[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-talk] Tor -> VPN Clarification



On 01/30/2015 12:04 PM, Seth wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 03:18:50 -0800, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/30/2015 03:30 AM, Bill Berry wrote:
>>> This image explains VPN + tor quite well;
>>>
>>> https://vigilantcanuck.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/vpn-tor.png
>>>
>>> IMO this setup is a pretty sensible idea given the recent
>>> de-anonymisation attacks (e.g. CMU). If your Tor connection gets
>>> comprimised, all the Feds have (hopefully) is your VPN IP.
>>
>> Yes, that's a good point.
>>
>> Better yet is VPN1 -> VPN2 -> VPN3 -> Tor or VPN1 -> JonDonym -> VPN2 ->
>> Tor. Belt _and_ suspenders :)
> 
> The Grugq sez TOR => VPN – ok; VPN => TOR – go to jail.
> 
> http://privacy-pc.com/articles/hackers-guide-to-stay-out-of-jail-7-vpns-vs-tor.html

Yes, he does. But I don't get why. Maybe someone can explain.

How is letting ones ISP see connections to Tor entry guards safer than
only letting the VPN provider see them? Ones ISP is typically at mercy
of ones government, and perhaps even local criminals. Conversely, ones
VPN provider is (if prudently chosen) not at mercy of such local
adversaries. At worst, from a "go to jail" perspective, the VPN provider
is cooperating with ones ISP and local adversaries. Right?

And anyway, VPN1 -> VPN2 -> VPN3 -> Tor is better.
-- 
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