Delivery-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:55:01 -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=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
	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 E6BC31E0708
	for <archiver@seul.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:54:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8396233C37;
	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:54:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49D333B78
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:54:49 +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 lCDFloGOxYrD for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:54:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "*.riseup.net",
 Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A338B333B6
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:54:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from plantcutter.riseup.net (plantcutter-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.121])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "*.riseup.net",
 Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK))
 by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFE0542086
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:54:46 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak;
 t=1427482486; bh=8Ca2OLDR1hL2An6L94mzgK8QQ+0P67ARUHxELYZxgRc=;
 h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=YTOKG7snCDo6NHxDg54pi49uKH/xnvmE2biT7VGMCOo25xf+yRxB2DL8uU7GJNpvc
 FH5VKRsKC5nlLc7nBty54pId/b12v0WBtB5tqY/7Xkqb69W/9P68lEWWQScUIF5eLb
 8pimCqsrRBEdsNpFFAiCboBx8k57IaBJlsDo3hDE=
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 (Authenticated sender: when2plus2is5) with ESMTPSA id 92CB82009E
Message-ID: <5515A783.2060903@riseup.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:54:59 +0000
From: Speak Freely <when2plus2is5@riseup.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
References: <BAY172-W208020D3391BA2D08B4EDFC4090@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY172-W208020D3391BA2D08B4EDFC4090@phx.gbl>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.6 at mx1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Alternatives to Tor Browser?
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>

My two cents:

The article is poorly written, and describes "alternatives" very poorly,
or down right incorrectly.

There are alternatives out there, but they missed quite a few good ones.
And they glossed over the fact that the article was about how Tor has
been compromised, while at the very same time suggesting using
alternative software that uses Tor. That's not an alternative.

- Tails uses the Tor network and TBB.
- Subgraph uses Tor.


Now... Subgraph looks interesting. But what's the point? Their time
would have been better spent forking Tails, instead of attempting to
re-invent the wheel from the ground up. Or jump onto the Hurd project
and get that damn thing working.

The Tor community uses well established software (Debian for Tails,
Firefox for Tor Browser, Thunderbird for TorBirdy) and modifies them to
be as secure as possible.

Subgraph claims they wrote their own code from scratch. This is an...
ideological decision... but I would always take open source software
reviewed by thousands of users, possibly tens of thousands over the
years for Debian, over open source software reviewed by possibly dozens
of users.

But more to the point, Subgraph isn't available. Development of Subgraph
mail appears to have stopped August 2014, their last blog post was over
5 months ago, and there exists nothing for Subgraph OS to download/review.

All that being said, it is possible these guys from Montreal are
fantastic developers with mad 1337 skills that can revolutionize the
internet. Time will tell.


Again - my two cents.


Kind regards,

Matt
Speak Freely
-- 
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

