different results dependent on use, all chosen by me. Only one is a unique, the rest are generics.
Relax, I'm not sure why you think I was attacking you. Try reading it in a more casual tone.
And that's why I told you. I didn't expect you to know. I even said thanks.
I'm confused why that made you angry.
Not relevant.
What are you talking about?
No. that's not what strawman means. I didn't say it to counter anything you said. I said it to further illustrate my point that tor is not any better. Your statement here, ironically, does fit the definition of strawman, though.
Back up, when you assume I don't know something, it's ok because I'm a stranger, but when I assume you don't know something (after you display a seemingly unfounded trust in tor), I'm a villain?
You can't have it both ways. Assuming you don't know, is not an 'attack'. It wasn't when you did, nor when I did.
Unfounded? I provided my reasoning. You have stated that you think you are safer with tor. That is not an assessment of you 'mental state', it is an assessment of your knowledge.
Its a shit blog-like post that speaks for itself. You are right that I did not back that claim up, and that it is an accusation.
It is not 'unfounded' though. The evidence I offer is your link. Read it and I believe my accusations will become clear, and if not, it doesn't really matter to me. I feel no need to try and convince you.
Then what is this all about? If you weren't trying, why did you do it?
We both added information we thought was relevant. Good.
But then you had a tantrum. That is uncalled for. Bad Mario.
Just because we don't agree doesn't mean anyone needs to have hurt feelings.
That's better.
I was light on details because I wasn't interested in arguing details, just trying to make a general statement. More specifically: VPNs (if provider is trustworthy) do a better job of hiding an IP.
I'm gonna leave it there, because it doesn't matter if we agree, and I don't think you're having fun, or even trying to hear me out.
Check again, I did answer. My results are tailored.