7 ms·

Tor project needs volunteers to help Iranian users access the internet

298 points by folz 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
andrewcooke 15y ago
does anyone have a configured aws image? seems like that would help - people could just deploy them to micro instances for free... [i am about to try build this on an aws instance, but since i know very little about images i am sure others will be better/quicker than me] [update: if anyone else is doing this, you are best picking a new base distro that is new enough to contain libevent 2]
- codesuela 15y ago
  I am pretty sure AWS (like most major hosts) does not allow the operation of TOR nodes. [this statement is wrong see below, my bad sorry]
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    absolutely not. it is common - https://cloud.torproject.org/ https://cloud.torproject.org/ tor is not mentioned on the aws site - http://aws.amazon.com/search?searchQuery=tor&searchPath=all&x=0&y=0 http://aws.amazon.com/search?searchQuery=tor&searchPath=... there is nothing related in the customer agreement - http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ (no mention of tor, proxy, etc).
- dhconnelly 15y ago
  Please, someone familiar with Tor and the special bridge mentioned here, make such an image available. I would deploy one ASAP.
- icebraining 15y ago
  You'll still need to pay for the bandwidth, right? I've set it up in my home server (it's seems really easy, at least according to their instructions), but I only have 512kbps of upload, which will probably limit its usefulness.
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    i understand that there's 15GB/month of bandwidth included in a free micro instance (and i have used one as a personal ssh tunnel without paying anything). the images in the link i gave - https://cloud.torproject.org/ https://cloud.torproject.org/ - look like they include some limited to the free amount. for something like this, personally, i am also willing to spend some money [i am still working on aws trying to get an image working - last attempt failed through lack of scsi drivers afaict - will post here if successful].
    - wladimir 15y ago
      And you can also configure Tor to only use a certain bandwidth quota per day/week/month.
    - jpredham 15y ago
      What base image are you working from?
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - andrewcooke 15y ago
        i was trying to get an opensuse 12.1 ami from suse studio running (as it has libevent 2). however, i am now following this http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3579531 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3579531 and with the fixes i posted in the comments there, things appear to be ok (waiting for tor compile to finish).
    - blario 15y ago
      Just FYI, what andrew said sounded like a plan to me, but AWS only gives 750 hours with the free tier. Might suffice for now, but not forever. So looks like I'll have to do this on an linux vm instead (at home).
  - GavinB 15y ago
    Is this something that you can easily scale up and down? If so, shoot me an e-mail and I'll sponsor you to crank it up for the next month. (e-mail in my profile description)
- lgeek 15y ago
  Here's how to install everything on Amazon's AMI: https://gist.github.com/1802068 https://gist.github.com/1802068 Note that obfsproxy seems to crash in managed mode, so run it stand-alone. Configure tor as a regular bridge (https://www.torproject.org/docs/bridges.html.en#RunningABridge https://www.torproject.org/docs/bridges.html.en#RunningABrid...), and then start obfsproxy with ./obfsproxy obfs2 --dest=127.0.0.1:9001 server 0.0.0.0:1051. 9001 is the bridge port configured in tor and 1051 is the port which will accepted obfuscated connections. I think that a random port is chosen in managed mode, so you might want to change it.
- rmc 15y ago
  Although AWS is cool to allow lots of people, all the eggs are still in the AWS basket, which makes it easy to block. If lots of people were to run things on their own servers scattered all over the global, all over the IP space, then it's harder to block.
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    that's true. so perhaps you could start one up somewhere else? thanks!
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  OK, i think (i have never done this before) that the following image should be public - ami-a97eaec0 it contains a basic 64 bit amazon linux image, with the extra code generated according to lgeek below http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3579531 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3579531 to run, deploy the image, connect as ec2-user in the normal way and then: - modify ~/tor.sh to change the port on which obsproxy listens, if you want - change the security group to allow ports 9100 and 2189 (or whatever you change 2189 to above) (you may need to restart the instance at this point to apply the security group). - modify the bandwidth limit in /usr/local/etc/tor/torrc (ie sudo emacs -nw /usr/local/etc/tor/torrc) - currently it's 50 KB/s which i think comes out as around $10-20 a month if it's fully used. - start with the tor.sh script. - check tor.log and note your external IP address. - check external access using something like "telnet xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 2189" (which generates a screenful of binary on success). - contact tor-assistants at torproject.org so they can give the bridge location out to someone that needs it. please post here or email me if there are any issues (a confirmation that you can access the ami would be cool too :o). also, are AWS external IP addresses permanent (if not, may need to use elastic IP + DNS)?
