Delivery-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:28:28 -0400
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=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 BD7B51E022E
	for <archiver@seul.org>; Sat,  5 Jul 2014 10:28:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822502FE9B;
	Sat,  5 Jul 2014 14:28:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4712FE99
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat,  5 Jul 2014 14:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
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 dbm3hT7awhnH for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Sat,  5 Jul 2014 14:20:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.bitmessage.ch (mail.bitmessage.ch [146.228.112.252])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A5112F6FE
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat,  5 Jul 2014 14:20:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (BITMESSAGE [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bitmessage.ch
 ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 16:19:22 +0200
Message-ID: <53B80989.7060706@bitmessage.ch>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 14:19:53 +0000
From: Tempest <tempest@bitmessage.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
References: <1404414258.29695.YahooMailBasic@web122406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1404414258.29695.YahooMailBasic@web122406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Benefits of Running TBB in a VM?
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>

Bobby Brewster:
> 
> Currently, my Tor use model is as follows:
> 
> Me (TBB in Ubuntu) ---> VPN ---> Tor (entry node) ---> Tor network
> 
> I could, instead, do:
> 
> Me (TBB Ubuntu VM) ---> VPN (configured in VM) ---> Tor (entry node) ---> Tor network
> 
> However, from what I've read, there isn't really any advantages to using a VM unless the non-VM system has been compromised (e.g. trojan / rootkit / whatever).

if your non-VM host system has been compromised, there is absolutely no
notable advantage to using a vm.  your vm will be affected by the
malware that sits on the host system.  however, if you use a vm and the
vm gets infected by malware, you have an extra layer of protection
against the malware infecting your host system. thus, with the snapshot
method i described, you can effectively wipe away malware in certain
scenarios.

from an anonymity standpoint, whether running from your host or from a
vm, malware with a phone home system has a greater chance of
successfully identifying you than if you used a system like whonix.

> Also, one thing I'm unclear about is, if one is using a VM, whether a bridged or NAT'd connection is superior.
> 
> The only difference I can see is that the bridge provides a 192.168.x.x address while the NAT provides a 10.0.2.x address. Both appear as the interface eth1.
> 
> Any opinions?

for anonymity, it doesn't make any difference. you're better off running
it as an "internal network" and using an additional vm as a gateway that
has rules to push all traffic through the tor network.

-- 
gpg key - 0x2A49578A7291BB34
fingerprint - 63C4 E106 AC6A 5F2F DDB2 3840 2A49 578A 7291 BB34

-- 
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

