OSTG|SourceForge -ThinkGeek -IT Manager's Journal -Linux.com -NewsForge -freshmeat -Newsletters -TechJobs -SlashdotBroadbandX
Welcome to Slashdot
Why Login?
Why Subscribe?

1 more
5 more
1 more
2 more
1 more
3 more
2 more
6 more

Old Stories
Old Polls
Hall of Fame
Submit Story


Online Books
Product News
Tech Jobs
IT Research

Tor: A JAP Replacement
The Internet
Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Aug 05, '04 09:14 PM
from the trust-no-one dept.
kid_wonder writes "Wired is running an article describing an answer to this previous /. story. Packets are sent through a network of randomly selected servers each of which knows only its predecessor and successor. Packets are unwrapped by a symmetric encryption key at each server that peels off one layer and reveals instructions for the next downstream node. As a 'connection-based low-latency anonymous communication system,' Tor seems to be the answer to JAP to allow anonymous networking activities of all kinds."

Click Here

Slashdot Log In


Public Terminal

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
describing an answer
previous /. story
More stories
Also by CowboyNeal
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Tor: A JAP Replacement | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 266 comments | Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Too bad (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, @09:16PM (#9895669)
The DoD will just block such methods.!
  • Re:Too bad by Brannoch (Score:2) Friday August 06, @02:07AM
    • Re:Too bad by gclef (Score:2) Friday August 06, @06:59AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      Before you know it... (Score:5, Insightful)
      by cytoman (792326) on Thursday August 05, @09:17PM (#9895677)
      ... the RIAA and the MPAA will be all over this, denouncing it and crying foul!


      Talk about politically incorrect (Score:4, Funny)
      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, @09:18PM (#9895684)
      We are REPLACING japs now??!?!?
      Freenet? (Score:5, Insightful)
      by pope nihil (85414) on Thursday August 05, @09:18PM (#9895687)
      Isn't this onion routing thing exactly what freenet uses?
        Re:Freenet? (Score:5, Informative)
        by MoonBuggy (611105) on Thursday August 05, @09:26PM (#9895743)
        That's exactly what I thought (and I believe that we're right). What's interesting here though is that it claims to be low-latency, a quality rarely associated with Freenet and probably the primary reason that Freenet remains largely used by people who need/want _extreme_ anonymity rather than your average movie downloader wanting to avoid one of those nasty lawsuits.
        [ Parent ]
        Re:Freenet? (Score:4, Informative)
        by elleomea (749084) on Thursday August 05, @09:39PM (#9895829)
        As far as I'm aware Freenet stores encrypted content on each node, not just routing requests through nodes.
        [ Parent ]
          Re:Freenet vs onion routing (Score:5, Informative)
          by complete loony (663508) <Jeremy@Lakeman.gmail@com> on Thursday August 05, @09:41PM (#9895841)
          Onion routing does just that, it is a method for picking an anonymous route. Freenet is a distributed database.
          In onion routing the client picks N nodes from the list of servers and encrypts using each servers public key. Then sends the data to the first server. In onion routing each packet of data contains the entire routing list, though it is encrypted in such a way that each node can only tell what the next node is.
          Each Freenet nodes caches data blocks based on demand. When a request arrives looking for a data block Freenet forwards the request to a node that has similar information until the correct block is found. Each freenet node only knows about the next and previous nodes, and the route is determined by the key you are searching for.
          [ Parent ]
          Re:Freenet? (Score:5, Informative)
          by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Thursday August 05, @10:54PM (#9896206)
          Freenet doesn't use onion routing (last time I checked), but it does use the concept of sending messages through mutiple hops. But the main difference between Freenet and Tor is that Freenet is an anonymous publishing system and Tor is an anonymizing layer that can work with almost any application.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Freenet? by amphibian (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @09:05AM
            Re:Freenet? (Score:4, Informative)
            by 0x0d0a (568518) on Friday August 06, @12:12AM (#9896683)
            (Last Journal: Thursday June 03, @01:50AM)
            Isn't this onion routing thing exactly what freenet uses?

