[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1608526077417.png ( 6.32 KB , 109x100 , searx.png )

 No.2900

I know that if I run my own instance of searx is the most private way to search things up. But what about public instances of searx like search.snopyta.org, are they any safer than just using pure duckduckgo? Because I am still trusting a 3 party with my data, the only other advantage that I see using a public instance of searx is that is completely open source. Are there any other positives?
>>

 No.2901

>>2900
It's probably gonna be more useful that duckduckgo since duckduckgo's search results have become practically useless. I've been forced to use google for most shit because of how bad duckduckgo has become.
>>

 No.2903

>>2901
Have you tried Startpage? I personally don't like their results but maybe it is just me, at least it is better than using google
>>

 No.2904

>>2903
I have, but as it was bought out by an advertising company I stopped using it.
>>

 No.2912

>>2900
I would never use my own "private" instance precisely because of privacy reasons. If all search requests from an instance are by you then you haven't really changed anything. Whereas if you use a public instance you're hidden in the crowd from the perspective of the search engines that the instance relies on. You should use it via Tor of course, like everything else that you want to keep anonymous.
For similar reasons avoid using only one instance "provider" (like snopyta) for everything (invidious, nitter, bibliogram…), because that means snopyta has access to an aggregate of your browsing, similar to an ISP or a VPN. It's better to use official instances instead because they're usually isolated from each other.
>I am still trusting a 3 party with my data
You should never trust anybody in the first place, and instead technically reduce how much damage can potentially be done to you. Trust is unreliable. Use Tor and compartmentalize your browsing.

>>2901
All of these search proxies have gone to shit in the past few years. I think the search engines feed them computationally "cheap" results in lieu of simply blocking them, which is what they did at first. It's probably a better strategy for Google to not block anything and instead make it shit. Won't cause controversy and people will still flock back to you.
>>

 No.3178

>>2900
Try ya.cy
>>

 No.3182

Wouldn't intelligence agencies target these privacy-oriented search engines? For example prioritize the decryption of their streams or try to backdoor them somehow.
>>

 No.3183

>>3182
>decryption of their streams
they can prioritize it all they like. shit won’t make a difference
>>

 No.3184

>>3183
Can't HTTPS be decrypted eventually? They probably have some super powerful computers for that.
>>

 No.3185

>>3184
use elliptic curves if you're afraid of teh quantums
>>

 No.3223

>>3184
they don’t
>>

 No.3238

>>3184
>Can't HTTPS be decrypted eventually?
Every cypthertext can be cracked with enough resources (power * time). Each encryption algorithm will be hit by quantum computers differently, reducing the time it takes to crack a message. It would be good to know which encryption algorithms could be cracked in reasonable time (i.e. if some of your messages could cracked in your own lifetime).
>>

 No.3239

>>3238
How hard is it to crack SSL with modern (super)computers?
>>

 No.3242

>>3239
No idea. Some say it will break HTTPS "in a few years", which means that HTTPS is future-retro-actively already broken. Basically whatever you do over HTTPS can be considered only short-term encrypted.
How fucked that is depends slightly on case-by-case basis, some messages are only short-term relevant anyway. However the metadata will always be useful to them, even if the message itself is completely banal.
>>

 No.3245

Lemme ask you the other way around: What do you use the internet for? If you can find an offline alternative for some of the things you look for online, this can cut out some queries. You don't need to worry about queries you don't even send. If you use online dictionaries a lot, consider alternatives. A simple text file and ctrl-f might do. There is also an offline version of Wikipedia: https://github.com/kiwix/ You also don't need to go online just to look at maps.
>>

 No.3247

>>3245
I like street view though, photo imagery of Earth's surface, rather than the layout?
>>

 No.3271

>>3239
impossible
>>

 No.3368

>>3239
Unless the NSA and friends have made a breakthrough on quantum computing and kept it secret, functionally impossible. With properly set up and non backdoored ssl crypto you're looking at average computation times longer than the heat death of the universe.

Of course they could always do what they did with Dual_EC_DRBG and backdoor the encryption to make it significantly easier to break or just compromise the servers you're talking to.
>>

 No.3760

>>3245
Good post. What's a good .txt dictionary? I tried looking for one once, but they were all antiquated
>>

 No.3761

>>3760
Check this out: https://dumps.wikimedia.org/
Wiktionary has a lot of English words, plus etymologies, pronunciation, translations, etc.
>>

 No.7878

>>3185
>use elliptic curves
what did he mean by this
>>

 No.8017

>>2901
I feel like google has really gone downhill lately, like they keep giving me results they think I want instead of what I ask for. Idk maybe it's me
>>

 No.8078

>>7878
Elliptic curve cryptography has, to my knowledge, no special weakness that makes it easy for quantum computers to break it.
>>

 No.8082

Considering that DuckDuckGo is shit now, i'd like to ask: is there any advantage in using this in DuckDuckGo's place in your everyday browser? Or are the advantages exclusively Tor related?
>>

 No.8212

>>2903
>A privacy-based proxy for Google search
>We do measure overall traffic numbers and some other – strictly anonymous – statistics. These stats may include the number of times our service is accessed by a certain operating system, a type of browser, a language, etc.
>In order to enable the prevention of click fraud, some non-identifying system information is shared
>>8017
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-04-09-leaked-memos-prove-google-is-a-massive-criminal-enterprise-felony-election-meddling-and-racketeering.html
>>

 No.8317

privacytools.io's searx recently went down and the public one's up rn look mad limited: https://searx.space/
Wtf is one to do now bros?

Unique IPs: 5

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome