anonymous surfing

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Icono, Dec 6, 2005.

  1. Icono

    Icono Guest

    Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other packs?
     
    Icono, Dec 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Icono

    Notan Guest

    Notan, Dec 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Icono

    Guest Guest

    "Icono" <> wrote in message
    news:%M6lf.7231$La5.3180@fed1read01...
    > Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other packs?
    >



    Unreliable. Slow. Sites can block anonymous proxies to force you to
    connect directly. Extremely few reasons to do so. Pedophilia comes to
    mind, as does spamming. Abusing a site regarding limits on download quotas
    also comes to mind. In other words, subversive scum trying to hide.
    Whistleblowing is a valid use, but then you didn't mention that activity so
    that's not why you want to be anonymous.
     
    Guest, Dec 6, 2005
    #3
  4. Icono

    Russ Smith Guest

    Computers are really really fast. That's what they're good at.

    Those Who Want To Know have connectivity anywhere.
    They see packets - dead or not. They see packets going in,
    they see packets going out. They can follow those packets.
    They follow them from the source, they follow them back from
    the destination. Maybe they just compare source and destination
    without doing any following at all.

    Because they have really really fast computers that are good
    at that.

    The Folks Who Work For Those Who Want To Know know
    all about traffic analysis. They can connect packets going in
    to packets going out with high degree of correctness. So
    even sites that do interesting things to packets to keep them
    "anonymous" are transparent if Those Who Want To Know
    want to know.

    Anonymous surfing?

    Only if you are temporarily connected to a random wireless
    network with no in-the-packet ID of who you are, nor any
    in-the-packet-stream ID of who you are.

    "Icono" <> wrote in message news:%M6lf.7231$La5.3180@fed1read01...
    > Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other packs?
    >
     
    Russ Smith, Dec 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Icono

    Icono Guest

    "Russ Smith" <> wrote in message
    news:eXelf.109094$0l5.87595@dukeread06...
    > Computers are really really fast. That's what they're good at.
    >
    > Those Who Want To Know have connectivity anywhere.
    > They see packets - dead or not. They see packets going in,
    > they see packets going out. They can follow those packets.
    > They follow them from the source, they follow them back from
    > the destination. Maybe they just compare source and destination
    > without doing any following at all.
    >
    > Because they have really really fast computers that are good
    > at that.
    >
    > The Folks Who Work For Those Who Want To Know know
    > all about traffic analysis. They can connect packets going in
    > to packets going out with high degree of correctness. So
    > even sites that do interesting things to packets to keep them
    > "anonymous" are transparent if Those Who Want To Know
    > want to know.
    >
    > Anonymous surfing?
    >
    > Only if you are temporarily connected to a random wireless
    > network with no in-the-packet ID of who you are, nor any
    > in-the-packet-stream ID of who you are.
    >
    > "Icono" <> wrote in message
    > news:%M6lf.7231$La5.3180@fed1read01...
    >> Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other packs?
    >>


    O.K. so you have no protection, accept all cookies from all sources, don't
    block popups, don't have virus protection
    OR
    You don't use the internet very often.

    Oh, yes and you leave all doors on your house and car unlocked or open
    because "they" can get in anyway.

    That's fine
     
    Icono, Dec 6, 2005
    #5
  6. Icono wrote:

    >> The Folks Who Work For Those Who Want To Know know all about traffic
    >> analysis. They can connect packets going in to packets going out with
    >> high degree of correctness. So even sites that do interesting things to
    >> packets to keep them "anonymous" are transparent if Those Who Want To
    >> Know want to know.


    <snippage>

    > O.K. so you have no protection, accept all cookies from all sources, don't
    > block popups, don't have virus protection OR
    > You don't use the internet very often.
    >
    > Oh, yes and you leave all doors on your house and car unlocked or open
    > because "they" can get in anyway.


    No, it's more like you lead a normal life and take rational precautions,
    but because you don't delude yourself into believing locks are infallible
    you refrain from leaving your life savings in cash, lying in the middle of
    your living room floor.