            Not in the same form.

            Freenet allows posting of data, which does travel through multiple nodes, much like this one. It also allows retrieval of data. However, the two are separate operations. You don't establish a connection between the publisher of data and the reciever, which means Freenet tends to be unsuitable for things that require even remotely interactive latency. I think Tor might wind up being a bit high for, say, SSH, but it could easily be just fine for instant messaging -- two people that don't know each other by anything but pseudonyms and cannot trace each other can conduct conversations.
            [ Parent ]
            • Re:Freenet? by arodland (Score:1) Sunday August 08, @07:39PM
              hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
              by SinaSa (709393) <sina@@@cuodan...net> on Thursday August 05, @09:19PM (#9895693)
              Tor - The internet onion!

              No, but seriously, the blurb says this is low latency, how that's the case, I fail to see. First client wants to send a HTTP GET or something similar via Tor, so every packet involved needs that info, plus a little bit extra to get it to the next node, plus a little bit more so the end node knows where it needs to be in the end on the return. So that's two extra little bits, then the stuff gets sent one node across which takes its info off and puts new info on.

              Where is the low latency here? All this peeling/adding layers to peel off must be fairly time consuming. I'll admit I quite like the idea, and as soon as I click Submit I'm going to download and try it, but I fail to see how this can be faster than say, InvisibleIRC (IIP) was.
                Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
                by dfelznic (8812) <dfc@@@anize...org> on Thursday August 05, @10:01PM (#9895951)
                I am using tor right now to read slashdot as well as IRC and GAIM. Tor is not supposed to be as low latency as your normal connection. Security is a trade off the slight degradation in latency is worth the improved anonymity...

                [ Parent ]
              • Re:hmmm by Wesley Felter (Score:2) Thursday August 05, @10:44PM
                • Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
                  by jhoffoss (73895) on Friday August 06, @12:12AM (#9896682)
                  (Last Journal: Wednesday October 09, @05:20PM)
                  Tor achieves low latency because tunnels are created during connection setup, and that same tunnel is utilized for the life of the connection.

                  I believe the encryption is layered on from the start, and peeling occurs at each transfer, not peel/crypt/peel/crypt/etc.

                  I was surprised to see no one posted this earlier; the author of Tor gave a very good presentation at DEFCON last week, and I'll have to get out my CD with his presentation on it, but it's different from Freenet in a few ways. For one, apparently Freenet isn't totally free.

                  As a side-note, the author is still working on a method to accept/sign-up/recruit primary [trusted] nodes.

                  [ Parent ]
                • Re:hmmm by jhoffoss (Score:2) Friday August 06, @12:15AM
                  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
                  I would imagine (Score:5, Funny)
                  by AbbyNormal (216235) on Thursday August 05, @09:21PM (#9895704)
                  our East Asian readers, will readily endorse this new standard...Honestly, I guess not many people think about their acronyms before they are released to the public.
                  Not Like Freenet (Score:5, Insightful)
                  by gclef (96311) on Thursday August 05, @09:22PM (#9895708)
                  Wow. Lots of DefCon related stories.

                  Anyway, for those asking, no, this isn't quite like Freenet. In TOR, you decide which points you want to send traffic through (and negotiate encryption keys with each one individually), and, unlike FreeNet, you can tunnel existing protocols over it (like, say http).

