Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 30 minutes later[^][v]#349,646
It could still be DDooSed through regular HTTP requests that exploit the system resources. Little aggregate bandwidth is required to fully deny service to an affordable infrastructure.
Tests have shown as few as 40 simultaneous connections of software-targeted HTTP requests (including form and session data, cookies, or header arguments) can overwhelm systems hardened to infrastructure attacks. The connections sent 20 KB/s of data inbound to the server and returned a median of 600 KB/s of HTML markup, cookie data, and HTTP headers.
A performance degredation (as measured by a declining rate of time per request) was reliably reproduced in high-load test scenarios.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#349,647
Kimmo hates onions. He won't even eat them on a pizz. :(
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#349,913
No-one would use it. There's already thousands of text boards and child porn sites on Tor anyway, no point.
Falco !VYDDrUD3gc joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#349,950
Hardly anyone used the surface web version either. I think anontalk already has a certain amount of noteriety, and would therefore find some traffic on TOR. (provided they were listed on the Hidden Wiki)
Not only that, but then it could truly be anonymous.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#350,004
@previous (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
Yes, people did use the Web version, and yes it was truly anonymous. It wouldn't get any fucking traffic either, you evidently don't know what you're talking about. It's "Tor", not "TOR".
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#350,006
Lol do you really think it was anymore anonymous than say minichan here? If old mr. Government wanted the IP addresses that used anontalk, it could have gotten them. Also yeah, it's technically "Tor", but should be "TOR".
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#350,008
@previous (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
Was it more anonymous than Minichan? Let's see. All of the log files on AnonTalk were securely deleted periodically, and once your post count was high enough the board no longer even stored your IP address. Once whitelisted, users were able to post from behind Tor, VPNs and proxies. AnonTalk also had SSL (HTTPS) encryption for all users. The whitelisting feature was only nessesary due to incessant abuse from 4chan users, otherwise Kimmo wouldn't have implemented it at all. And no, even though it's an acronym, the correct capitalization is "Tor". Feel free to keep capitalizing it though, it makes it easier to tell you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ replied with this 14 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#350,050
Okay, well then the whitelist would be a list of users, and anyone not whitelisted would be on the regular system until cleared. Not anonymous, not really, no way, no how.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#350,051
@previous (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
Yes, there was obviously a list of whitelisted UIDs. So? What fucking difference does that make? I just gave you 4 reasons AnonTalk was more anonymous than this shithole, that's all you got?