  - lgeek 15y ago
    It looks like you left your public key in authorized_keys. I guess it was an honest mistake, but at the very least anyone using this AMI should remove it. Now, please don't be offended, but this is one of the reasons I prefer instructions or more generally an easy way to replicate a result - which is easier to verify - rather than the built software/AMI/whatever. It's trivial to offer a compromised system and nearly impossible to verify that a system is secure. On the other hand, tor and obfsproxy work for me using your AMI.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - newhouseb 15y ago
    Security groups are applied as soon as you save your changes, no restart is required. I've never seen an external IP address for an EC2 box change, I don't believe they do. They are typically part of the hostname and it would be strange to have amazon change this at random points in time. Elastic IP is good if you want to change a server a domain points to without having to wait for DNS propagation. I just confirmed that I can access your AMI in the US East region. Be aware, however, that AMIs are region specific and thus your AMI cannot be found or used in any other region (such as US West).
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ck2 15y ago
Might be good to ask this where major-league hosting providers hang out like webhostingtalk?
stingraycharles 15y ago
Out of curiosity, what prevents Iran from just blocking all Tor end nods ? If del.icio.us is able to do it[1], surely Iran must be able to too. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3567996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3567996
- mukyu 15y ago
  They can only do that on sites they control. Iran wants to prevent users from getting into the Tor network and going to sites that they do not have control over. Since it is easy for them to block the public routers Tor uses "bridges" which are nodes that will allow people to connect to the entry nodes through them. The lists of these nodes are then treated as semi-secret (in that they try to limit any one person or organization from learning all of them). This is exactly what they are looking for people to make, more bridges, not more exits. edit: They actually say that Iran does very little active blocking and are just throttling anything that looks like TLS, so the bridge vs. entry node distinction does not really apply in this case, but it is relevant to the attack you are trying to describe.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    But couldn't they simply block on a combination of encrypted traffic and whitelist? That is only allow encrypted traffic to known 'good' sites.
    - andrewcooke 15y ago
      this call is for a workaround that avoids (hopefully) blocking encrypted traffic. why don't you, you know, read the link that this thread is about before commenting?
    - alexholehouse 15y ago
      andrewcooke - sorry, I downvoted before you'd updated your answer. Apologies - should not be a downvote.
      - deleted 15y ago
anigbrowl 15y ago
Not to derail, but the depressing headlines from Syria suggest the need there for secure communication with the outside world is particularly urgent at present.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  they can already use tor. this call is for additional work needed because iran is actively blocking access.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    I see your point; it just occurs to me that since Iran appears to be Syria's sole reliable ally the same thing could happen in Syria at any time.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Things aren't looking too good in Saudi Arabia either: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/02/201221164950683693.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/02/20122116495...
mrleinad 15y ago
Here's the beauty of an interconnected world. You can actually help someone else directly. People can easily organize around the globe to let those in power know they can't just keep doing whatever they want. Keep up the good fight!
nachteilig 15y ago
speaking of this, does anyone have the html/images of the iranian block page? I collect them and would really appreciate it if someone was able to send that along. Or does the iranian firewall just drop the connection without the censorship notice?
- drostie 15y ago