                  There's a lot of promise here, but in his talk, he was looking for sites that had at least 1Mbps up & down speeds for nodes. This isn't quite like Peekabooty, in that right now they're not looking for everyone to run a middleman node.
                    Re:Not Like Freenet (Score:5, Interesting)
                    by X (1235) <x@xman.org> on Thursday August 05, @09:26PM (#9895747)
                    (http://www.xman.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 19, @08:41PM)
                    What it is very much like is Freedom.net from Zero Knowledge Systems. Those guys already provided the patches to Linux to implement it, and had way more sophisticated protections (things to prevent discovery by timing and packet size analysis). Unfortunately, not may people used it, so it went bust. Now ZKS mostly does firewall software. :-(
                    [ Parent ]
                      Re:Not Like Freenet (Score:4, Interesting)
                      by gclef (96311) on Thursday August 05, @09:32PM (#9895785)
                      Yeah, he mentioned ZKS in his presentation. Their disappearing, and taking the network with them, is one of the reasons that he's BSD-licensing the code for this.

                      Interestingly, one of the other reasons is that he managed to convince the Navy that others would use and trust the code (therefore making the Navy's use of it more difficult to detect) if those others could read the code and implement it themselves. I'm honestly kinda surprised (but happy) that the Navy agreed to it.
                      [ Parent ]
                    • Re:Not Like Freenet by CRiMSON (Score:1) Friday August 06, @11:37AM
                    Onion routing (Score:5, Funny)
                    by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Thursday August 05, @09:22PM (#9895711)
                    to help Internet users surf the Web anonymously and shield their online activities from corporate or government eyes. The system is based on a concept called onion routing.

                    I've just tried to set www.theonion.com:8800 as http proxy but it doesn't work...
                    Why would the government fund something... (Score:4, Interesting)
                    by hadesan (664029) on Thursday August 05, @09:25PM (#9895737)
                    which is completely open source and avaialble to anyone who want's to download it?

                    If the Navy is funding this project, don't you think they have already found a way of monitoring it?

                    Been around for awhile... (Score:5, Informative)
                    by shadowmatter (734276) on Thursday August 05, @09:32PM (#9895786)
                    Schemes like this to make p2p anonymous have been around for awhile. The problem is that such systems have very high end-to-end latency, so in practice it's not really ideal for a constantly evolving network -- like peer-to-peer. A scheme similar to this, using mixes, is Tarzan [mit.edu]. From its ACM paper:

                    Tarzan is a peer-to-peer anonymous IP network overlay. Because it provides IP service, Tarzan is general-purpose and transparent to applications. Organized as a decentralized peer-to-peer overlay, Tarzan is fault-tolerant, highly scalable, and easy to manage.Tarzan achieves its anonymity with layered encryption and multi-hop routing, much like a Chaumian mix. A message initiator chooses a path of peers pseudo-randomly through a restricted topology in a way that adversaries cannot easily influence.

                    Such systems right now have too high a latency and too much overhead (such as a peer sending "noise" into the network when not having the need to send any real data, just to deter packet analysis) that they aren't terribly practical... for now. So you most likely won't see the technology bundled in the next KaZaA, BitTorrent, etc., but we'll see what the future holds.

                    - sm
                    too bad... (Score:3, Funny)
                    by night_flyer (453866) on Thursday August 05, @09:33PM (#9895790)
                    we did have this back in 1941
                      lessons from cp remailers? (Score:4, Insightful)
                      by astrashe (7452) on Thursday August 05, @09:34PM (#9895799)
                      (http://slashdot.org/...id=31489&cid=3388020 | Last Journal: Friday March 26, @05:22PM)
                      What happens when people start doing bad stuff with the tor system? You know it's going to happen...

                      The model is bad, because the people running the servers (like the old cypherpunk remailers) are supposed to provide services for free, out of the goodness of their hearts, and take the heat when people do malicious stuff with the network.

                      It seems to me that it's not a bad technical system, but that it fails when you start to think about the social and economic realities of the net.

                        Re:lessons from cp remailers? (Score:4, Insightful)
                        by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday August 05, @10:10PM (#9895983)
                        (http://snobile.dmz.fi/ | Last Journal: Monday December 09, @06:12PM)
                        like spammers taking advantage of a fairly open email system?
                        sorry, couldn't resist.

                        still, email works.

