The comparison is not valid, everyone with Firefox, Chrome, IE, Safari, etc etc etc can use https but not everyone can, or would want to, access the darknet. When thare is a layer of the internet that does not use commonly recognised protocols then I myself wonder why anyone would want to access it unless they need to for genuine work related purposes. I'm not refering to P2P or private chat rooms that are used within recognised boundaries rather I am refering to activities that endanger others.

Thanks for the encouragement. I believe in my previous reply to you that I invited you to change my mind by giving an example why a "normal" person (i.e. not military, intelligence, underworld, or simply someone looking to do something seriously shady without others knowing who or where you are) would use the darknet for something they could just as easily do on the open internet. If there is a need to access the darknet for work related purposes I would think the individual would ask the IT department how to access it.

Jury duty, I love being called for it but have never been selected to be a jury yet simply because it has always been filled before they get to me. I believe everyone is entitled to do as they wish as long as it does not cause harm to others. In Australia at least, for the time being anyway, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The court process enables all parties involved to have their "day in court". I would hope, although I am not convinced this is always the case, the prosecution and defence both ask pertinent questions to which they receive relevant answers. If the evidence supports the individuals claim they were not doing anything "illegal or nefarious" then so be it but if it supports the case that their intentions were not "honourable" then let the law be used as it should be. In the Common Law system we have in Australia currently (although I must admit my own state of NSW is looking to change things for the worst in my not so humble opinion) a person cannot be found guilty on a preconceived assumption. Jurers can be removed, Juries can be disbanded, and cases retried with new juries if this is believed to be happening.

What you're basically saying is, that since you personally cannot see the value in using an encrypted network, you question the motives of those who do. Surely that is a rather narrow-minded view?

Communication over darknets are based on "commonly recognized protocols", like TCP and UDP at the transport/session layer, and HTTP, SMTP, POP3, FTP, SSH and BitTorrent at the application layer. The only difference is that the network protocol uses different addressing and routing schemes, and these are basically transparent to the user in any network.

I'm pretty sure you don't consider yourself a "user" of BGP, and it certainly doesn't qualify as a "commonly recognized protocol" among Internet users, not to mention the public at large, yet every day you use a network that is totally reliant on BGP for proper routing.

I find the comparison with HTTPS to be entirely valid. It creates an encrypted connection on top of the regular, unencrypted internet, and hides your data, credentials and activities. Unfortunately, we've learned that the underlying CA infrastructure is fatally flawed, so we should probably consider alternatives. How about darknets?

As for "activities that endanger others" occurring on darknets, what on earth would they be?

People using darknets are almost exclusively "normal" people. Some want to communicate in confidence, some want to preserve their anonymity, and some would like not to be arrested or tortured for having the "wrong" opinion, religion, ethnicity etc. The "open" Internet as it exists today is useless for any of those purposes.

Surely, the use of an encrypted communications medium should not be interpreted as an indication of less then honourable intentions?

Yet the ridiculous notion that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" serves to justify exactly such preconceived assumptions.

Not at all. What I am saying is I don't see any good reason for the vast majority of people to use something that is deliberately hidden.

Using a secure network or anonymising data is very different to hiding it totally and only allowing a select group of people access to it.

I encourage you to do some research.

TOR was developed by the US military for such purposes. This in itself should suggest TOR is not as secure as people would like to think it is.

I have not suggested it is, what I suggest is the use of a deliberately hidden network, that a select few can access, in "normal" situations is an indication.

Seriously rediculous reply.

My comment was in regards to Jury Duty which you brought up in order to side track the conversation. Lets stick to the fact the OP wants to access, through TOR, deliberately hidden websites. He doesn't want anonimity for the sake of being anonymous (like a political activist would) he wants to access deliberately hidden information.

TOR as already stated more than once was developed for "privacy" issues. TOR is not "the darknet" but is used, as the OP indicates in his own posts, to access it. I have no issue with TOR but I do question the need to access deliberately "hidden websites" as mentioned in the title to this thread.

The thing that is "deliberately hidden" is the identity of the user and/or the data being transmitted. Like HTTPS, but for a wider range of services. In fact, exactly like TLS.

No, it is not different in the slightest. Encryption exists solely for restricting access to a limited set of viewers, a "select group".

The world is filled with encrypted services that limit access to a select few members. The primary difference between the Internet and networks like TOR is that in addition to confidentiality, TOR provides anonymity for both the user and the service provider.