  They're dropping SSH too, so I'd just assume that they're dropping everything. No block page for you. ^_^ The goal might not be censorship, even. Iran's most prominent recent actions have been provocative trade threats and hacking a US drone -- and US Presidential candidates have been discussing the possibility of eventually invading Iran. Iran has plenty of paranoia to spare: http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-right.html http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-r... I'm guessing that they're dropping connections in part based on that; fear of spies rather than fear of speech. In which case they wouldn't really have any motive for a blockpage, either.
  - mukyu 15y ago
    It is the anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah and they do something like every time there is something politically sensitive going on. It is clearly population/sentiment control and not 'fear of spies'.
- pooriaazimi 15y ago
  The actual url is: http://10.10.34.34?type=Invalid http://10.10.34.34?type=Invalid Site&policy=MainPolicy but obviously you can't access that (it's a local IP). You can download the html source at https://raw.github.com/gist/1805605/f2211718b70f7cb24f3d3213824df90c8f3e8797/peyvandha.ir https://raw.github.com/gist/1805605/f2211718b70f7cb24f3d3213... ('peyvandha' means 'links')
corford 15y ago
Would running through an unencrypted socat tunnel (http://freecode.com/projects/socat http://freecode.com/projects/socat) defeat the DPI? If yes, you could setup a tunnel on port 80 and then run openvpn or tor through it. Technically it works as I've done this for a friend in China (but China wasn't doing DPI on SSL handshaking). I posted this same question on the earlier Iran shutdown thread but was probably too late to get a response (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3577901 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3577901).
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  why would it help? socat just sets up a tcp connection. whatever data you send across it is going to look like data sent across any other tcp connection (including the ones that browsers and servers use). am i missing something?
  - corford 15y ago
    No I think you're probably right. Not knowing how exactly the DPI is done, I was abstractly thinking that perhaps shoving the SSL handshake through another TCP/UDP connection might defeat it but tbh I have no idea. Hence the question :) Edit: the reason I mentioned socat was because when I used it to help the guy in China, it was because they were apparently filtering openvpn and we found that when it went via socat the connection was much more stable and faster. Edit 2: if TCP through a UDP socat wouldn't work, how about something totally off the wall like an ipv6 tunnel over ipv4 (using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling) and then an ipv4 tunnel within that ipv6 tunnel (through which the tor or openvpn connection would go). Sorry if I'm spouting garbage but it's quite fun thinking about all the random ways one might be able to tunnel one stream of data through another. (although given the Iranians urgent predicament, my mental masturbation is probably best saved for another day...)
Fargren 15y ago
I know jack about tor except other than it's purpose, but shouldn't it be possible to configure a virtual machine to do this and upload it, so that one would "only" have to mount the machine and turn it on in order to help?
steve8918 15y ago
I only know a little bit about tor, but my understanding is that if you run a relay, then you are basically proxying traffic for other people on the tor network. If this is true, and if someone is looking at kiddie porn through your connection, could you get implicated?
- folz 15y ago
  That's still a legal gray area. The short answer is maybe, but the EFF will probably take your case if you get in legal trouble. > Can EFF promise that I won't get in trouble for running a Tor relay? > No. All new technologies create legal uncertainties, and Tor is no exception. Presently, no court has ever considered any case involving the Tor technology, and we therefore cannot guarantee that you will never face any legal liability as a result of running a Tor relay. However, EFF believes so strongly that those running Tor relays shouldn't be liable for traffic that passes through the relay that we're running our own middle relay. https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html
- brightsize 15y ago
  If you're running an intermediate node, then you're proxying an encrypted datastream from one node to another. You don't know what's in the datastream, who it's from (the endpoint), or where it's going (the other endpoint). See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing
mvip 15y ago
After reading the post above, I reached out to our cloud vendors and got them to sponsor us with Tor-servers. As of right now, we have five Tor server up and running, and we are expecting more shortly (more here http://wireload.net/2012/02/were-helping-tor-project-bypass-government-censorship/ http://wireload.net/2012/02/were-helping-tor-project-bypass-...)

298 points by folz 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

does anyone have a configured aws image? seems like that would help - people could just deploy them to micro instances for free... [i am about to try build this on an aws instance, but since i know very little about images i am sure others will be better/quicker than me] [update: if anyone else is doing this, you are best picking a new base distro that is new enough to contain libevent 2]

codesuela 15y ago
I am pretty sure AWS (like most major hosts) does not allow the operation of TOR nodes. [this statement is wrong see below, my bad sorry]
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  absolutely not. it is common - https://cloud.torproject.org/ https://cloud.torproject.org/ tor is not mentioned on the aws site - http://aws.amazon.com/search?searchQuery=tor&searchPath=all&x=0&y=0 http://aws.amazon.com/search?searchQuery=tor&searchPath=... there is nothing related in the customer agreement - http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ http://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ (no mention of tor, proxy, etc).
dhconnelly 15y ago
Please, someone familiar with Tor and the special bridge mentioned here, make such an image available. I would deploy one ASAP.
icebraining 15y ago
You'll still need to pay for the bandwidth, right? I've set it up in my home server (it's seems really easy, at least according to their instructions), but I only have 512kbps of upload, which will probably limit its usefulness.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  i understand that there's 15GB/month of bandwidth included in a free micro instance (and i have used one as a personal ssh tunnel without paying anything). the images in the link i gave - https://cloud.torproject.org/ https://cloud.torproject.org/ - look like they include some limited to the free amount. for something like this, personally, i am also willing to spend some money [i am still working on aws trying to get an image working - last attempt failed through lack of scsi drivers afaict - will post here if successful].
  - wladimir 15y ago
    And you can also configure Tor to only use a certain bandwidth quota per day/week/month.
  - jpredham 15y ago
    What base image are you working from?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - andrewcooke 15y ago
      i was trying to get an opensuse 12.1 ami from suse studio running (as it has libevent 2). however, i am now following this http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3579531 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3579531 and with the fixes i posted in the comments there, things appear to be ok (waiting for tor compile to finish).
  - blario 15y ago
    Just FYI, what andrew said sounded like a plan to me, but AWS only gives 750 hours with the free tier. Might suffice for now, but not forever. So looks like I'll have to do this on an linux vm instead (at home).
- GavinB 15y ago
  Is this something that you can easily scale up and down? If so, shoot me an e-mail and I'll sponsor you to crank it up for the next month. (e-mail in my profile description)
lgeek 15y ago
Here's how to install everything on Amazon's AMI: https://gist.github.com/1802068 https://gist.github.com/1802068 Note that obfsproxy seems to crash in managed mode, so run it stand-alone. Configure tor as a regular bridge (https://www.torproject.org/docs/bridges.html.en#RunningABridge https://www.torproject.org/docs/bridges.html.en#RunningABrid...), and then start obfsproxy with ./obfsproxy obfs2 --dest=127.0.0.1:9001 server 0.0.0.0:1051. 9001 is the bridge port configured in tor and 1051 is the port which will accepted obfuscated connections. I think that a random port is chosen in managed mode, so you might want to change it.
rmc 15y ago
Although AWS is cool to allow lots of people, all the eggs are still in the AWS basket, which makes it easy to block. If lots of people were to run things on their own servers scattered all over the global, all over the IP space, then it's harder to block.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  that's true. so perhaps you could start one up somewhere else? thanks!
andrewcooke 15y ago
OK, i think (i have never done this before) that the following image should be public - ami-a97eaec0 it contains a basic 64 bit amazon linux image, with the extra code generated according to lgeek below http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3579531 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3579531 to run, deploy the image, connect as ec2-user in the normal way and then: - modify ~/tor.sh to change the port on which obsproxy listens, if you want - change the security group to allow ports 9100 and 2189 (or whatever you change 2189 to above) (you may need to restart the instance at this point to apply the security group). - modify the bandwidth limit in /usr/local/etc/tor/torrc (ie sudo emacs -nw /usr/local/etc/tor/torrc) - currently it's 50 KB/s which i think comes out as around $10-20 a month if it's fully used. - start with the tor.sh script. - check tor.log and note your external IP address. - check external access using something like "telnet xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 2189" (which generates a screenful of binary on success). - contact tor-assistants at torproject.org so they can give the bridge location out to someone that needs it. please post here or email me if there are any issues (a confirmation that you can access the ami would be cool too :o). also, are AWS external IP addresses permanent (if not, may need to use elastic IP + DNS)?
- lgeek 15y ago
  It looks like you left your public key in authorized_keys. I guess it was an honest mistake, but at the very least anyone using this AMI should remove it. Now, please don't be offended, but this is one of the reasons I prefer instructions or more generally an easy way to replicate a result - which is easier to verify - rather than the built software/AMI/whatever. It's trivial to offer a compromised system and nearly impossible to verify that a system is secure. On the other hand, tor and obfsproxy work for me using your AMI.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- newhouseb 15y ago
  Security groups are applied as soon as you save your changes, no restart is required. I've never seen an external IP address for an EC2 box change, I don't believe they do. They are typically part of the hostname and it would be strange to have amazon change this at random points in time. Elastic IP is good if you want to change a server a domain points to without having to wait for DNS propagation. I just confirmed that I can access your AMI in the US East region. Be aware, however, that AMIs are region specific and thus your AMI cannot be found or used in any other region (such as US West).

