amuck-landowner

Linking together multiple VPNs and with randomness?

SwitchBlade

New Member
Is it possible to create a TOR like setup with vps servers used as a vpn? For example, connect to vps1 --> and vps1 connects to one or more additional vpses to send your traffic through? If not, someoen should make this. I see a lot of people do not trust TOR now for different reasons and this would do something similar and it would be your own personal private connection not used by others so it would be safer too.
 

KuJoe

Well-Known Member
Verified Provider
Yes, there's a tutorial on LET for this I believe. Essentially you're just running a VPN client and server on a single VPS, nothing fancy.
 

MannDude

Just a dude
vpsBoard Founder
Moderator
Pretty sure I did something like this using SSHuttle ( ) but it was just a chain of two VPSes in the past. I always wanted to set it up so that I could (easily) switch the 'link' on the end the 'chain' when I wanted to use something else but never really bothered with it as it's rare I use a VPN to begin with unless travelling.

I don't think it'd really be all that hard in concept. Especially if you can live without the randomizing.
 

joepie91

New Member
The point you're missing here, is that part of the safety of Tor is in it not being a private connection. It works because you share the same relays with many, many other people, so individual traffic analysis becomes very hard. By setting up your own chain of VPNs, you're just making it a lot easier to deanonymize you.

Aside, there have always been concerns over Tor, most of them misguided (generally by VPN providers with a service to sell) or over-magnified (generally by media who want to score clicks). Realistically, the only real potential issue with Tor right now is traffic analysis. This can be defeated with padding, but that poses a bandwidth problem, and that's what people are trying to figure out right now.

More or less every "OMG Tor is broken!" article in the past 3-4 years has been either about Firefox vulnerabilities (which isn't Tor and not covered by the threat model), or about that traffic analysis (and it's a hell of a lot harder to pull off than people like to claim).

TL;DR: Don't worry about Tor too much. Rolling your own will likely just make you more vulnerable. Contribute your resources to fixing the known traffic analysis issue with Tor instead. And if you're not capable of doing so, then you're also not capable of building your own, more anonymous alternative.

EDIT: And if you want to get more closely involved with Tor and the implementation details, contact the Tor project, and inquire about attending a meetup. I'm not sure how open-to-the-public they are, but I've been to one and it was very, very constructive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
Well in fairness here, I think blinding your upstream with crypto, denying them DNS lookup info, and generally using nothing they understand / can plaintext read is the first step.

That first step for now remains a tunnel, be it VPN or another type.

Within that tunnel, have fun.  Open ToR up in there ;)

ToR has a place and does get negative PR.  It needs scrutinized and continued improvement.  Dealing with a stationary object, suspect code and engineering / data hurdles if it stagnates.

I remain on the fence about ToR.   I run such now and then as a non-exit node....  End user using the network.
 

wlanboy

Content Contributer
I am using VPN for two single reasons:

  1. I don't trust public networks: Hotel, airport, train, customers, don't know if there is a proxy or any other sniffing rolling.
  2. Some services need local ips ... bs like the region codes on DVDs
So for me it is just to secure my connection to the internet. No hiding, no cloaking at all.
 

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
Well @wlanboy you points are most of why folks are on VPN :)   Those three words "I DON'T TRUST".  Be it public facility network or the public internet punched into your home or device, should make no difference.
 

wlanboy

Content Contributer
Well @wlanboy you points are most of why folks are on VPN :)   Those three words "I DON'T TRUST".  Be it public facility network or the public internet punched into your home or device, should make no difference.

What I wanted to state is that I do not use VPN to hide my identity.
Basically using VPN and own DNS and Tor would not do anything to hide my identity if I afterwards log into my google mail account. 
 

drmike

100% Tier-1 Gogent
Indeed!   Problem remains with net being what is (massive spy campaign) that it's just prudent to isolate and eliminate as much of your data as possible.

It isn't about the end human using this tech to behave or to be bad.  It's about the same layer in the middle with known bad behavior and intent to profile folks.

Like with anything else,  90%+ of all users are normal legit people exercising improved practices.  The other probably way less than 10% are the perpetual bad actors.

Of course VPN is being looked at more and more as some dirty thing.  That logic of 'if you weren't hiding anything, you wouldn't be using'.... Which I never liked as a social approach to dealing with humans.

Everyone around here should have multiple VPNs. 
 

joepie91

New Member
I am using VPN for two single reasons:

  1. I don't trust public networks: Hotel, airport, train, customers, don't know if there is a proxy or any other sniffing rolling.
  2. Some services need local ips ... bs like the region codes on DVDs
So for me it is just to secure my connection to the internet. No hiding, no cloaking at all.

That works, if you operate the VPN yourself. If you're using a third-party VPN provider, then you've likely just moved the interception point. What better way to gain lots of data to intercept, than to attract people with the promise that you won't?
 

HN-Matt

New Member
Verified Provider
Indeed!   Problem remains with net being what is (massive spy campaign) 
On that note, a couple of articles placing Tor in an apposite historical context...

