4 ms·

In light of the Freedom Hosting kerfluffle, as well as the Snowden revelations, I don't see much incentive to run an exit node. Prior to these recent events I

by D9u 13y ago

In light of the Freedom Hosting kerfluffle, as well as the Snowden revelations, I don't see much incentive to run an exit node. Prior to these recent events I fooled around with setting up hidden services for my own educational purposes, but the fact that someone could use my Tor exit node to access illegal content was enough to preclude my setting up an exit on any of my servers. Then I read about some guy in Austria who was arrested for running a Tor exit node and my decision was justified. The problems inherent to running any sort of anonymizing service are just too many, and too serious, as we have recently seen.

achille 13y ago
Hidden services don't require exit nodes. That's only for public websites.
hamkt 13y ago
>In light of the Freedom Hosting kerfluffle, as well as the Snowden revelations, I don't see much incentive to run an exit node. I don't see how this has anything at all to do with snowden, and as achille points out this story is about a host of the some of the most infamous Tor Hidden Services, it has nothing to do with exit nodes. Running an Exit Node is a somewhat risky activity since your ip address will be seen when a Tor user hacks/views CP/Torrents. Running a hidden service allows one to anonymously host a website, so it will require significant effort to unmask you, and is usually alot safer than running an exit node. >The problems inherent to running any sort of anonymizing service are just too many, and too serious, as we have recently seen. There are actually two completely safe ways to contribute to the Tor network: Running a (non-exit) relay routes traffic internally through the Tor Network and is therefore a risk-free activity that can be bandwidth intensive. Running a bridge allows is a risk-free activity that requires much less bandwidth. Even exit nodes aren't as dangerous to run as you may think, according to https://metrics.torproject.org/network.html https://metrics.torproject.org/network.html there are about 2000 exit nodes and you have only brought up one case of a prosecution resulting from the operation of one.

by D9u 13y ago

achille 13y ago

Hidden services don't require exit nodes. That's only for public websites.

hamkt 13y ago

>In light of the Freedom Hosting kerfluffle, as well as the Snowden revelations, I don't see much incentive to run an exit node. I don't see how this has anything at all to do with snowden, and as achille points out this story is about a host of the some of the most infamous Tor Hidden Services, it has nothing to do with exit nodes. Running an Exit Node is a somewhat risky activity since your ip address will be seen when a Tor user hacks/views CP/Torrents. Running a hidden service allows one to anonymously host a website, so it will require significant effort to unmask you, and is usually alot safer than running an exit node. >The problems inherent to running any sort of anonymizing service are just too many, and too serious, as we have recently seen. There are actually two completely safe ways to contribute to the Tor network: Running a (non-exit) relay routes traffic internally through the Tor Network and is therefore a risk-free activity that can be bandwidth intensive. Running a bridge allows is a risk-free activity that requires much less bandwidth. Even exit nodes aren't as dangerous to run as you may think, according to https://metrics.torproject.org/network.html https://metrics.torproject.org/network.html there are about 2000 exit nodes and you have only brought up one case of a prosecution resulting from the operation of one.