Timeline for Running parallel Tor servers with different exit IPs with nodejs app
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:37 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 10:38 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Dec 7, 2016 at 10:17 | answer | added | Alexey Vesnin♦ | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 7, 2016 at 9:03 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 7, 2016 at 8:24 | answer | added | cacahuatl | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 19:38 | comment | added | cacahuatl | Selection is weighted based on the relays position in the circuit, it's bandwidth and it's assigned flags. High capacity exits are more likely to be picked than others, you will not get a random distribution from the set of all exit nodes. See: gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/path-spec.txt#n197 and gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2073 | |
| Nov 6, 2016 at 14:49 | comment | added | Maurits Moeys | @canonizingironize why is it likely that the second circuit would obtain the exact same exit IP? This is not implied by the article that I refer to. I agree that for each circuit, the probability distribution for picking an exit node is the same. But in this regard, repeated selection of the same exit node has a very small probability. It would rather suggest that the selection is a function of system dependent variables, which does not feel very Tor-like to me: i.e. why not randomize? (The other suggestion is, indeed, that my configuration is bad, which is what I posted the question for) | |
| Nov 5, 2016 at 20:52 | history | edited | user5 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
s/TOR/Tor/
|
| Nov 3, 2016 at 22:13 | comment | added | cacahuatl | The second circuit will be just as likely to pick the same exit as the first circuit was and thus it will likely within a short time-frame use the same IPs multiple times and all from within the same set of IPs. | |
| Nov 3, 2016 at 21:18 | comment | added | Maurits Moeys | @canonizingironize my goal is not anonymity. Just trying to have a different IP for reach request I do, which is claimed to be possible by the article I referred to. I want to monitor a website without making it a priori evident that it is being monitored (it checks for IP). I am aware this can be done with proxies as well, but I am also trying to play around with technologies. | |
| Nov 3, 2016 at 0:45 | comment | added | cacahuatl | My guess is the funamental misconception that "exit IP" has anything to do with anonymity? | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 18:54 | comment | added | cacahuatl | What, exactly, do you expect this to achieve except waste large amounts of resource? | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 11:38 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 4, 2016 at 20:49 | |||||
| Nov 2, 2016 at 11:36 | history | asked | Maurits Moeys | CC BY-SA 3.0 |