Slashdot Mirror
Unprecedented Spike In TOR .Onion Nodes (profwoodward.org)
Martin S. writes: The Tor project is reporting an unprecedented rise in unique .Onion nodes, rising from around 40k to 60k in just a few days, says security researcher Professor Woodward. I wonder is this could possible be related to Shari Steel plan to push Tor mainstream, as reported on /. a few days ago.
More FBI nodes to more easily de-anonymize the network.
The number of hidden services (.onion sites) has increased, not the number of exit or relay nodes.
Personally, I don't see 20k more hidden services as a big number: I'm surprised there are so few total (60k). Tor hidden services are a great way to run a server with a dynamic IP address and solve NAT and fire wall issues all at once for free when trying to run a personal server. It also solves several other problems people generally care less about (hides your IP to prevent traffic DDOS attacks, and protects your identity), provides an easy mechanism to have multiple servers serving the same address for redundancy, provide end to end encryption (if the client is also using tor) and makes your service more accessible to clients using TOR (they don't have to go through an exit node).
Tor hidden services are great for low-bandwidth latency tolerant random services you might want to serve off your laptop or phone from time to time. I found it easier to setup most alternatives for solving any one of these issues: I set up a tor hidden service on the first try with no issues. It was easier than getting my dynamic DNS working, and also easier than forwarding a port through my router. (You can host a tor hidden service without port forwarding since all the connections the server makes are actually outward to the poxy nodes).
Really I think the only big issue with them is the latency, and lack of IPv6 support. On that note, I recently had an IPv4 outage for a while and it was interesting to see what worked on IPv6 only.
Tor: 'Mystery' spike in hidden addresses
There's a recent spike in encryption trojans, too. The recovery-keys are provided through TOR.
e.g.
http://1.f.ix.de/scale/geometry/695/q75/imgs/18/1/7/5/3/8/0/5/locky-desktop-9dc10fc8250d6db0.png
Looks like its generating specific servers to get the keys from for every victim.
. . . that they sold and delivered a 20K server to the NSA . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
According to TFA (yes, I know, I am not supposed to read it) this could be caused by the anonymous messaging application Ricochet which apparently creates a hidden service for each user.
Would have expected that that information was mentioned in the summary.
That's how I understand it but I too am not an expert. I also understand that it's most important when you leave the .onion domains and enter the "clearnet." (When using it as a proxy, for example.) I guess if someone can see enough of the internet at one time then they can also use traffic shaping and timing to single out a user. So long as you remain on the .onion networks you are reasonably safe - some say completely safe.
Now, safe means that you are safe technically. It does not mean you're safe otherwise. You still need to avoid identifying browser characteristics/fingerprints. You need to not leak personal information of any kind and that includes keeping scripting off (or very selective and with great attention to care) and not installing extensions that single you out or may leak the data to a third party. Assuming one is attentive enough to practice safe-hex, they're reasonable secure - with a high level of certainty.
As always, safety needs to be weighed against your goals and the risks you're willing to take to reach them. Security is a process, not an application and nothing is completely secure.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This reads more of an ad for Ricochet than anything substantial.
These are hidden servers, not entry- or exit-points.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Damn that Slashdot formatting. It appears to have removed your citation. Think you could post it again?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."