    But you were close. :)
     
    Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer, Dec 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Icono

    icono Guest

    "Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" <> wrote
    in message news:...
    > Icono wrote:
    >
    >>> The Folks Who Work For Those Who Want To Know know all about traffic
    >>> analysis. They can connect packets going in to packets going out with
    >>> high degree of correctness. So even sites that do interesting things to
    >>> packets to keep them "anonymous" are transparent if Those Who Want To
    >>> Know want to know.

    >
    > <snippage>
    >
    >> O.K. so you have no protection, accept all cookies from all sources,
    >> don't
    >> block popups, don't have virus protection OR
    >> You don't use the internet very often.
    >>
    >> Oh, yes and you leave all doors on your house and car unlocked or open
    >> because "they" can get in anyway.

    >
    > No, it's more like you lead a normal life and take rational precautions,
    > but because you don't delude yourself into believing locks are infallible
    > you refrain from leaving your life savings in cash, lying in the middle of
    > your living room floor.
    >
    > But you were close. :)
    >


    Actually the only thing I was looking for was a package where cookies are
    not accepted unless the web addy is included as "O.K." and then remembers
    such when answered. It is more of a convenience to keep garbage out rather
    than hard protection. I could also review sites that I have "O.K.ed".

    I had GhostSurf for over a year. I upgraded and they have messed it up. It
    doesn't work properly.

    The concept of a proxy is vague at best.
     
    icono, Dec 6, 2005
    #7
  8. Icono

    traveler 'Q' Guest

    On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:29:19 -0700, Icono wrote:

    > "Russ Smith" <> wrote in message
    > news:eXelf.109094$0l5.87595@dukeread06...
    >> Computers are really really fast. That's what they're good at.
    >>
    >> Those Who Want To Know have connectivity anywhere.
    >> They see packets - dead or not. They see packets going in,
    >> they see packets going out. They can follow those packets.
    >> They follow them from the source, they follow them back from
    >> the destination. Maybe they just compare source and destination
    >> without doing any following at all.
    >>
    >> Because they have really really fast computers that are good
    >> at that.
    >>
    >> The Folks Who Work For Those Who Want To Know know
    >> all about traffic analysis. They can connect packets going in
    >> to packets going out with high degree of correctness. So
    >> even sites that do interesting things to packets to keep them
    >> "anonymous" are transparent if Those Who Want To Know
    >> want to know.
    >>
    >> Anonymous surfing?
    >>
    >> Only if you are temporarily connected to a random wireless
    >> network with no in-the-packet ID of who you are, nor any
    >> in-the-packet-stream ID of who you are.
    >>
    >> "Icono" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%M6lf.7231$La5.3180@fed1read01...
    >>> Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other packs?
    >>>

    >
    > O.K. so you have no protection, accept all cookies from all sources, don't
    > block popups, don't have virus protection
    > OR
    > You don't use the internet very often.
    >
    > Oh, yes and you leave all doors on your house and car unlocked or open
    > because "they" can get in anyway.
    >
    > That's fine


    I have a couple of suggestions, try www.privacy.li or www.findnot.com both
    are pay privacy sites but deliver great services. If you don't want to
    spend to much try www.ultimate-anonymity.com they charge $25 ? for life.
    They give you some free software and proxy info that helps you to set up
    your system for semi private sufring. It all depends on how much you want,
    but check them all out.
     
    traveler 'Q', Dec 6, 2005
    #8
  9. Icono

    Notan Guest

    traveler 'Q' wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I have a couple of suggestions, try www.privacy.li or www.findnot.com both
    > are pay privacy sites but deliver great services. If you don't want to
    > spend to much try www.ultimate-anonymity.com they charge $25 ? for life.
    > They give you some free software and proxy info that helps you to set up
    > your system for semi private sufring. It all depends on how much you want,
    > but check them all out.


    Another one to look at is https://proxify.com/.

    Notan
     
    Notan, Dec 6, 2005
    #9
  10. Icono

    shplink Guest

    Notan wrote:
    > traveler 'Q' wrote:
    >
    >><snip>
    >>
    >>I have a couple of suggestions, try www.privacy.li or www.findnot.com both
    >>are pay privacy sites but deliver great services. If you don't want to
    >>spend to much try www.ultimate-anonymity.com they charge $25 ? for life.
    >>They give you some free software and proxy info that helps you to set up
    >>your system for semi private sufring. It all depends on how much you want,
    >>but check them all out.