No, it does not suggest that. The Onion Routing protocol is fully open, and so is the source code for the implementation. In cases where TOR users have been identified, it has been due to side-channel attacks, malware or just plain carelessness.

An indication of what, exactly? All I see is someone who doesn't want every ISP, criminal "hacker" and intelligence service looking over his/her shoulder.

In what way? To me, it seems you are repeatedly presenting arguments that are variations over the theme "hiding one's activity is suspicious" (like in the paragraph quoted just above), and that's a well-known fallacy that has been thoroughly debunked. The fact that criminals often try to hide their activity does not in any way mean that hidden activities in general should be considered an indication of criminal intent.

One definition of "privacy" is "a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people". On the Internet, that has to involve hiding one's identity and activities.

But that's not correct. TOR was created as a darknet platform, period. It's a network where one can set up services that are, for all intents and purposes, anonymous and untraceable. That was the whole point. But don't take my word for it; here's the official design document.

The .onion addresses are in fact hashes that refer to a service hidden somewhere inside the network. Users can access these services in total anonymity with end-to-end encryption. I'm glad you have no issues with that, because there's no reason why anyone should.

The TOR exit nodes constitute a very small part of the TOR network, and serve as bridges to the open Internet. We hear a lot about them because they enable users in countries like Iran, China and Turkey to bypass government censorship and access resources on the open Internet, but this is just one of many services on the TOR network. The vast majority of TOR nodes are not exit nodes.

There are sites that are deliberately hidden, even the OP in the title of this thread acknowledges that. I don't know why you can't.

You're missing the point, oh well.

Still missing the point.

Getting really bored now.

Think about it for a while.

*sigh*

I have no problem with that definition. You can hide by using TOR you don't have to access hidden websites.

The .onion addresses are in fact hashes that refer to a servicehttps://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/tor-design.pdf hidden somewhere inside the network. Users can access these services in total anonymity with end-to-end encryption. I'm glad you have no issues with that, because there's no reason why anyone should.[/quote]So why are you still prattling on about it?

https://svn.torproject.org/svn/proje...-design.pdfThe TOR exit nodes constitute a very small part of the TOR network, and serve as bridges to the open Internet. We hear a lot about them because they enable users in countries like Iran, China and Turkey to bypass government censorship and access resources on the open Internet, but this is just one of many services on the TOR network. The vast majority of TOR nodes are not exit nodes.[/QUOTE]Still missing the point.

Let me make a few last points, again, in order to indicate where you and I are discussing 2 different things.
1. The title of this thread is specifically about accessing deliberately hidden, not anonymised but hidden, websites through "the darknet".
2. In the first post the OP says "I use to access it with TOR running windows." This indicates he knows the difference between TOR and "the darknet". It also indicates when considered in the light of his thread title that he wants more than the anonymity that TOR provides and he actuallyw ants to access hidden, not anonymised, websites.

I have not argued against the anonymity idea but the OP is after more than anonymity as he has clearly stated he wants to access hidden websites in the darknet.

I will continue to read on the topic but I'm not going to keep going in a conversation that the particpants are discussing 2 different things. I'm done.

I guess it must be a very difficult point to grasp then, since it seems you cannot explain it. Or you don't really know what you're talking about, which would explain the childish "getting bored" statements and virtual sighs.

You can use TOR to access the Internet via exit nodes, it which case you may not be hiding very well or even at all. Using your own account on Twitter or Facebook via TOR would be pointless if you want to be anonymous. Same goes for websites leaving cookies.

Or you could access hidden sites within the TOR network, which is what TOR was created for.

Indeed, and that's a common enough activity. There are lists of interesting .onion links to be found everywhere, including sites where sources can get in touch with journalists to hand over sensitive material. Several papers are planning to post .onion links on the front page of their paper edition to make sure people with information can't be tricked into visiting a fake site.

Certainly. It could also indicate that the resource he wants to reach could exist inside the TOR network, although it could also exist elsewhere if he used a TOR exit node.

Not sure what you mean here. For a web site to be truly anonymous, it must exist inside the TOR network (or a similar network). Exit nodes provide some limited anonymity for the end user, but does nothing to protect the site.

Browsing the Internet by using TOR exit nodes only hides the activity at your end of the connection. It does not hide the fact that you're using TOR, nor does it encrypt or obfuscate the traffic from the exit node. Used in this way, TOR is purely an anti-censorship tool, and one the authorities can easily detect. (Among others, the Chinese government have been getting quite good at it lately.)