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ck2 15y ago

Might be good to ask this where major-league hosting providers hang out like webhostingtalk?

stingraycharles 15y ago

Out of curiosity, what prevents Iran from just blocking all Tor end nods ? If del.icio.us is able to do it[1], surely Iran must be able to too. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3567996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3567996

mukyu 15y ago
They can only do that on sites they control. Iran wants to prevent users from getting into the Tor network and going to sites that they do not have control over. Since it is easy for them to block the public routers Tor uses "bridges" which are nodes that will allow people to connect to the entry nodes through them. The lists of these nodes are then treated as semi-secret (in that they try to limit any one person or organization from learning all of them). This is exactly what they are looking for people to make, more bridges, not more exits. edit: They actually say that Iran does very little active blocking and are just throttling anything that looks like TLS, so the bridge vs. entry node distinction does not really apply in this case, but it is relevant to the attack you are trying to describe.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  But couldn't they simply block on a combination of encrypted traffic and whitelist? That is only allow encrypted traffic to known 'good' sites.
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    this call is for a workaround that avoids (hopefully) blocking encrypted traffic. why don't you, you know, read the link that this thread is about before commenting?
  - alexholehouse 15y ago
    andrewcooke - sorry, I downvoted before you'd updated your answer. Apologies - should not be a downvote.
    - deleted 15y ago

anigbrowl 15y ago

Not to derail, but the depressing headlines from Syria suggest the need there for secure communication with the outside world is particularly urgent at present.

andrewcooke 15y ago
they can already use tor. this call is for additional work needed because iran is actively blocking access.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  I see your point; it just occurs to me that since Iran appears to be Syria's sole reliable ally the same thing could happen in Syria at any time.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Things aren't looking too good in Saudi Arabia either: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/02/201221164950683693.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/02/20122116495...

mrleinad 15y ago

Here's the beauty of an interconnected world. You can actually help someone else directly. People can easily organize around the globe to let those in power know they can't just keep doing whatever they want. Keep up the good fight!

nachteilig 15y ago

speaking of this, does anyone have the html/images of the iranian block page? I collect them and would really appreciate it if someone was able to send that along. Or does the iranian firewall just drop the connection without the censorship notice?