    >
    >
    > Another one to look at is https://proxify.com/.
    >
    > Notan

    There's always
    http://tor.eff.org/
    as well.

    (The tor/privoxy bundle in mac os x slows things down considerably, but
    both privoxy and tor work very nicely in linux. I don't know about
    windows, so I'd be interested in any feedback...

    --
    the alt.privacy.spyware FAQ:
    http://shplink.com/misc/FAQ.htm
     
    shplink, Dec 6, 2005
    #10
  11. Icono

    claudel Guest

    In article <>,
    shplink <> wrote:
    >Notan wrote:
    >> traveler 'Q' wrote:
    >>
    >>><snip>
    >>>
    >>>I have a couple of suggestions, try www.privacy.li or www.findnot.com both
    >>>are pay privacy sites but deliver great services. If you don't want to
    >>>spend to much try www.ultimate-anonymity.com they charge $25 ? for life.
    >>>They give you some free software and proxy info that helps you to set up
    >>>your system for semi private sufring. It all depends on how much you want,
    >>>but check them all out.

    >>
    >>
    >> Another one to look at is https://proxify.com/.
    >>
    >> Notan

    >There's always
    >http://tor.eff.org/
    >as well.
    >
    >(The tor/privoxy bundle in mac os x slows things down considerably, but
    >both privoxy and tor work very nicely in linux. I don't know about
    >windows, so I'd be interested in any feedback...
    >


    +1 on that.

    I installed tor/privoxy on my Powerbook and it slowed things
    down to the point where I figured that if anyone was *that*
    interested in analyzing my personal traffic patterns they
    could have at it with my blessing....

    It's a great concept and if the speed ever approaches usable
    I'll be glad to give it another go. Other than the speed
    issue it was easy enough to install and use and seemed
    to work as promised.

    Claude
     
    claudel, Dec 6, 2005
    #11
  12. traveler 'Q' wrote:

    > On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:29:19 -0700, Icono wrote:
    >
    >> "Russ Smith" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eXelf.109094$0l5.87595@dukeread06...
    >>> Computers are really really fast. That's what they're good at.
    >>>
    >>> Those Who Want To Know have connectivity anywhere. They see packets -
    >>> dead or not. They see packets going in, they see packets going out.
    >>> They can follow those packets. They follow them from the source, they
    >>> follow them back from the destination. Maybe they just compare source
    >>> and destination without doing any following at all.
    >>>
    >>> Because they have really really fast computers that are good at that.
    >>>
    >>> The Folks Who Work For Those Who Want To Know know all about traffic
    >>> analysis. They can connect packets going in to packets going out with
    >>> high degree of correctness. So even sites that do interesting things to
    >>> packets to keep them "anonymous" are transparent if Those Who Want To
    >>> Know want to know.
    >>>
    >>> Anonymous surfing?
    >>>
    >>> Only if you are temporarily connected to a random wireless network with
    >>> no in-the-packet ID of who you are, nor any in-the-packet-stream ID of
    >>> who you are.
    >>>
    >>> "Icono" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%M6lf.7231$La5.3180@fed1read01...
    >>>> Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other
    >>>> packs?
    >>>>
    >>>>

    >> O.K. so you have no protection, accept all cookies from all sources,
    >> don't block popups, don't have virus protection OR
    >> You don't use the internet very often.
    >>
    >> Oh, yes and you leave all doors on your house and car unlocked or open
    >> because "they" can get in anyway.
    >>
    >> That's fine

    >
    > I have a couple of suggestions, try www.privacy.li or www.findnot.com both
    > are pay privacy sites but deliver great services. If you don't want to


    Both are ripoffs, scams, and run by thieves and liars. And you are a
    nymhoppong troll and shill.