                        these systems are mostly meant for distributing the possible heat anyways.. and making it impossible to pinpoint it on anyone spesific(because you don't even know what you're routing). the problem is when there's some naive people running these that start crying once they figure out what's anonymity mostly needed for(like freenet, they make a system that's practically meant for distributing banned materials and start crying when they realise that the materia had reasons to be banned in the first place..)..

                        for a normal user though these just mean assurance of that if RIAA/MPAA starts being veeery aggressive about p2p people will switch to some more advanced version of p2p even if it comes with severe performance(speed) hit.
                        [ Parent ]
                        • Re:lessons from cp remailers? by NanoGator (Score:3) Thursday August 05, @11:48PM
                          • Re:lessons from cp remailers? by 0x0d0a (Score:3) Friday August 06, @01:49AM
                            • Re:lessons from cp remailers? by amphibian (Score:1) Saturday August 07, @09:12AM
                              You missed some points. (Score:5, Interesting)
                              by Positive Charge (592093) on Thursday August 05, @09:36PM (#9895810)
                              (I know because I submitted this article too.)

                              1. The Navy is bankrolling the development, presumably to allow government employees to surf around without leaving ".gov" and ".mil" ip addresses in logs.

                              2. JAP supposedly has a German Government implanted backdoor that this one shouldn't because it's open source.

                              I think that the US Government is bankrolling it to piss off the Chinese.
                              An Important Message (Score:5, Funny)
                              by Gannoc (210256) on Thursday August 05, @09:38PM (#9895821)

                              This technology will certainly become a favored tool of terrorists trying to avoid the justice of the Bush administration.


                              The MPAA.
                              Nice Acronym (Score:1, Funny)
                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, @09:39PM (#9895826)
                              Sorry, I'm too busy updating my NIGGER and KIKE networks to worry about a new protocol.

                              Who the heck thought JAP would be an acceptable acronym?
                              My New Algorithm (Score:2, Funny)
                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, @09:39PM (#9895827)
                              I'm not sure yet what it does, but I'm thinking of calling it the Heuristic, Orthogonal, Non-Knuth-approved, Yielding algorithm.

                              HONKY, for short. I guess that name won't be a problem, will it? I mean, since JAP seems to be okay...
                              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                              Right hand, talk to left hand please! (Score:4, Funny)
                              by putaro (235078) on Thursday August 05, @09:43PM (#9895851)
                              (Last Journal: Monday June 30, @10:41PM)
                              I think it's great that the Navy is funding this. Now, where are the wire tap hooks? [slashdot.org] I always enjoy the way the government exempts itself from its own rules.
                                Nothing new (Score:3, Informative)
                                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, @09:53PM (#9895916)
                                Something named "My own private Idaho", an anonymous remailing software from 1996-1998, did (and is still doing) exactly the same thing, with PGP integration, and server key publication.
                                Is the route preselected? (Score:5, Insightful)
                                by brett42 (79648) on Thursday August 05, @09:56PM (#9895931)
                                From the couple of days I spent actually working in my highschool cisco class, I remember each router in a path is supposed to be able to optimize the route a packet is sent on by using local information and the packet's final destination. From what I gather from the limited technical details in the article, this protocol would require knowledge of the entire route at the initial node to handle the 'onion layer' encryption.

                                Is there some way of optimizing a path through a given number of nodes without keeping huge amounts of information about latency on every two nodes, or is this just bouncing the packet around for a while for anonymity and accepting the added latency, plus possibly the time it takes to detect and resend packets when one node in a path suddenly goes dead, making the custom-encrypted packet worthless?
                                  Re:Is the route preselected? (Score:4, Informative)
                                  by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Thursday August 05, @11:08PM (#9896294)
                                  From what I gather from the limited technical details in the article, this protocol would require knowledge of the entire route at the initial node to handle the 'onion layer' encryption.

                                  Correct. The sender wraps the whole onion, and each router removes one layer.