drostie 15y ago
They're dropping SSH too, so I'd just assume that they're dropping everything. No block page for you. ^_^ The goal might not be censorship, even. Iran's most prominent recent actions have been provocative trade threats and hacking a US drone -- and US Presidential candidates have been discussing the possibility of eventually invading Iran. Iran has plenty of paranoia to spare: http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-right.html http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-r... I'm guessing that they're dropping connections in part based on that; fear of spies rather than fear of speech. In which case they wouldn't really have any motive for a blockpage, either.
- mukyu 15y ago
  It is the anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah and they do something like every time there is something politically sensitive going on. It is clearly population/sentiment control and not 'fear of spies'.
pooriaazimi 15y ago
The actual url is: http://10.10.34.34?type=Invalid http://10.10.34.34?type=Invalid Site&policy=MainPolicy but obviously you can't access that (it's a local IP). You can download the html source at https://raw.github.com/gist/1805605/f2211718b70f7cb24f3d3213824df90c8f3e8797/peyvandha.ir https://raw.github.com/gist/1805605/f2211718b70f7cb24f3d3213... ('peyvandha' means 'links')

corford 15y ago

Would running through an unencrypted socat tunnel (http://freecode.com/projects/socat http://freecode.com/projects/socat) defeat the DPI? If yes, you could setup a tunnel on port 80 and then run openvpn or tor through it. Technically it works as I've done this for a friend in China (but China wasn't doing DPI on SSL handshaking). I posted this same question on the earlier Iran shutdown thread but was probably too late to get a response (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3577901 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3577901).

andrewcooke 15y ago
why would it help? socat just sets up a tcp connection. whatever data you send across it is going to look like data sent across any other tcp connection (including the ones that browsers and servers use). am i missing something?
- corford 15y ago
  No I think you're probably right. Not knowing how exactly the DPI is done, I was abstractly thinking that perhaps shoving the SSL handshake through another TCP/UDP connection might defeat it but tbh I have no idea. Hence the question :) Edit: the reason I mentioned socat was because when I used it to help the guy in China, it was because they were apparently filtering openvpn and we found that when it went via socat the connection was much more stable and faster. Edit 2: if TCP through a UDP socat wouldn't work, how about something totally off the wall like an ipv6 tunnel over ipv4 (using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling) and then an ipv4 tunnel within that ipv6 tunnel (through which the tor or openvpn connection would go). Sorry if I'm spouting garbage but it's quite fun thinking about all the random ways one might be able to tunnel one stream of data through another. (although given the Iranians urgent predicament, my mental masturbation is probably best saved for another day...)

Fargren 15y ago

I know jack about tor except other than it's purpose, but shouldn't it be possible to configure a virtual machine to do this and upload it, so that one would "only" have to mount the machine and turn it on in order to help?

steve8918 15y ago

I only know a little bit about tor, but my understanding is that if you run a relay, then you are basically proxying traffic for other people on the tor network. If this is true, and if someone is looking at kiddie porn through your connection, could you get implicated?

folz 15y ago
That's still a legal gray area. The short answer is maybe, but the EFF will probably take your case if you get in legal trouble. > Can EFF promise that I won't get in trouble for running a Tor relay? > No. All new technologies create legal uncertainties, and Tor is no exception. Presently, no court has ever considered any case involving the Tor technology, and we therefore cannot guarantee that you will never face any legal liability as a result of running a Tor relay. However, EFF believes so strongly that those running Tor relays shouldn't be liable for traffic that passes through the relay that we're running our own middle relay. https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html https://www.torproject.org/eff/tor-legal-faq.html
brightsize 15y ago
If you're running an intermediate node, then you're proxying an encrypted datastream from one node to another. You don't know what's in the datastream, who it's from (the endpoint), or where it's going (the other endpoint). See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing

mvip 15y ago

After reading the post above, I reached out to our cloud vendors and got them to sponsor us with Tor-servers. As of right now, we have five Tor server up and running, and we are expecting more shortly (more here http://wireload.net/2012/02/were-helping-tor-project-bypass-government-censorship/ http://wireload.net/2012/02/were-helping-tor-project-bypass-...)