It is still not entirely clear exactly what it is that you are against. It seems to be simply people using TOR the way it was intended to be used. If you think this is a problem you're in a small minority.

Let us not bicker on this.

The fact is that most of your child porn rings and human traficing rings use the darknet.

As do people dealing in all sorts of interesting substances that are illegal in most places.

Surely chemical weapons, explosives, anti aircraft weapons, child porn and human trafficing for the purpose of slavery can be, by reasonable people, concidered harmful.

I can also see that there are a number of very good reasons for perfectly well intended people to use the darknet.

Repressive governments, such as we are building here in the US, would be a good reason for folks that perhaps don't agree with that direction to take some extra care in their communications.

This thread was started, quite openly, asking how to use TOR to access the darknet. This is the place for us to answer that question in a friendly and helpful way if we can. Or to not answer on the basis of personal judgement that this could be for purposes we want nothing to do with.

The judgement of the intent of the OP is, as in any thread, personal to anyone answering a thread.

I, for instance, considered the same possibilities as k3lt01 in this case. I decided that the OP was unlikely to be such person. Those types have their own communications and would probably get this information there rather than on LQ. So my conclusion, which I think is absolutely right for me to make, is that the OP is a well meaning person who is extremely ignorant about Linux as your average MS user is likely to be.

Just because I may have come to a different conclusion than k3lt01 I am surely not going to get into a pissing contest with him on the basis that his personal conclusion is less valid than mine is.

Besides that, his post could be right. We need to concider who else is reading this thread.

His post is just as valid as people posting on threads that appear to them to be started by someone trying to get the forum to do their homework assignment done for them.

These sorts of posts should not be attacted. There really are people out there using the internet for purposes that most of us would consider to be wrong. We do not want to be a source of help to those people.

These are personal judgements that we each have to make on our own. Discussing them reasonably is also fine.

Continuing to bicker in a help thread is just hijacking a thread.

I agree. As long as a post doesn't explicitly refer to illegal acts, we should either help the OP by answering his/her question, or refrain from posting.

It rubbed me the wrong way that the OP was (apparently) being judged for expressing a desire to communicate anonymously, which I consider a most reasonable position in the light of recent revelations, but the resulting bickering was not helpful in the least. For that I apologize.

It seems the OP found the TOR browser bundle (hopefully not a backdoored or trojan version), and others have pointed out various risks, so there's not much left to say on the matter.

As for criminals using darknets, I'd like to point out that people such as traffickers, llegal arms dealers and drug smugglers make extensive use of telephone networks, the postal system and all kinds of public transportation. We don't blame the post office or the airlines for this, nor do we feel guilty that the our tax dollars were spent building the basic infrastructure these criminals are now using.

(And as for pictures of child abuse, well, the abuse didn't happen on a server, it happened in a room somewhere. The pictures are in fact evidence of a god-awful crime, not the crime itself.)

That is my understanding of the primary reason for the existence of the darknet.

This is why TOR was initially created by the US military (navy I think but I may be wrong). Enabling dissidents or informers to communicate anonymously was a very good reason to create TOR but, and this is my point, a person doesn't need the darknet to do this as TOR is sufficient. Anonymising, which is the purpose of TOR, is very different to hiding content (some of which is concerning) in a layer that the majority of people don't know exists.

I have seen threads in LQ where people have asked how to circumvent blocks (great firewall of China was one I think) so they could access parts of the open internet, mod comes along later and close thread.

Do you have anything to back up that assertion? I'm honestly not trying to stir up another fruitless discussion here, I'm just asking a genuine question.

I've NEVER heard anyone in the police force or intelligence community point the finger at darknets in particular. "Silk Road" got a lot of press because it was a novelty, and a pointless endeavour really, since one cannot transmit either drugs, guns or other contraband over the Internet. Physical goods need to be physically delivered, and shipments can easily be intercepted and traced.

What I have heard of, though, is terrorists using openly accessible pornographic sites to send messages hidden in videos and images (steganography).

I have explained it numerous times. I'm not going to keep going over things with someone who is either never going to acknowledge he is talking about something different or the discussion is just going to keep going in circles. You have your opinion I have mine, lets agree to disagree.

TORs "intended use" was a military use not a civilian use. It is good that the military enabled the public to use it and I can see value in it for anonymising which is its intended purpose. If you assume I have a problem with this then you are wrong.

