Talk:Java Anon Proxy

This page needs cleanup. Can someone break it up into sections? --98.199.46.24 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential serious problems

1) Reference #1 ( http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2003-August/009108.html ) is broken. 2) Reference #3 does not make the claim that there was Internet media confustion as to a backdoor in the client. In fact, it makes the claim that there is indeed a backdoor. The statement about it being media confusion looks like original research, and possible non-neutral point of view. Internet is capitalized, and the word backdoor make bad misuse of scare quotes. 3) Reference #4 links to a simplified abstract of the article it claims to reference. Is the entire paper available somewhere, because that abstract does not say what it claims in this article, namely recompiling software, threat model and making the function more privacy-friendly.

I would certainly like to discuss this before editing.90.128.71.15 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody listening? 90.136.139.222 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BB. Often, editors will come out of the woodwork when edits are made to an article even if they didn't contribute to the talk page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference http://lists.netsys.com/pipermail/full-disclosure/2003-August/009108.html is available on http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2003-August/009108.html but i can't find any useful informations there. Maybe http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2003-September/010390.html is more usefull as a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.142.72 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Design flaws/features

The comparison with the Tor network is somewhat overlooked in this article (not the aim I know, but it is explicitely mentionned in the Design section, so it should be done right or completely removed).

Tor is a distributed censorship-resistant (and anonymizing) proxy system. JAP is everything *but* censorship-resistant, and offers weaker anonymization. That comes from the fact that the relays must be clearly identified. In the Tor system, every single client is by default also a relay, making the system virtually bullet-proof. With JAP, a well-planned attack (by legal pression, cracking, or otherwise) can relatively easily take control of the whole system. One other important implication is that whith Tor, even if all the downstream nodes are corrupt, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between the requests originating from a node and those just *relayed* by this node, bringing the very important "deniability" part which is a requirement for real protection. Appart from this feature-for-feature comparison, Tor offers a number of additional functionalities (most of them grouped under the "hidden services" vocable).

On the other hand, the threat of data interception by the exit node is lower with JAP than with Tor, which can be a huge plus for users who mix anonymous and non-anonymous traffic and are not afraid of censorship or large-scale spying. One other big plus of JAP is that relays must have fast connections, whereas the limited bandwidth of individual Tor client/relays is more likely to create bottlenecks and slow traffic down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.113.123 (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"In the Tor system, every single client is by default also a relay" Is a misconception, running a relay is voluntary and clients are not required to run a relay. Reference: https://support.torproject.org/about/#what-is-tor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.76.72.134 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweeping Changes

This article is catastrophic. As I am an "Anon Geek", I would like to change this article completely. I would like to shorten it and split it into three articles:

• JonDo (the OpenSource Client-Software)
• JonDoFox (the OpenSource Firefox Extension)
• JonDonym (the network itself)

The reason is, that "Java Anon Proxy" is out-of-date. It was a project in cooperation with different German Universities. But the project already ended. The new "project" is called JonDonym and it's commercial.

It would be the best, if this article only refers to the other three articles I mentioned above. Of course we can left some background history and other information about the root project, but the other information should really get split.

Volucris84 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you just rename this article to JonDonym and rewrite it with sections for history, the Firefox plugin and the client-software itself. I don't think plugin and client-software are notable enough to get their own articles. – DataWraith (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

JonDoFox and JonDo are very important pieces of software. JonDonym is the whole network itself. JonDoFox and JonDo are two independent Open-Source projects. I think, it would be important that there are different articles about it. Do you not agree? Volucris84 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to try and create separate articles, but I think they are likely to be tagged for merging, or worse, deletion relatively quickly, which can be frustrating. That's why I suggested that you should rename this article and use subsections instead of separate articles. If enough content is added to the sections, separate articles can always be created later. —DataWraith (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will try it this way. Thank you for the feedback. Volucris84 (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Java Anon Proxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050514075143/http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/index_en.html to http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/index_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)