I2P vs Tor with Tails

Would appreciate anyones input on experience with both systems. Ease of set up, performance and security.

For instance with I2P it seems logical that the better use case would be a clean system running from a Linux distro on a flash drive. Which is probably too much trouble for most people. Is that step even needed with I2P. Tor on Tails looks now like a simpler process because they are providing an OS to set up on presumably on a flash which I think includes the tor browser and some other applications. Also its appears the Silk Road folks have migrated to I2P, suggesting a more complete security platform for I2P.

Also what is the relative performance difference with between the two? Also interesting is that I2P is an internal network kind of like SAFE will be but it has a bridge to the outside world. My presumption is that working through the bridge with regular internet systems kind of defeats the use case and purpose and the interface is far from seamless. For instance I2P provides its own email services and apps but no on is going to be able to use one of those, like people use hushmail, to create a pseudoanonymous (it would be more anonymous in this case if possible) address to sign up to FaceBook with?

I2p was apparently released in 2003 but just got its stable release in April of 2015. Fascinating for parallels to SAFE.

You can find on Google - reportedly Tor is faster.
Just checked yesterday, (still) over 6000 Tor relay nodes (that offer varying speeds).

1 Like

[Maybe you want to read about this, because there seems to be security flaws in Tails.][1]

Also worth noting, in the article it says the SHA1 fingerprint that Gibson reported for tails.boum.org today is:

78:F1:3B:80:FA:77:35:74:18:87:59:D3:64:86:03:13:0B:91:CD:4D

I just looked it up and it’s different now, I’m to lazy to explore what could be the case…

Last but not least, I think it would be saver to run your Tail Linux from a CD instead of an flashdrive. You can still write to a flashdrive, with a CD that’s impossible (unless it’s a rewritable CD), the disadvantage of a CD is that you can’t update (actually you can update and install other software, but when you restart your computer from the CD everything is gone).
[1]: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2476515/network-security/the-security-flaws-in-tails-linux-are-not-its-only-problem.html

1 Like

I2P currently seems safer, since fewer people are using it, and that means there are less people at the spy agencies dedicated to finding attacks against it, than for TOR.
However, that does not mean there are none, since I2P has had a lot less security audits than TOR, last I checked. (Even says so on their website). So it’s a gamble.
Ease of access is defenitely on the side of TOR, thanks to the bundle. But give somebody a Raspberry PI with preinstalled TOR and I2P, and install it in their home network, and using both becomes a matter of being able to use FoxyProxy for Firefox.
Not that I would suggest security would begin or end there, oh no! You want somebody to be “secure” on the internet, you sit them down and start with a good, long discussion about bloody passwords and attack angles!

1 Like

Gee, how useful!
Next time you can check the article date too.

For anyone who cares, https://tails.boum.org/doc/get/trusting_tails_signing_key/index.en.html

1 Like

That’s the first thing I did, when I read it and like I said

I’m happy you did so thanks Janitor
:stuck_out_tongue:

I mean the article on Tails was published in 2014.
Of course the current ISO fingerprint is different. If you checked the same ISO he did, it would have been the same.