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/the_doghouse_pr.html
     
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Dec 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Icono

    traveler 'Q' Guest

    On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:43:25 -0700 (MST), Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

    > traveler 'Q' wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:29:19 -0700, Icono wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Russ Smith" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:eXelf.109094$0l5.87595@dukeread06...
    >>>> Computers are really really fast. That's what they're good at.
    >>>>
    >>>> Those Who Want To Know have connectivity anywhere. They see packets -
    >>>> dead or not. They see packets going in, they see packets going out.
    >>>> They can follow those packets. They follow them from the source, they
    >>>> follow them back from the destination. Maybe they just compare source
    >>>> and destination without doing any following at all.
    >>>>
    >>>> Because they have really really fast computers that are good at that.
    >>>>
    >>>> The Folks Who Work For Those Who Want To Know know all about traffic
    >>>> analysis. They can connect packets going in to packets going out with
    >>>> high degree of correctness. So even sites that do interesting things to
    >>>> packets to keep them "anonymous" are transparent if Those Who Want To
    >>>> Know want to know.
    >>>>
    >>>> Anonymous surfing?
    >>>>
    >>>> Only if you are temporarily connected to a random wireless network with
    >>>> no in-the-packet ID of who you are, nor any in-the-packet-stream ID of
    >>>> who you are.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Icono" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%M6lf.7231$La5.3180@fed1read01...
    >>>>> Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other
    >>>>> packs?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>> O.K. so you have no protection, accept all cookies from all sources,
    >>> don't block popups, don't have virus protection OR
    >>> You don't use the internet very often.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, yes and you leave all doors on your house and car unlocked or open
    >>> because "they" can get in anyway.
    >>>
    >>> That's fine

    >>
    >> I have a couple of suggestions, try www.privacy.li or www.findnot.com both
    >> are pay privacy sites but deliver great services. If you don't want to

    >
    > Both are ripoffs, scams, and run by thieves and liars. And you are a
    > nymhoppong troll and shill.
    >
    > http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/the_doghouse_pr.html


    Although they all get heavily trolled, all three offer a good service, if
    any of the 2-3 trolls don't like them, don't use them, easy. I use one for
    usenet, no problems.
     
    traveler 'Q', Dec 7, 2005
    #13
  14. Icono

    Useless Guest

    "shplink" <> wrote ...
    > > Another one to look at is https://proxify.com/.
    > >
    > > Notan

    > There's always
    > http://tor.eff.org/
    > as well.
    >
    > (The tor/privoxy bundle in mac os x slows things down considerably, but
    > both privoxy and tor work very nicely in linux. I don't know about
    > windows, so I'd be interested in any feedback...


    I have two PC's running XP and Tor/Privoxy.
    DNS seems to be the major problem ... many 404's
    Great concept but currenty flawedwithout a DNS cache or Tor DNS servers.
     
    Useless, Dec 7, 2005
    #14
  15. Icono

    Useless Guest

    <Vanguard> wrote ...
    > "Icono" <> wrote ...


    > > Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other packs?


    Ghostsurf works pretty well but you are not anonymous by any means.

    > Unreliable. Slow. Sites can block anonymous proxies to force you to
    > connect directly. Extremely few reasons to do so. Pedophilia comes to
    > mind, as does spamming. Abusing a site regarding limits on download

    quotas
    > also comes to mind. In other words, subversive scum trying to hide.
    > Whistleblowing is a valid use, but then you didn't mention that activity

    so
    > that's not why you want to be anonymous.


    Serioulsy why would one be required to specify the use for an anonymous web
    browsing/publishing tool. It's principle dear boy!
     
    Useless, Dec 7, 2005
    #15
  16. Icono

    Useless Guest

    "icono" <> wrote...
    <snip>
    >
    > Actually the only thing I was looking for was a package where cookies are
    > not accepted unless the web addy is included as "O.K." and then remembers
    > such when answered. It is more of a convenience to keep garbage out

    rather
    > than hard protection. I could also review sites that I have "O.K.ed".


    Then I'm sure firefox would be more than adequate.
     
    Useless, Dec 7, 2005
    #16
  17. Icono

    Notan Guest

    Useless wrote:
    >
    > <Vanguard> wrote ...
    > > "Icono" <> wrote ...

    >
    > > > Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other packs?

    >
    > Ghostsurf works pretty well but you are not anonymous by any means.
    >
    > <snip>


    In what are you not anonymous?

    Doesn't the visited sight see Ghostsurf's IP Address, rather than yours?

