@katelyn thank you for your good work. I heard that TOR has been cracked, so that's good that there are improvements being made.

@@rootcanal7188 what source do you have for that claim?

Hi kayelyn was nice of you to check out the video and I sure hope some of them get on board too, its a very worthwhile project!

@@rootcanal7188 No it hasn't If you don't use exit nodes Tor is safer than it ever was, with more than 6000 servers and rising

Dude, no one outside of tech is going to adopt Veilid either. You literally bring nothing new to the table. Ipfs and tor are user friendly if you dont work for or get paid by Veilid.

Ohhh bo2k! My first foray!

Back then I worked at a small IT company where we basically did everything. One day I get the pc of a friend of the owner rich guy's kid who was a self proclaimed hacker. I check the pc and see a script kiddie so I installed BO and scared the shit out of him. 😂

Holy cow that's why I remember that name so well!

'Coincedently' I've been coming across them and seem to be reminded of the once only leet cult iirc.. cDc 3|=(:)[^]

I didn't like how in almost 20 mins you didn't cover the main things about the protocol. There's Tor clones everywhere with different tradeoffs, so I see this one as nothing new. All nodes being the same and relaying traffic also is nothing new. Different incoming and outgoing routes is also not new. It not having a blockchain isn't particularly a pro, there has to be incentives to running long term nodes, and traffic isn't free. You didn't even cover how or if any nodes act as exit nodes or not. Because that is the main issue with all these networks. What do most of them do? they avoid having exit nodes and you can only consume content that is in the network, which usually means that the network is quite small and most users don't see a reason to use it 12:12 This is false, you can easily pick nodes you want to use. Specifying an exit node by IP or by country is very usual and trivial to do. Seeing this level of mistake kinda makes me wonder about the information given in the rest of the video

Umm, copy paste? You literally said ISPF with the same amount of confidence and conviction as all the other terms you used in the video. The fact that you tried to make a comparison to this technology is dishonest at best. You clearly aren't qualified to be speaking on these things right now. Why do it?

If you show text, please don't do the slow zoom in animation, it makes some people very nauseous.

​@@michaelz8260Oh, man, you must really hate Ken Burns documentaries, then 😂

With control port access, every node of tunnel can be customized.

There's nothing suggesting that this network would be faster either. Specially when using random users for exchanges instead of servers The image in the video regarding routing also has too many nodes, Tor uses less and should be faster. I'm starting to wonder if this was a sponsored video. The more I look at it the more red flags I find

Ahh yes, the days of BBS, 300 baud modems and computer shops where you could visit with other computer hobbyists, swap stories and learn from each other...and of course reading the latests from the cDc.

I was shocked to see they're still around. I would have thought, like l0pht and others (although l0pht shared members with cDc if I recall) they'd have disbanded by now and all moved on along their own career paths. Pretty cool seeing them still active to some degree! This year's DEFCON had a really decent lineup of presentations.

Thanks Neuro, Tor has that same issue as well since it works essentially the same way

It seems obvious, because I don't know what I'm talking about, but would it be possible to somehow pad the packets? Is there a way to add data to the headers that will be ignored down the line?

@@Rukkus333 I'm no programmer either, but I have heard that bad actors are using Golang to basically wrap/pad out old malware, etc so that it is disguised from virus and malware scanners - was on some cyber sec podcast. Surely there's some way to make this happen so that packet sizes are similar or padded to the same size to hide how close to target they are. Maybe the routers that the Subutai project was creating could be used for this instead of the crypto-shit they were going to be doing?

@@Rukkus333 That's what I was thinking, pad them with random stuff to random sizes and create few decoy ones and send them to random IPs. Monero does something like this with transactions. I mean, if you want to upgrade Tor, lets do it properly.

Tor pads the messages

@Astro-J Hahaha point very well taken. Instead of saving though, maybe convince your employer to purchase one for you for a project, no strings attached 😉

How does this help? Genuinely. It doesn't even exist yet. Wouldn't strengthening existing systems or dismantling oppresive regimes serve better, more useful longterm goals?

@@jeffbrownstain "dismantling oppresive regimes serve better..." I'd think it is far easier to develop an upgrade to TOR than to change the oppressive regimes! Plus, another tool to fight/counter such regimes.

thanks for the tip. Jared

@@CyberGizmo Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on this. I feel much more confident after watching your analysis. As a general rule, I don't get excited about any new project until it's got the "DJ Stamp of Approval!" 🫡

Indeed.

Hi @temendoza6 adds that to the list of videos too thanks for the suggestion!

@@CyberGizmo Reticulum network, Qortal network

I had the same questions was this a sponsored video? because if not, I don't get the intent of all this false information

yes it is props for knowing about it!

can any human confirm that this summary is legitimate because if it's accurate it looks like a half rough draft of the intro for the documentation :)

Hi @NetBandit70 sounds like I need to make a video making those comparisons, I will do so once Veilid progresses a bit. Adds to the list

Looks like some differences in handling of storage ("IPFS" part). As for "Tor without exit nodes" - it is just plainly I2P.

@@sdjhgfkshfswdfhskljh3360 one privacy network to rule them all and in the darknet bind them

I think the more the merrier, in this case choice is never a waste of time, new ideas which prove to be good ones over time get adopted into older projects as well which benefits us all, I take the stance of wait and see, security software takes time to simmer before we know the answers, best never to rush to conclusions on any of it.

"@Congress_RE_90sInternetStability: _/me_ *1 guy, with the [right] crafted packet!.."* Just had to get that outta my head, sorry). Anyway, still better then being correlated into that fact of ~n qty per sesssion someone/thing is compared to Hitler!

IPFS is basically bittorrent for files, with the added advantage of URL-like format which allows for websites and direct linking to content more easily. But in the end of the day, it's exactly like BitTorrent in the way it works

I think he said that Tor was artificially limited because the users sacrificed some of their bandwidth, maybe today that limit isn't needed as much because we have faster internet. I don't know but that's what I got from it.

Correct

Isn't bandwidth, software -+ a To stamp & swaddled+softboiled into tubes? I'da swore s/w & b/w factored together somehow ;]

Lest problems of money, property, and preestige divert us from our primary purpose

I hope not, and yes you are right a next generation is always important in security and privacy in continuously improve

Just hearsay or gotta evidence? BTW-never trust "privacy software", there is no free lunch!

Tor is fine. It just can be used in a wrong way - like logging into accounts tied to real name.

@@sdjhgfkshfswdfhskljh3360 Thank you

You should probably verify that kind of information before going around spreading it.

are you trolling

At least use Monero instead of Bitcoin for funding nodes on an anonymity focused network.

@@Astro-J You don't know their political leanings. They could be a liberal, a democrat, anarchist etc. and I agree with them. Using establishment quotes of political figures spells out a specific underlying and obviously inherited danger to the platform.

Could you cite specific issues?

I just cited the specific issues. Can anyone explain at high level what the veilid network does to bring any sort of security posture to the table?@@drstewart This isnt court, the burden of evidence is not on me because I took the time to make a point on a youtube comment. If you want to look into it yourself then I've given you plenty of info. If you are trying to be weird and passive aggressive call me out asking for specifics, you're lazy. If you are going that route then you owe me some specifics on where im wrong.

@@FainTMako "I just cited the specific issues." No, you gave generalities. You offered opinion. "This isnt court, the burden of evidence is not on me because I took the time to make a point on a youtube comment." Court or not, if you make an argument, it is reasonable to offer something, or anything at all as far as specifics, to support that argument. Particularly when asked directly, as I did. "If you are trying to be weird and passive aggressive call me out asking for specifics, you're lazy." If you think that asking for specifics when spurious or unsubstantiated claims are made is a problem, you may not understand how communication works. Asking for substance when a claim is made isn't passive aggressive and really, it's not even a call out. I'm sorry that the online world has hurt you I suppose, but that's not how that works at all. "If you are going that route then you owe me some specifics on where im wrong." That's just it, no one can evaluate whether you're wrong or right because you haven't criticized a specific component nor given anything approaching a cogent argument that can be examined. You're going for the "Trust me bro" stance here. The whole point of me asking for specific issues *since you said that issues exist* was to know what those issues are according to you and see if indeed they are a problem. You brought it up, so you can back up your claims. "The technical details are laughable" is not a specific problem but your impression of whatever you want to think of as technical details. "The protocol is weak" doesn't point to any particular weakness but at least approaches an area that can be looked at and maybe possibly concur with your opinion. Apparently it uses Ed25519, x25519, XChaCha20-Poly1305, BLAKE3 and Argon2. Are all of those weak? Is one weak? Is implementation a problem somehow? Offering substantiating detail to an argument is a rather low bar to clear. I don't know why you have such a problem with being asked for clarity or to offer anything specific when making an assertion. What I've asked is reasonable. Your response is not.