0

This question already has an answer here:

My college network is secured by Cyberoam. I downloaded TOR but I m not able to set it up . Actually I don't know what the problem is but I think that Cyberoam has blocked the TOR application. Please help me resolve this problem. Every help is welcome

marked as duplicate by Richard Horrocks, Jens Kubieziel May 27 '16 at 13:13

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

0

OK, here is what you should do:

  • First, pre-seed it from a working connection. Anywhere. Just run it and let it be up for a ten minutes
  • Second, take a close look at pluggable transport, especially on Obfs3, Obfs4 and Meek
  • Third, take a look at bridges.
  • Four, take a look at UseEntryGuards 0 setting, it may help you after reseeding. It is the "last resort" option if no other thing helps/works

Feel free to ask further questions!

  • Why UseEntryGuards 0? It reduces security. – Matt Nordhoff May 28 '16 at 1:00
  • 1
    Bridges do not publish their descriptors to the consensus, they publish their descriptors to the BridgeDB if they publish them at all. BridgeDB is far less enumerable than the consensus, which is where they'd be getting any other relays ORPort from. The adversary has access to the same list as the user. Not using EntryGuards is both harmful to anonymity and achieves less than using Bridges. – cacahuatl May 28 '16 at 1:59
  • 1
    First of all, no, it's not simple, say you run your script and you're randomly enumerating the results returned from bridgedb, how do you know when you have all the nodes? You also need to run this enumerating script forever to keep up with any new nodes that are added and you've no meaningful guarantees that you will ever get a full list. Whereas they will always have a guaranteed full list of relays from the consensus. Suggesting people disable entry guards for this reason is purely harmful and your justification of it is flimsy and ill-conceived. Please stop recommending this to users. – cacahuatl May 28 '16 at 21:08
  • 1
    It is always a much worse option than bridges, Tor appearing to work but in reality providing little to no protection for the user is indeed worse than tor not working. If straight bridges, obfs{3,4}, or meek do not work then you need to find a better method to bypass the censor, removing guards is never the right solution. – cacahuatl May 28 '16 at 23:40
  • 1
    Your "prooflink" is totally unrelated to the problem being discussed. First of all, your solution might work briefly but the censor would quickly catch on then it would be trivial to block. It's harmful and it's a short term solution to a long term problem, and yes leaving users vulnerable to targeted deanonymization attacks rather than trying to find a better solution, like tunneling tor over some other connection medium is definitely worse. If you cannot see the problems with not even warning users they'd be vulnerable when you recommend this, then you're a danger to users and a liability. – cacahuatl May 29 '16 at 0:05

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.