Long Wiki Edits Thread


Is it needed ? there is no laws in where Whonix is requesting to add malicious things afaik.

also comparison with others , i dunno who done some fixed but they are nonsense and contradictory e.g:

  • Its written the compared versions whonix 13 , well in 13 we werent having xfce , while you see that in features whonix using xfce?

  • In Last Update written "This wiki page is up to date " , and thats not true at all.

  • Also builds for whonix we dont have 32-bits anymore , plus that means it wont work in 32-bit as well.


so either someone do the whole tests again and do them one by one for whonix 14 and Tails and update everything or this comparison became just collective of bullshit.


Correct but not everybody knows that. The linked thread explains the reason for not having a warrant canary. This also can be used if this (Whonix warrant canary) is brought up. Easier to give a link to https://whonix.org/wiki/Trust than having to explain every time.

Correct, it should be KDE if Whonix 13 is being compared. But not a big deal since xfce is the current DE. Regardless, I believe(?) Patrick put that there so if he want xfce to be listed in that spot…

At the time of writing this page was up to date. Meaning at the last full page update.

If the comparison is Whonix 13 than this is correct. But this should probably be changed or at least a footnote stating 32 bit images are no longer available. Already a footnote stating Whonix 14 uses 64 bit builds

Not sure this is an “all or none situation”. Having some incorrect info like the wrong DE listed doesn’t mean the comparison is invalid. If you read the top of the page:

If any incorrect or outdated information is noted, the reader can either directly edit this page, or contact us and we will correct it as soon as possible.

This is because pages like this are very difficult to keep up to date. If there are mistakes users can let us know or make edits themselves.


I’ve been playing with https://github.com/rustybird/qubes-split-browser for about a week or so. Its kind of cool but not something that should be recommended for use imo.

  • Instructions as they are now are a little confusing. I personally had
    • 2 Stop-Points[1] installing package
    • 2 Stop-Points trying to figure how to use.
  • Fingerprinting would be an issue since the split-browser package needs to be installed in the Whonix DVM Template. Very bad if few people used this package.
  • Requires a persistent VM for all bookmarks, forum logins. So two VMs are needed. The instructions don’t specify a name for the persistent VM so all users will be giving it a different name. This could lead to further finngerprint (in case of compromise) since the DispVM knows the name of the VM from which it was spawned. Obviously this could be fixed by recommending a common name for the VM?

Of course I really cant evaluate except for usability but I think this would fall under Customizing Tor Browser in DVM Template i.e. discouraged

Possible uses:

Using Tor Browser without Tor - split browser would provide better usability.

[1] https://www.petsymposium.org/2012/papers/hotpets12-1-usability.pdf

I wonder if @torjunkie has any thoughts on this? This was one of his/her requests.


Good , nice upgrade to the comparison wiki :+1:.


Warning added to named DisposableVMs.



@HulaHoop its better if you simplify the KVM wiki to latest Debian builds stuff and not to add more instructions more than needed e.g:


these 2 issues both are already fixed.

or For **Debian Stretch+** you need to install: stretch everyone now using it , no need to put instruction for old debians.

Network manager issue …etc. KVM wiki needs to be updated and refreshed again. Hope you can do that whenever you have the chance.



As for the the section on VLC and “Network Manager Systray Unmanaged Devices”, these are part of a non-KVM template and would need to be updated with irrelevant sections removed if @Patrick approves.



link should be ended with #Why.3F , not just #Why


A few Nits.


@torjunkie Any pages that need updating or any new pages needed?


Had a nice little break now its time to put the wiki maintainer hat back on. I’'l be updating these pages next. If any one has a wiki request please let me know. :slight_smile:


ha ha - good stuff. Another diehard on the team is definitely needed. :slight_smile:


Will review when I’m back ‘proper’ in a couple of months…


Instead of editing https://whonix.org/wiki/E-Mail#Webmail a new sub-heading was added. Email#Email_Encryption/Encrypted_Webmail.


Up next:

https://qubes-os.org/faq/#should-i-trust-this-website with modifications would be a good addition for https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Trust but we don’t have gpg signed documentation.


Enhancements/feedback for the writeup

desired. This will be linked from a yet to be created Wiki Comments Policy page.


Not very knowledgeable about this sort of stuff. I think whats important.

  • Stating the purpose of Whonix.org. While Whonix is used by activist, forums.dds6qkxpwdeubwucdiaord2xgbbeyds25rbsgr73tbfpqpt4a6vjwsyd.onion are not an activism platform.
  • Even if on the side of “Right” getting the wrong attention equals no Whonix. See Kill Dotcom.
  • How other projects that are similar in size to Whonix handle this same issue. Maybe wiki could also include some of the same content.

I’ll have to think about this a little more. Try to write something up. :wink:


Great! All very true. Yeah, let’s migrate the forum post to the wiki and replace my forum post with a wiki page.



Should “limitations on free speech” retain personal pronouns, “I” and “me” or should it be more generic?


Warnings added.


Removed from https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Tunnels/Connecting_to_Tor_before_a_VPN. Reason: duplication. At the moment we are clearly saying on top of the page:

Before combining Tor with other tunnels, be sure to read and understand the risks!

So we don’t duplicate any warnings.

Also if we add it on one version (x over Tor vs Tor over x) it should be on both and not only on one of the two.

This is hopefully only temporary. Above is not a good style. I think users don’t like documentation for the thing they want to work on split among multiple pages. They want the exact thing they want to do all on one coherent page. This however would require a ton of new wiki templates which then get reused for the many combinations before/after Tor vs VPN vs proxy vs ssh. Perhaps not realistic? Too much work? That’s why above’s quote is stressed.

Could you please move to https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Tunnels/Introduction#Introduction and rewrite from VPN to tunnel-link? Since it really applies to any kind of tunnel link.

Can be more generic if this can become a fully agreed Whonix team speech. Good idea.

Made more generic. Limitations on Free Speech on Whonix Website since applies to all, wiki, forums, comments, …

Limitations on Free Speech on Whonix Website is too specific for Wiki Comments Policy? Applies more generally. Own page?