[HOME] [DOWNLOAD] [DOCS] [NEWS] [SUPPORT] [TIPS] [ISSUES] [CONTRIBUTE] [DONATE]

v3 onions for essential Whonix defaults (besides sdwdate)

No, there was no bug - people were just prevented from editing completely. But i see wiki edit comments in recent times on unprotected parts of a page like “As I can’t edit your template, can you please update XYZ…” e.g. Bisq page was a recent example of that.

Alright - I think we should unprotect most, even if more than on 5 pages etc. When I originally set the protections the vast majority of templates had zero protections. Agree with the sensitive info templates though.

1 Like

New Release: Tor Browser 10.0.17 | Tor Blog

sysrqb said:

June 03, 2021

In reply to Regarding the deprecation of… by anonymous (not verified)
Permalink

Yes, they are testing a v3 onion address and that should be available in the near future.

Their onion address is not used as the default search engine because they have concerns about supporting the resulting load. The ticket tracking this request is DuckDuckGo Onion should be the default instead of DuckDuckGo (#21483) · Issues · The Tor Project / Applications / Tor Browser · GitLab

1 Like

Alright. Just keep at least sensitive ones (project onion) and highly unlikely changing ones (project name).

True, make the comparison of ddg onion v2 VS onion v3 you will find the match.

you can find it here in their clearnet headers:

1 Like

All done. Removed most template edit protections, except for sensitive ones as agreed. Of course, don’t accept any you think push freedoms too far.

Also added protections where it wasn’t in place for:

  • Whonix cryptocoin donations
  • Software Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policies
  • Whonix product names
  • Whonix versioning
  • Whonix business names, addresses, contact details
  • Whonix signing key steps
  • Whonix/Debian/Tor Project v3 onion addresses
1 Like

Very good!

That evidence is as good as it gets. Sufficient. Don’t even see how it could get better. More than good enough.

Updated anon-apt-sources-list/debian.list at master · Whonix/anon-apt-sources-list · GitHub yet again. Some issues where pointed out by @TNT_BOM_BOM.

I am not sure about the best style.

But I thought copying from

https://onion.debian.org/

deb  tor+http://2s4yqjx5ul6okpp3f2gaunr2syex5jgbfpfvhxxbbjwnrsvbk5v3qbid.onion/debian          buster            main
deb  tor+http://2s4yqjx5ul6okpp3f2gaunr2syex5jgbfpfvhxxbbjwnrsvbk5v3qbid.onion/debian          buster-updates    main
deb  tor+http://5ajw6aqf3ep7sijnscdzw77t7xq4xjpsy335yb2wiwgouo7yfxtjlmid.onion/debian-security buster/updates    main

is best because then it’s easiest to audit that anon-apt-sources-list matches Debian’s onion.debian.org.

1 Like

best style is what default debian using (but clearnet version) which is without extra spaces for our example it will be like this:

deb tor+http://2s4yqjx5ul6okpp3f2gaunr2syex5jgbfpfvhxxbbjwnrsvbk5v3qbid.onion/debian buster main
deb tor+http://2s4yqjx5ul6okpp3f2gaunr2syex5jgbfpfvhxxbbjwnrsvbk5v3qbid.onion/debian buster-updates main
deb tor+http://5ajw6aqf3ep7sijnscdzw77t7xq4xjpsy335yb2wiwgouo7yfxtjlmid.onion/debian-security buster/updates main
1 Like

I made an update to an arguably sensitive Wiki document and it got edited to oblivion (new to this Wiki structure - and especially to the Dev and Templates structure). Should I continue to try to make contributions?

Dunno what you’re referring to.

Was done in git master.

Absolutely you should.

Apart from the existing and former team members (particularly 0brand - come back man), very few people are making regular, significant contributions.

In recent times, all templates and nearly all (non-dev) pages have been edited mercilessly, regardless of the original author. That was for reasons like:

  • wiki consistency (formatting etc.)
  • grammar
  • clarity of expression
  • spelling
  • updated material/references
  • removing duplication with existing pages/entries
  • clear communication of content/procedures
  • factual accuracy
  • phrasing
  • shorter sentences/paragraphs
  • active versus passive language
  • better sectioning
  • defining unfamiliar terms
  • ensuring an adequate number of references/footnotes
  • citing original material/research
  • removing redundant information
  • shifting long text bodies into tables where possible
  • inserting images to improve instructions/concepts
  • cross-referencing with other Whonix entries
  • updating links
  • and more

A general principle of editing is that even with solid contributions by experienced authors, multiple revisions are normally required to improve it so it meets the publication standard (three rounds is often cited). That doesn’t mean all material will require editing, but the likelihood increases as the entries age or when the material is lengthy or complex.

The way I see it, other eyes on your material and proposed changes/possible improvements reinforces its value, rather than suggesting it it is somehow deficient.

1 Like
[Imprint] [Privacy Policy] [Cookie Policy] [Terms of Use] [E-Sign Consent] [DMCA] [Contributors] [Investors] [Priority Support] [Professional Support]