    Notan
     
    Notan, Dec 7, 2005
    #17
  18. Icono

    TwistyCreek Guest

    Notan wrote:

    > Useless wrote:
    >>
    >> <Vanguard> wrote ...
    >> > "Icono" <> wrote ...

    >>
    >> > > Anyone with comments on software such as GhostSurf and any other
    >> > > packs?

    >>
    >> Ghostsurf works pretty well but you are not anonymous by any means.
    >>
    >> <snip>

    >
    > In what are you not anonymous?
    >
    > Doesn't the visited sight see Ghostsurf's IP Address, rather than yours?


    That might be "private", or "obscured", but it's far from anonymous. If
    there is a way to trace a connection back to you, you are not
    anonymous. It really is that simple.

    This is a common fallacy that's perpetrated by "anonymity" providers who
    care only about making a buck at the expense of the people they're lying
    to. They're playing on the ignorance and fears of Joe Public to separate
    them from a monthly fee. Look at sites like privacy.li. What you'll find
    is nothing but unending false claims spiced up with bombastic "Big
    Brother" rhetoric.

    Absolutely NO single point of contact can make you anonymous. They know
    who you are at the very least, and their systems and protocols are subject
    to compromise both legally and illegally. Most of these services rent
    space on other machines, so they're not even in control of their own
    servers. Any law officer, voyeuristic administrator, or script kiddy could
    be monitoring every move you make, and these providers wouldn't have the
    first clue. And yet they "guarantee your anonymity".

    The concept of "off shore" is a total sham. Treaties and agreements
    between countries can make obtaining evidence from another jurisdiction
    easier than obtaining that same information locally. Research MLAT
    agreements for an overview. Also, many or most of the countries where
    these providers rent space don't even require search warrants to seize or
    monitor Internet connections. This is why the US implemented CARNIVORE
    outside it's jurisdiction. To get around US laws. But these snake oil
    "anonymity" services build their entire business on the lie that off shore
    is safer.

    There is absolutely no way a real time communication stream can be
    thoroughly anonymous. Even if you're accessing a server through an
    encrypted channel like VPN or SSH. A packet comes from you, to that
    server, and within milliseconds a packet goes out the other end to
    "bombmaking.org". If the process repeats a few times, it's almost too
    obvious that you are the one talking to that potential terrorist site. And
    the process repeats many hundreds of times in a typical web browsing
    session. This is called traffic analysis, and even the relatively secure
    Tor network can be compromised using the method. But these so called
    "anonymity" providers will lie to your face and say they have some "magic
    formula" that defies physics, every expert in the field, and common sense.

    Don't believe it? Watch what the shill "traveler" does next. Baseless
    insults and accusations of working for the competition will be the soup de
    jour, but watch closely for any shred of factual rebuttal and you'll be
    disappointed. The shill has a long and proven history of the same tactics
    in AP and APAS. Along with using numerous sock puppets like "thunderbird"
    to give the appearance of agreement. The shill "traveler" has been so
    thoroughly debunked in those groups it's looking for new waters to troll.
    Unfortunately, these groups are those new waters. :(

    Do NOT trust this shill, or anything it has to offer. Behind everything is
    an agenda, and that agenda has nothing at all to do with making you more
    secure.
     
    TwistyCreek, Dec 7, 2005
    #18
  19. traveler 'Q' wrote:

    >>> I have a couple of suggestions, try www.privacy.li or www.findnot.com
    >>> both are pay privacy sites but deliver great services. If you don't
    >>> want to

    >>
    >> Both are ripoffs, scams, and run by thieves and liars. And you are a
    >> nymhoppong troll and shill.
    >>
    >> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/the_doghouse_pr.html

    >
    > Although they all get heavily trolled, all three offer a good service, if


    Yeah. They OFFER the sun and the moon. What they can deliver is another
    matter all together. And wehat they do with your personal information ans
    surfing habits yet another.

    If you have to sign up and access these services anonymously, as per their
    instructions, how can THEY claim to make you anonymous?

    Where is the magic code you keep claiming exists, but never can seem to
    produce, that defies the laws of physics by making real time
    communications immune to traffic analysis?

