This may or may not be the guy who ran the Cordial Knot Collection (because I'm being sneaky :). For those of you who don't know, CK was a site for hypnochan basement related stories so you can disregard this if that is not your cup of tea.

I'm sorry I have not contacted anyone for a couple months. After I got that threat and took down the site, I also got swamped in real life. But I have been researching security stuff so that I can bring the site back online.

I am posting to gauge interest in bringing back a basement-themed story site. Please leave a reply if you are interested in it. I'm sure a lot of people never found this booru so we probably lost a lot of our fan base.

Right now I am planning on making the new site by February 2013. It will be in Tor so that it is untraceable but remember anyone can access a tor site through onion.to (although I recommend using real Tor for your own privacy).

You can email me at [email protected] if you want.

P.S. I saw another thread mention Juno's RAGS game. I haven't been in touch with anyone like I said but I will reach out to him once I get organized.

It'll probably be the only TOR site I visit. Damn, now I'll need to download it...


I'm sure we lost quite the number of people as well. Shame, really.

There's only one potential problem asking here: I'm relatively sure that very few people actually visit the forums. :P

You might wish to see if you can't advertise on sleepychan, though - Sleepymaid's new project to potentially replace hypnochan.

I for one would definitely contribute.

May I ask what's the deal with using TOR? Why the prejudice?
It allows websites to serve whatever content 100% free from DMCA and the like. One big middle finger to copyright. It's awesomesauce!

You'll have to forgive me if I don't WANT to stick a middle finger in the face of copyright (or at least not all of it). You'll also have to forgive me if I don't believe that making websites and the people who run them untraceable is "awesomesauce".

And this will quickly get into Hidden Hypnochan territory if we keep going. So, let's not.

My main issue with TOR is that it's slow. XD That's why I'm not looking forward to downloading and using it.

That said, there's always a risk while using TOR that you'll accidentally run into CP - something that truly disgusts me, though mainly due to the abuse of the children that is almost always involved - and TOR is NOT UNTRACEABLE. I CANNOT stress enough, this point: It is completely, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, impossible to make ANYTHING over ANY sort of long-distance network, such as the internet, untraceable. What TOR does is make it harder to be traced, not impossible. You're basically just praying that law enforcement have better things to do than track you through your irritatingly heightened secrecy.

My reasons for disliking TOR are not prejudice, because they are not preconceived. My reasons for seeing TOR in an unfavorable light are based on fact and reason, based by the evidence that is the very nature of networking, in that you cannot have a completely secure network, and by the nature of the acquisition and risks of CP, which is that child abuse is nearly always involved and it's illegal to so much as accidentally view.

All that explained, I do share your hatred of the copyright system, mainly because it stymies innovation. Personally, I feel that the system needs to be completely reworked, especially with the "recent" advent of the internet, which was created long after said system was put into place. Quite plainly, it's out of date by a few hundred years.

Now, back to TOR. I don't dislike the TOR Project. I love the concept they're going for. Having a more secure network system is a good thing, ultimately. But it can be, and is, abused, for the sake of sharing, selling, or advertising criminal and illegal content, products, and information.

The TOR Project is fine. The program is fine. However, a VERY LARGE MAJORITY of the websites are not.

Besides, if you want to stick it to copyright and DMCA notices, just host it on a server in a country that doesn't dance to the tune of the US copyright law.

Not to bring this thread back on track or anything, but... The Site Is Here!

For once I did something ahead of schedule. Go to kzhotnuncx3hikjk[dot]onion if you have Tor (or kzhotnuncx3hikjk[dot]onion[dot]to in any browser). Warning: loli stories and images.

Mod Edit: Note that, because this site hosts content that is against our host's TOS, I may have to remove these links altogether. For now, I'm simply making it so they are not hyperlinks.

Sorry, but could you elaborate on how someone could trace you on TOR? I do not understand it 100%, but if there's a hole of any sort, someone probably posted about it in length somewhere. A link would be enough.

As far as I see it, people can trace the fact that you run TOR, but not what you browse on it, since the packets are encrypted.


No it's not - it is only illegal if you view and store/upload it intentionally. I'm not sure about the US but nothing done accidentally should incriminate you, and if it does, you should be backed by the constitution to build a defense.


With enough people thinking like this, it will change :)


Do you happen to know of such a host?

