Post the next paragraph too.
Moreover, the algorithm had been shown to be insecure in 2007 by Microsoft cryptographers Niels Ferguson and Dan Shumow, added Mr Clayton.
“Because the vulnerability was found some time ago, I’m not sure if anybody is using it,” he said.
But your comment implied that because it is open source it automatically means that it is safe and trustworthy and that isn’t true.
Well, your comment implied that OP shouldn’t trust Tor. OP should trust Tor at least as much as they trust their own device, which almost certainly has closed-source components I’d rather target if I was the NSA. (Or the Chinese, or…)
Since this user wanted an in depth conversation on the topic I don’t feel like its “ritualistic purity” to disclose all that I said above.
Except in-depth isn’t what was offered. This reply appears all the time in regards to Tor, and it never comes with alternative suggestions. So yeah, I suspect something irrational is motivating it.
























I will point out that in Canada, there’s not much money in politics. We don’t have a Citizens United equivalent. Pretty sure European countries are more like us, although each one has a distinct system.
Alright, I guess I’ve delivered as much rebuttal as is appropriate, then.
You know, too much length on each analysis itself actually reduces strength, in my experience. If one’s idea is that complicated, they need to put it in a modular, structured form (so not prose), or are guaranteed to have made logical errors somewhere inside.