I make a simple comment that you quoted and then all of a sudden you're rubbed "the wrong way that the OP was (apparently) being judged for expressing a desire to communicate anonymously". He did not say what he was going to use it for at all. I apologise that my advising caution upset you so much.

Another side track just like jury duty side track.

Just to clarify, telephone networks, postal services and public transportation are usually there for the use of the general public whose taxes pay for them. If/when they are used for illegal purposes fix the problem that enabled that use, close the loophole, get better detection methods. No one, in this thread, has said anything about feeling guilty, it has not been mentioned nor implied until you mention it in a side track comment about public services.

Do you think the act of deliberately accessing the evidence of the crime for reasons other than protecting the victim and/or gaining justice for the victim is not also a crime? What good reason is there to access such material unless it is to help the victim?

BTW I have not said, nor implied, that the OP wants to or is doing anything illegal. My initial post was my personal point of view and is not an indication of legal right or wrong. If you read the section you quoted I advised caution. Your desire to take that comment further has taken this topic off track.

Assertion (the word you think I used)
Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.
Understanding (the word I actually used). Please read number 3.
3. Individual or specified judgment or outlook; opinion.
Opinion (mentioned in understanding number 3). Please read numbers 1 and 4.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof:
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.

I said "That is my understanding" I didn't say "That is my assertion". I did not "declare" anything. I invited you to change my mind but you kept going in circles.

Again we are talking about 2 different things and while you say your not trying to stir up another fruitless discussion (and I believe you) the fact you are using words with different meanings to the ones I actually used means to me this is a fruitless discussion that will go around in circles. It's very late here now, it's nearly tomorrow, I'm going.

I though we were done with this? The purpose of the TOR project is not a matter of opinion. It's clearly stated in the document I linked to, a document you obviously haven't read, though you did take the time to consult a dictionary to criticize my use of the English language. (It seems at least one native speaker disagrees with that narrow definition, though.)

The purpose of TOR was to create what is now commonly known as a "darknet". Yes, that was the whole idea. It's in the bloody paper. Several companies and organizations have people working on such technology or are sponsoring research into "darknets" (among them Microsoft), and strangely none of these people or companies seem particularly worried about being associated with criminal activity.

You claim darknets are not only somehow associated with crime, but that "the primary reason for the existence" of darknets is to facilitate criminal activity. You offer no evidence to support these claims, and refuse to consult the design documents written by the creators of the most well-known darknet platform of all, TOR, a document that also refute your claims that TOR was somehow created as a military project and/or as a tool to evade censorship.

Pray tell us, how long have you been using TOR, Freenet and/or I2P? How well acquainted are you with the theory behind these networks? Are you active on the very much open forums where both the technology behind the networks and the contents found within them are discussed? Is that where you found all the criminals? Visited any of the search engines indexing TOR or I2P lately? Did a search turn up any unsavory pictures?

I'm sorry if I seem overly sarcastic, but you really do not seem at all that well informed on the subject of darknets. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that somewhere in the bowels of TOR and I2P there must exist sites where the most unsavory individuals conspire to commit crimes. After all, such sites are found all over the regular Internet, mostly hosted in remote locations with weak legislation, and surely some criminals are bound to have discovered the TOR browser bundle by now.

Right. Exactly like the Internet and the darknets that exist on top of it, then.

Did someone say that it would be a good idea to access pictures of these crimes? I certainly didn't. I don't know what prompted you to ask that question.

BTW, "protecting the victim" isn't a good reason either, because it's illegal regardless of motivation. Even accidental "possession" can get you jail time. So one should stay away from... /b/, on 4chan on the open Internet, because that's where such images are likely to turn up without warning. Not on random sites hidden on the TOR network, because the operators of such sites are mostly regular people like you and me who have absolutely no interest in seeing that filth, or participating in other kinds of illegal activity. Anyone who's actually checked will know this.

Actually: https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en

Even in the paper you linked, you see an author from the Naval Research Lab..

No way I'm going to read through this. But a couple "Facts" should help end this madness.

1) Tor was made by the military for protecting communications. Nowdays, people use it for the same reason.

Source: https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en

2) A "Darknet" is ANY private network where connections are made between trusted peers, anonymously.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_(file_sharing)

This has turned into a tangent, and a bit of a cj. But the facts are simple.

• Tor is a "darknet"
• It was made by the navy
• It is now publicly used
• ANY person can use it for ANY reason they would like
• This includes legal and illegal reasons
• The clear web is identical in this fashion

Use it or Do not use it, Bad mouth it or praise it. No one is going to care.