It's not a problem with TOR. It's not a hole. It's the nature of machine communication. All encryption must be able to be decrypted, as machines use the binary language universally. Encryption, therefore, is never and can never be foolproof. It's just a matter of finding the decryption key. There are even entire college degrees and careers that base themselves around encryption and decryption in order to learn how to do just that.

What they'd have to do, I figure, is intercept the packets sent from your computer or the sites. It wouldn't surprise me if police, FBI, and other such things have many, many, "volunteered" TOR nodes specifically to allow this. (To explain: the TOR network has a list of node machines that work as part of the TOR network. You can volunteer to use your machine as one on the TOR site. TOR will randomly choose different paths to use through the volunteer nodes every 10 minutes, essentially acting as a crazy chain-proxy.) It'd be foolish to believe that they wouldn't. Once they're part of the node network, they need to figure out how to decrypt the packets - a work of a week and a few cups of coffee for but a few educated men. After that, they could potentially create a TOR "network map". Blah, blah, blah. You get the point.

Now, I could be wrong on some points - maybe EXACTLY what I said doesn't even make sense. Maybe there's something with TOR that protects from this - though if there is, they're the first to discover it. But regardless, the bottom line is that networks can NEVER be completely secure.

In a network, information MUST be sent, and information MUST be received. That's the point of a network. No matter what, this information MUST travel the network at some point in time, not strictly in/at either the sender or receiver machine. It will ALWAYS be possible, though possibly not easy, to intercept the information.


I wish this were true - and it would be, if you have your browser's cache disabled. When your browser cache's something, it essentially saves it. It does this every time you first load something, and these save files are temporary.
There have been many stories of arrests in the US due to accidental viewing on CP that were allowed because of a cached version of the picture(s).

If I remember correctly, TOR doesn't cache, so perhaps you're right on this point when pertaining to TOR.


Not off the top of my head, no. But they exist, I can tell you that. The booru.org that hosts us themselves are hosted on one; they only bow their heads to DMCAs as a sign of respect to the artists.

I'm sorry but that just sounds silly.

Yes, some encryption algorithms have been cracked in the past. But it's not that simple. What you see in movies just isn't true, it's not like the only thing required is a smart hacker to break something like this. An actual hacker requires, to a great extent, stupidity and/or recklessness on the part of the victim.

For example, TOR encrypts packets, as far as I know, using RSA-1024. It is nearly impossible to break that by brute force.


As far as I know, TOR uses layers of encryption (hence the onion metaphor) precisely for that purpose: you'd have to practically own the network.


As I said, it's not like in the movies. There's a $100000 prize for whoever can factor RSA 1024.


Look, I agree with you that it's impossible to make a network completely secure. But it can be made secure enough.

I am completely confident that if TOR was unsecure, we'd know already. The FBI probably doesn't know how to jailbreak an iPhone without a tutorial, and anti-pedo hacker groups like Anon have to resort to DDOS and vulnerabilities in services outside of TOR (like some Apache bug from using an outdated version).

In other words, you can get caught, but the reason wouldn't be TOR.


It's not that simple.

For example, suppose you have Alice, Bob, and Charlie. They all can see the traffic. Alice sends a public key to Bob. Bob sends a public key to Alice. Charlie now has no way of reading the packets, even if he has both public keys. Read about assymetric encryption and you'll understand why.


Run CCleaner later :) Or browse with the TOR bundle. And just don't click the wrong links and you should be fine. From a technical perspective, you're safe. Though from a moral, personal perspective, I can understand why you would be wary.

You basically said no to each of my points while agreeing with me on the overall picture. All I ever said is that TOR is NOT completely secure and private, and that all law enforcement would have to do is simply work that much harder to track who did what, where and when - something that, in essence, is still the case.

I do know that encryption and the like are not like in the movies. I took classes on networking, and we did touch on encryption a few times, albeit I never took a class ON ENCRYPTION ITSELF.

While, what I'm saying is oversimplified, my point still stands regardless of the details in this case: TOR is not 100% completely safe, and anyone who thinks that needs to think again. Am I saying it's LESS safe? No. On the contrary. But what I AM saying is that, just by using TOR and feeling safe, people may become tempted to "break the rules", simply because they feel they can. Simple human nature, honestly. Some may do this believing they CAN'T be caught, which is how it's often explained, and this simply is not the case.

You can NEVER be on a network that's 100% secure, because such networks don't exist. With enough effort, those you're trying to hide from CAN find you. That's what it takes on their part: effort, and money, too. But it CAN be done, and you really shouldn't be all too surprised if they are already working on/have a way of getting it done as swiftly and smoothly as possible. Yes, I'm quite the cynic.