                                  Is there some way of optimizing a path through a given number of nodes without keeping huge amounts of information about latency on every two nodes, or is this just bouncing the packet around for a while for anonymity and accepting the added latency?

                                  It's more like the latter. Optimizing for performance tends to be at odds with anonymity.
                                  [ Parent ]
                                  I've been doing this since August 2003. (Score:2, Insightful)
                                  by NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) <john,oyler&comcast,net> on Thursday August 05, @10:08PM (#9895975)
                                  ( | Last Journal: Thursday March 07, @12:03AM)
                                  Why is this so tough for people to "get" ?
                                  Mixmaster for TCP? (Score:3, Insightful)
                                  by kinema (630983) on Thursday August 05, @10:14PM (#9896003)
                                  This sounds a lot like an implementation of Mixmaster [sourceforge.net] for TCP.
                                  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                                  Anonymous mailer technology (Score:5, Interesting)
                                  by KillerCow (213458) on Thursday August 05, @10:14PM (#9896010)
                                  This sounds like a reinsertion of all the technology that has gone into anonymous mailers over the years (see MixMaster [sourceforge.net].) I hope that they aren't re-inventing everything and repeating the same mistakes. The existing technology should be mostly portable from the application layer to the session or layer.

                                  I was at a presentation by the guy behind MixMaster and was impressed by all the thought that has gone into the various generations of the application. They even had it generating fake messages so you can't do traffic analysis.
                                  Goodness me (Score:2, Funny)
                                  by TheKingOfTorts (793076) on Thursday August 05, @10:29PM (#9896085)
                                  No one can replace the Jewish American Princess, what with her snooty attitude and come-hither glances. Come on.. baby needs a new BMW
                                    Onion Routing (Score:5, Interesting)
                                    by dachshund (300733) on Thursday August 05, @10:36PM (#9896117)
                                    Onion Routing [onion-router.net] has been around for several years. Tor is an effort to make the original protocol more practical. It replaces several nice features from OR, specifically the notion of "reply onions", which allowed message recipients to route replies back to the sender without learning the sender's identity. Instead, TOR recommends a form of "rendezvous point" where receivers send messages to be routed back to the sender. It's not as elegant, and the security is not necessarily as strong, though it is more practical.

                                    It's important to note that there are some statistical attacks on both of these systems, and none of them are very secure for long communication sessions when group membership churns, as in a peer-to-peer network.

                                      I2P has been doing this for some time now (Score:1, Interesting)
                                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, @10:46PM (#9896166)
                                      It's usable right now, it's much more flexible than TOR but it's not exactly ready for primetime. Despite that you can still browse eepsites, use the anonymous irc and set up any time of transport tunnel you're looking for. Once it hits version .5 there will be more publicity made about it, wider testing, etc.

                                      If you're on freenode.net chat, join #i2p or go to the website right here. [i2p.net]

                                      About I2P [i2p.net]
                                        Tor for email (Score:1)
                                        by legoleg (514805) on Thursday August 05, @11:03PM (#9896259)
                                        Anyone remembr Private Idaho?

                                        One current incarnaton is here:

                                        It uses remailers and pgp in the same onion scheme for email... for when u want nobody to see ur email.
                                        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                                        Criminal everywhere rejoice (Score:2, Insightful)
                                        by nasor (690345) on Thursday August 05, @11:11PM (#9896314)
                                        This sort of thing is of little use to anyone but criminals. Yes, I realize that you shouldn't necessarily ban or restrict something that has legitimate uses simply because it's also useful for criminals, but I think it's worth asking whether or not something like this would really be a net benefit to society. I know the Freenet crowd likes to make constant reference to oppressive governments, political dissidents, etc., but does anyone really think that the ratio of illegal porn and illicitly-traded copyrighted material to legitimate use isn't astronomical?
                                        Oh, for God's sake... (Score:4, Interesting)
                                        by andymurph (803194) on Thursday August 05, @11:17PM (#9896348)
                                        ... The Register [theregister.co.uk] broke this story ages ago: Here [theregister.co.uk] and Here [theregister.co.uk]. Why is /. so reluctant to credit these guys for the tech stories they so often break? Jealousy?
                                          How do I use this behind a firewall? (Score:1)
                                          by phantasma6 (799340) on Thursday August 05, @11:20PM (#9896366)
                                          Can someone please instruct me on how to set up Tor when I am behind a http proxy which requires a username and password?

