Delivery-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 20:51:44 -0500
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B541E0B55
	for <archiver@seul.org>; Sun,  1 Feb 2015 20:51:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9B533337;
	Mon,  2 Feb 2015 01:51:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4CD2332AD
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon,  2 Feb 2015 01:51:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 4FsrdSi3KhjY for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Mon,  2 Feb 2015 01:51:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (smtp1.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.hushmail.com", Issuer "Self-signed" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A9BC332FD
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon,  2 Feb 2015 01:51:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E3F940175
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon,  2 Feb 2015 01:51:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.62])
 by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon,  2 Feb 2015 01:51:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99)
 id 139D9C0392; Mon,  2 Feb 2015 01:51:33 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 20:51:32 -0500
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
From: "l.m" <ter.one.leeboi@hush.com>
In-Reply-To: <54CEACB5.5020000@gmx.com>
References: <54CB577A.9000100@riseup.net> <54CD1B02.70304@whonix.org>
 <54CD85A8.6080601@riseup.net> <op.xtc9exdbbgbjo9@work-pc.lan>
 <54CDD77E.6010700@riseup.net> <54CDFBBC.5080909@techwang.com>
 <54CE4461.4020106@gmx.com> <20150201215150.311ACC03CC@smtp.hushmail.com>
 <54CEACB5.5020000@gmx.com> 
Message-Id: <20150202015133.139D9C0392@smtp.hushmail.com>
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor -> VPN  Clarification
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

"Joe Btfsplk" wrote:
I gather the one with "more variables in my favor" is Case 2 - Using
VPN 
to connect to Tor?
That is the one (some) have said is definitely not good - yes? Still 
others may have said that VPN  connecting to Tor, isn't as bad as some

have indicated?

Observation:  There are a LOT of assumptions about VPNs & adversaries.
And they may / could be true.  Just sayin'.
The scenarios you describe, would almost seem to say (equivalent of): 

"Either of these is *full* of pitfalls, but since I'm gonna die if I 
don't do something, I can pick one (then pray)."

Reason I ask (about using Tor & *anything* else), is I need to do some

legitimate, online research.
Not political / terrorist issues, etc., nor anything socially taboo.  
But still something I don't want anyone looking over my shoulder.

And I'm not sure if using TBB by itself (in Windows) is "good enough."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, given all the variables I feel Case 2 is to my advantage. I
really don't advocate for VPN through Tor. That's two congestion
control algorithms (both using TCP) in play and one of them (VPN) will
be based on end-to-end circuit conditions. It gets worse once
pluggable transports are used. It's not an assumption that
intelligence agencies are targeting VPN's but I can't remember where I
read it. I also recall a couple articles about members of notable
hacker groups getting thrown under the bus by their (paid) VPN handing
over logs/metadata. These days politics involves promises to ban
encrypted communication if re-elected (UK). If I'm going to have to
pick one I choose opsec and case 2. But then I use Tor for legitimate
online research so the possibility of an adversary within Tor is kinda
the point. I take as absolute certainty that if I screw up opsec my
VPN will capitalize. Pitfalls doesn't even come close to describing
it.

Not thinking TBB is good enough is a good place to start.

The other options for proxy or SSH through Tor or vice-verse have
their appropriate uses so I didn't mention them. I think the
TorPlusVPN wiki covers those.

--leeroy
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