INTERVIEW WITH YASHA LEVINE: “IN 2013 TOR RECEIVED 90% OF ITS FUNDING FROM THE US GOVERNMENT”

Quote said:
According to your investigation, the developers of Tor have had connections with government agencies, the NSA amongst them.

Well, it’s not just that some of the developers have ties to government agencies. The entire project was developed and continues to be actively funded by the U.S. National Security State: Pentagon, State Department, USAID and other federal government agencies that are dedicated to expanding U.S. power abroad.

The origins of Tor go back to 1995, when military scientists at the Naval Research Laboratory were tasked with developing technology that allowed intelligence and military personnel to work online undercover without fear of being unmasked by someone monitoring their Internet activity. Whether it was a undercover agent logging into his CIA.gov mail account from Syria or infiltrating a jihadist or animal rights online group — anyone looking at or sniffing the connection would immediately be able to blow their cover.

So a couple of scientists hit up on an idea called “onion routing” — a method that redirected traffic into a parallel peer-to-peer network and bounced it around randomly before sending it off to its final destination. The idea was to move it around so as to confuse and disconnect its origin and destination and make it impossible for someone to observe who you are or where you’re going on the Internet.

This research was bankrolled by the Office of Naval Research and DARPA. It was led by a team of scientists — Paul Syverson, Michael Reed and David Goldschlag — all of them working for the Naval Research Laboratory, sitting inside the massive Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling military base in Southeast Washington, D.C.

They built an “onion router” system that worked, but quickly realized that only technically anonymizing traffic was not enough — not if the system was being used exclusively by military and intelligence. In order to cloak spooks effectively, Tor needed to be used by a diverse group of people: activists, students, corporate researchers, soccer moms, journalists, drug dealers, hackers, child pornographers, foreign agents, terrorists — the more diverse the group, the better the spooks could hide in the crowd in plain sight.

That’s why starting in 2004, Tor was spun off as an independent open source project and began to distance itself from its military-intelligence ties.

Most people now think of Tor is somehow hostile to the U.S. government, but in fact it continues to receive the bulk of its funds from the same military-intelligence agencies that spawned it. In 2013, Tor got over 90% of its funding from the U.S. government, with the largest grant coming from the Pentagon.

Tor is essentially a private military contractor. It’s a small contractor and operates a non-profit, but it is a government contractor nonetheless. Tor co-founder Roger Dingledine even described his work that way, telling a security conference in 2004: “I contract for the United States Government to built anonymity technology for them and deploy it.”

[...]
 

How was your article received by the Tor developers and the users’ community?

Not well. Not well at all.

Instead of being welcomed by the privacy community and sparking a discussion about the some of the troubling aspects of Tor, my reporting was met with a nasty smear campaign. It was led by some of the most prominent privacy and anti-surveillance activists in the country —top people from groups like the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Pierre Omidyar’s First Look Media. None of them disputed the facts, but resorted to the kind of PR smear tactics one usually sees used by oil company PR flacks, but not by privacy hacktivists.
Further reading: Almost everyone involved in developing Tor was (or is) funded by the US government

I've used Tor infrequently before, more out of curiosity than anything, but was absolutely oblivious of its origins at the time. I guess it would be silly to suggest that its primary funding sources render it ineffective for uses beyond the scope of its original goals, but you might run into trouble if you start considering it through the lens of critical theory adages such as 'the medium is the message' and so on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wlanboy

Content Contributer
Nice article - I am sure that those celebrity tech-hackers did not like that statement:

Quote said:
What is then, in your opinion, the objective of Tor?

Well… there are several possibilities.

At it’s simplest, Tor performs the function for which it was originally created by the U.S. Navy and DARPA — that is, a tool that cloaks the online identity of government agents while they are in the field. And the rest of this stuff — the online protection of activists, dissidents, journalists, criminals, etc — is just a cover story meant to bring in as diverse a group of Tor users as possible, making Tor’s intel cloaking capabilities so much stronger.

Given the recent news of Tor being routinely undermined by U.S. intelligence, Tor could very well be a giant honeypot — drawing in people who have something to hide and then selecting them for total surveillance.

Tor is also a soft-power weapon of U.S. Empire — a tool deployed against countries like China and Iran to make it harder for them to control the Internet.

Tor could also be all those things: a honey pot, a tool of US intelligence and a soft-power weapon. I don’t think those functions are mutually exclusive. In fact, they may very well be synergistic.
 

joepie91

New Member
Indeed!   Problem remains with net being what is (massive spy campaign) 
On that note, a couple of articles placing Tor in an apposite historical context...

INTERVIEW WITH YASHA LEVINE: “IN 2013 TOR RECEIVED 90% OF ITS FUNDING FROM THE US GOVERNMENT”

Further reading: Almost everyone involved in developing Tor was (or is) funded by the US government

I've used Tor infrequently before, more out of curiosity than anything, but was absolutely oblivious of its origins at the time. I guess it would be silly to suggest that its primary funding sources render it ineffective for uses beyond the scope of its original goals, but you might run into trouble if you start considering it through the lens of critical theory adages such as 'the medium is the message' and so on.