What I did agree is that it can't be made completely secure, but I'm very confident that it is secure enough so you're never ever going to get caught because of it. My point is, yes, it is possible to hack TOR, but not by the FBI, or any other federal police from any country. And even if some country had the massive strategical advantage of knowing how to break RSA 1024, only the higher heads of the army would know (and they would save that for something much bigger than you or me).


Simply not true. Law enforcement, even interpol, wouldn't have the resources. I would only worry if I was the next Bin Laden.


They certainly can, as long as they do just as much as keeping their software up to date. I'm not saying they should, but TOR means we're free from all digital consequences, and left on our own personal moral values.

All of this said, there are several holes besides TOR which you can exploit, such as 0-day browser vulnerabilities. This is severely mitigated by a few simple steps, such as disabling javascript, or simply running TOR inside a Linux virtual machine. But even then, that's if you're too paranoid about it.

Remember when I said this discussion would get into Hidden Hypnochan territory if we kept going? Yeah, it's getting there.

I'm not talking about Hidden Hypnochan, just TOR.

Chill, it's reaching its end. XD
Besides, in no way does this conversation break any rules of the booru or booru.org, so I don't see a problem. It's not as though we're linking anything that would get hypnobooru in trouble, we're just having a conversation on technology, security, and morals.

Back to you, SC.
So, then we agree. It's NOT completely secure. You simply insist that it's "secure enough". This is true, but technology is ALWAYS advancing at a surprising pace. The risk isn't always the here and now, but also the then. It's really not a good idea to be in the habit of breaking laws due to some perceived perma-anonymity, and that's exactly what would happen to many, many people - after all, us humans are just too good at forming habits.
Chances are, that soon enough, the knowledge on how to get around those encryption/security methods will become common knowledge throughout the technology community. So, you might be "safe" now, but that won't be the case at all then.


Which doesn't invalidate my point. They don't have the manpower or funds, sure, but those two things are variable - able to change at any time for numerous reasons. The point is that it can still be done through effort and money, and I suppose I should include manpower there, too, even though that really just ties into money.

All in all, honestly, this debate has been boiled down to how "secure enough" is defined, which is opinionated, not factual. If you remember why all this started, it was to back up my reasons in disliking TOR.



Opinions based on fact and reason are still opinions. The facts behind my opinion are still valid, because the fact mentioned in support of my opinion is still the truth.

With that said, this means that all we have left in this debate are opinions. We "simplified" the debate as far as it can go, and are left simply with varying outlooks on the results. Aside from simply trying to change each other's views, we can accomplish no more by continuing. Besides, I figure we should take Mindwipe's advice before he loses his patience worrying himself to death. XD

Also, we totally just derailed this thread TO DEATH. XD (Sorry!)

Yes, if that happens, we (as end users) would have to take a few seconds to download and update the software. It will be of course harder for the devs, but maybe not much more so - just switch to RSA 2048 maybe.

What I mean by this is that it's a game of cat and rat, and the cat might only have a slim chance in a decade or so (if it does), and it all boils down to updating a piece of software.


I agree, breaking laws just for the sake of it isn't fun :) But if your moral-spider-sense tells you the system is wrong, go for it.


True enough.


It can be factual enough as to say that TOR is just as secure as not using it - someone malicious could also hack into your PC, fill it with CP, and call the cops to your house. And a meteor might fall in your head when you go buy groceries.


Indeed, dude looks pissed lol.


Yes! I should also apologize. Sorry Cordial Knot :(

True enough, but at least it's easier to tell if the CP came from a hacker source. Easier to defend against in that case, too, since it's actually happened a few times before, as you might recall.


Nonsense, I always wear my tinfoil hat outside. The aliens can't track me well enough to know where the direct those giant rocks from the sky.


Naw, he just worries so much about everything. Mindwipe needs to learn to chill out a bit. :P

I wasn't thinking about any particular case, but if cops were to look at someone's PC and it had CP in the "My Images" folder the guy would be a bit screwed to defend himself. Of course this is just speculation.

I do remember a case where some british guy found CP in his computer from a source unknown to him (it was a second-hand PC or something), told the cops, and they confiscated his PC, and would take a couple of years to give it back, while investigating him. I can't find the link, but there are cases where someone gets screwed for a virus: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-5589403.html or an unsecured WiFi: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20...hy-innocent_n_852996.html


I wouldn't disagree.

>:(

See? You're not chilling out :)