    Why is your beloved "Adminus" afraid of the light? Could it be that the
    fish story about Privacy.LIE being "opened under new management" after
    Adem left isn't credible? Adem..... Adminus......? Coincidence?

    Why does Privacy.LIE tout known scam bank First Digital and claim to "know
    the owners", then deny it when cornered by people who have been ripped
    off?

    Who would trust their money and privacy to an anonymous coward in the
    first place? Especially one who has been busted BIG TIME doing exactly
    what he claims not to do..... LOG. And USE those logs to track down people
    who disagree with him/her/it.

    > any of the 2-3 trolls don't like them, don't use them, easy. I use one
    > for usenet, no problems.


    There's only two reasons you'd keep using and touting these services after
    the beating you've taken over it. You're either so completely clueless you
    can't grasp basic concepts, or you have some other motivation for making
    yourself look like a desperate, straw grabbing clown in front of the whole
    online world.

    NOBODY is that clueless.
     
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Dec 7, 2005
    #19
  20. Icono

    traveler 'Q' Guest

    On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:21:24 -0700 (MST), Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

    > traveler 'Q' wrote:
    >
    >>>> I have a couple of suggestions, try www.privacy.li or www.findnot.com
    >>>> both are pay privacy sites but deliver great services. If you don't
    >>>> want to
    >>>
    >>> Both are ripoffs, scams, and run by thieves and liars. And you are a
    >>> nymhoppong troll and shill.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/the_doghouse_pr.html

    >>
    >> Although they all get heavily trolled, all three offer a good service, if

    >
    > Yeah. They OFFER the sun and the moon. What they can deliver is another
    > matter all together. And wehat they do with your personal information ans
    > surfing habits yet another.
    >
    > If you have to sign up and access these services anonymously, as per their
    > instructions, how can THEY claim to make you anonymous?
    >
    > Where is the magic code you keep claiming exists, but never can seem to
    > produce, that defies the laws of physics by making real time
    > communications immune to traffic analysis?
    >
    > Why is your beloved "Adminus" afraid of the light? Could it be that the
    > fish story about Privacy.LIE being "opened under new management" after
    > Adem left isn't credible? Adem..... Adminus......? Coincidence?
    >
    > Why does Privacy.LIE tout known scam bank First Digital and claim to "know
    > the owners", then deny it when cornered by people who have been ripped
    > off?
    >
    > Who would trust their money and privacy to an anonymous coward in the
    > first place? Especially one who has been busted BIG TIME doing exactly
    > what he claims not to do..... LOG. And USE those logs to track down people
    > who disagree with him/her/it.
    >
    >> any of the 2-3 trolls don't like them, don't use them, easy. I use one
    >> for usenet, no problems.

    >
    > There's only two reasons you'd keep using and touting these services after
    > the beating you've taken over it. You're either so completely clueless you
    > can't grasp basic concepts, or you have some other motivation for making
    > yourself look like a desperate, straw grabbing clown in front of the whole
    > online world.
    >
    > NOBODY is that clueless.


    I'm toughting them because I think they happen to be good value, and I
    don't see myself as having taken a "beating" over them. Anyone not
    listening to trolls by flakes like you can get the idea simply. Unlike
    you, I'm not favouring only one company (cotse) and trashing all the others
    as they come up. The ones I've mentioned aren't subject to gag orders and
    black boxes on thier servers, I think that's a point you can't get over.

    As far as the how to's, they all have some write up telling you how they do
    what they deliver, either in thier forums, or on a seperate technical page
    on thier web site. So Flush off.
     
    traveler 'Q', Dec 7, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. D.Corn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    418
    D.Corn
    Oct 1, 2005
  2. Use-Less

    Encrypted Anonymous Surfing

    Use-Less, Jan 2, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    723
    Moe Trin
    Jan 2, 2006
  3. wilburt

    Anonymous Surfing from Anonymizer

    wilburt, Dec 13, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    498
    macarro
    Dec 20, 2006
  4. bluebird44

    Secure and Anonymous surfing?

    bluebird44, Feb 15, 2008, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,143
    bluebird44
    Feb 18, 2008
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    424
Loading...

Share This Page