Nice article - I am sure that those celebrity tech-hackers did not like that statement:

Quote said:
What is then, in your opinion, the objective of Tor?

Well… there are several possibilities.

At it’s simplest, Tor performs the function for which it was originally created by the U.S. Navy and DARPA — that is, a tool that cloaks the online identity of government agents while they are in the field. And the rest of this stuff — the online protection of activists, dissidents, journalists, criminals, etc — is just a cover story meant to bring in as diverse a group of Tor users as possible, making Tor’s intel cloaking capabilities so much stronger.

Given the recent news of Tor being routinely undermined by U.S. intelligence, Tor could very well be a giant honeypot — drawing in people who have something to hide and then selecting them for total surveillance.

Tor is also a soft-power weapon of U.S. Empire — a tool deployed against countries like China and Iran to make it harder for them to control the Internet.

Tor could also be all those things: a honey pot, a tool of US intelligence and a soft-power weapon. I don’t think those functions are mutually exclusive. In fact, they may very well be synergistic.

I recommend reading up a bit more on these articles. Yasha Levine seems to be running some kind of bizarre feud against the Tor project, literally based entirely on fallacies. There's not a single factual or technical point to be found in any of the articles, that hasn't been widely made and understood before. They're assassination pieces.

Who is funding Tor isn't relevant. At all. The whole point is that you can audit how it works for yourself, verify that it works as intended, regardless of who publicly(!) provides funding. If it were a honeypot, it could be funded behind the scenes as well, so in that sense it tells you nothing either. The funding behind Tor isn't secret, either.

Specifically, read this for a technical analysis on all of Levine's nonsense.
 

wlanboy

Content Contributer

Who is funding Tor isn't relevant. At all. The whole point is that you can audit how it works for yourself, verify that it works as intended, regardless of who publicly(!) provides funding.
If the people who build TOR and getting 100k of $$$ from NSA and other Incs. would not hold the anti-establishment anti-NSA & we are the only right people flag - well - nobody would complain.
 

joepie91

New Member

Who is funding Tor isn't relevant. At all. The whole point is that you can audit how it works for yourself, verify that it works as intended, regardless of who publicly(!) provides funding.
If the people who build TOR and getting 100k of $$$ from NSA and other Incs. would not hold the anti-establishment anti-NSA & we are the only right people flag - well - nobody would complain.
Not really. People would complain (because where there's money/power, there's sockpuppets and a conspiracy theory), and that really was never the claim to begin with.
 

HN-Matt

New Member
Verified Provider
I recommend reading up a bit more on these articles. Yasha Levine seems to be running some kind of bizarre feud against the Tor project, literally based entirely on fallacies. There's not a single factual or technical point to be found in any of the articles, that hasn't been widely made and understood before.
Clearly Levine had no interest in writing about the technical substrata of Tor so I don't really see how citing a lack of technical persepctive is a criticism here. His focus was generalized ideology critique and historical context for a broad audience, i.e. specifically non-technical analysis concerned with certain forms of ideological embeddedness. Within that rubric, I'm not sure what was fallicious or 'not factual'... and if everything he wrote had already been widely disseminated before, at the very least I had not known about it until stumbling upon those texts. In short there are different audiences / demographics / interest groups / levels of understanding out there. Not everyone travels at the cusp of relatively obscure tech development circles.

Who is funding Tor isn't relevant. At all.
keep-calm-and-welcome-to-la-la-land-3.png

Not really. People would complain (because where there's money/power, there's sockpuppets and a conspiracy theory), and that really was never the claim to begin with.

I didn't notice any conspiracy theory leanings in what I read. Pretty sure it was just casually confirming certain historical markers about the project and letting readers come to their own conclusions?

& now I'm reminded of A Scanner Darkly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HN-Matt

New Member
Verified Provider
Specifically, read this for a technical analysis on all of Levine's nonsense.

Started reading it, doesn't really seem to be much of a rebuttal.
 

Cloaking the online identity of government agents and informants is likely the reason that the DoD helps fund Tor--they depend on it as much as everyone else--but this is not the purpose of Tor.
Yes, that is what he was saying...
 

Continuing on with Yasha’s hit piece, he goes on to cherry-pick the military and police uses of Tor, ignoring the rest of the users and then sets the stage for conspiracy nonsense
No, if you read what I excerpted above, you'll see that he specifically doesn't ignore the rest of the users. On the contrary, he lists various other uses as a way of emphasizing how the embeddeness he is critical of functions.
 

He criticizes them for focusing on its ability to protect free speech from oppressive regimes.
I haven't read the Pando piece, but in the interview Levine doesnt offer such criticisms. In fact he says exactly the opposite:

"It may be that there are legitimate uses for Tor. For instance, Tor might provide a good way for people in foreign countries to circumvent Internet censorship. These people might not care that Tor is funded and compromised by the US government, because they're not hiding from the U.S. government. They are trying to hide from their own government."

Kind of hard to read on after that as Lee is clearly misrepresenting (or doesn't understand) Levine's intent.

Reading https://pando.com/2014/11/14/tor-smear/ now, pretty hilarious. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top
amuck-landowner