Anonymous ID: 9e52ec Aug. 15, 2018, 11:18 a.m. No.2612282   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2644

>>2551953

>>>2550057

 

>>Use a secure browser (OP is a little paranoid) in incognito mode to search for the model number.

 

>Incognito mode offers zero protection.

 

>Either Tor browser, or proxy up with plenty of security add-ons and a spoofer (and no, don't use fucking Chrome). Going Incognito is like wearing a bag over your head for invisibility: it doesn't work, and it doesn't do what most people expect it to do.

 

TAILS The Amnesiac Incognito Linux Shit

(spouseanon brought home some booze and I am, very atypically, drunk. I rarely drink at all … but Hurricanes taste pretty good and pack an unexpected kick. It's a sneaky chick drink with balls.

 

C_A, if you want me, you've got about an hour!)

 

Be aware that some sites apparently won't allow the use of TOR. Not sure how they detect it, but I suspect that they are simply filtering entire countries for reason of copyright laws or treaties.

Anonymous ID: 9e52ec Aug. 15, 2018, 11:45 a.m. No.2612644   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>2612282

IMHO (I'm still drunk) TOR needs to move up to a user-selectable (or randomly chosen) bounce count of at least three and perhaps as many as 7 AND allow the intermediate servers to add 1-3 additional bounces unknown to the original sender. I think that having routes of unpredictable and variable length would throw a wrench into the timing attacks. For instance, as a relay, every 20 minutes I could roll the dice and use the mod of a random number (or any point within that number) to determine how many bounces the next packet would take.

 

That makes for craziness for anyone trying to identify that packet based on its origin and destination times.

 

TOR can be slow, but it's the best, apparently, available at the moment. VPNs are inexpensive to run. Most of the commercial ones are owned by the alphabet agencies and are totally ineffective as a means to mask your identity.

 

TAILS (imperfect) and pre-arranged multiple layers of encryption look to be the best generally available at the moment. Also, encrypt everything … even unimportant crap … just to increase the volume of encrypted traffic past the point where it can be decrypted in a timely fashion.

 

I don't care if my plan to rule the universe one crumb at a time is decrypted so long as I am already dead of natural causes at an advanced age when it happens.

 

The more encrypted traffic there is, the less any of it stands out.

 

First my recipe for chocolate chip cookies has to be identified from the chaff of other recipes and THEN I want a successful decryption to look exactly like a failed decryption. Multiple layers of varying length keys makes for a very long time to decryption.

 

Rule of thumb? By the time you see anything in the MSM (including the tech media) it's probably broken.

 

I'm a boomer, and I find it impossible to get my millennial family to use encryption. AT ALL. And no, "Telegraph" isn't secure.

Anonymous ID: 9e52ec Aug. 15, 2018, 11:54 a.m. No.2612737   🗄️.is 🔗kun

FWIW

Since we are talking computer security …

Older computers do not have compromised hardware and Linux will run on it.

 

As for your phones? Find a source of older phones and root them with Linux.

 

HELLO … if you want secure communications you will have to expend a little effort and tolerate some inconveniences.

 

With only a couple CPU foundries in the world, at the moment, there is no way to buy your way out of the problem by buying modern hardware.

 

The reason my ZTE is on the no-no list is because it sends my details to China, not Ciana. At the moment, I think I'm safer with my data in China (not part of 5Is). That may change.

 

That is all.