                                          (And before you say RTFM, I already have, and I couldn't find anything relevent.)
                                          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                                          Onion-skin-routing not new (Score:2)
                                          by 0x0d0a (568518) on Friday August 06, @12:00AM (#9896615)
                                          (Last Journal: Thursday June 03, @01:50AM)
                                          Zero Knowledge Systems provided commercial onion skin routing for quite some time.

                                          Since heavily-used onion-skin-routing can make traffic analysis a pain and is one of the best anonymity mechanisms we have, I'm certainly cheering Tor on. If you don't like your network usage being monitored, be it web browsing, newsgroup reading, email, or chatting, onion-skin routing is a Good Thing.
                                            TOR Ready! Website logo & list (Score:3, Insightful)
                                            by xiando (770382) on Friday August 06, @01:40AM (#9897009)
                                            (http://xiando.org/ | Last Journal: Monday June 14, @09:59AM)
                                            It's been quite a while since I made my site LinuxReviews [linuxreviews.org] IPv6 Ready [linuxreviews.org]. This has made me look at the IPv6-ready Web Server list [uni-leipzig.de] from time to time and sadly there is very few sites out there that are IPv6 capable.

                                            It is nice to know Tor supports standard protocols like http://. But do you really believe those "Tor Ready!" websites will start popping up any time soon? I don't think so. The majority of todays websites do not validate [w3.org], doesn't support IPv6 and many don't even render correctly in the majority of web browsers. Will Tor-Ready be prioritized higher by the average webmaster than these and other more serious issues?

                                            I am also very skeptical to the bandwidth requirements and the latency. My Ipv6 connection gives me full bandwidth, but I do notice that connections going through the tunnel are, in fact, much more latent than normal native Ipv4 connections. So why would I prefer to visit some website using Tor when the real difference is a longer loading period? Yes, what the author says about low latency may be true. It may have less latency than alternatives, but do not try to tell me I won't notice significantly higher latency if I try to IRC through a TOR connection.

                                            People are talking about Ipv6 becoming standard in 5-6 years, I will be amazed if tor still exists at that point in time and even more amazed if it's actually implemented on more than 0.0001% of the Internet's services.
                                              NAT. (Score:2)
                                              by noselasd (594905) on Friday August 06, @04:34AM (#9897491)
                                              (http://utelsystems.dyndns.org/ | Last Journal: Monday May 03, @05:04AM)
                                              So.. basically, set up a NAT or proxy server rather, and let the internet users of the world use that (+IPSec)!?
                                                The Japanese are not a race. (Score:1)
                                                by Blaede (266638) <texasfury @ h o t m a i l .com> on Thursday August 05, @11:20PM (#9896367)
                                                They are a nationality.
                                                [ Parent ]
                                                  Re:talk about racist (Score:2)
                                                  by Trejkaz (615352) on Thursday August 05, @11:39PM (#9896497)
                                                  Let's see, which one is more offensive I wonder... Hmm...
                                                  [ Parent ]
                                                    Re:More Useful Acronyms (Score:1)
                                                    by rossdee (243626) on Friday August 06, @12:31AM (#9896752)
                                                    "wtf is a pom?"

                                                    Slang for someone from Britain, at least in Australia and New Zealand.

                                                    I believe the american term is "Limey"
                                                    [ Parent ]
                                                    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
                                                    Re:Why was this modded down? (Score:4, Insightful)
                                                    by 0x0d0a (568518) on Friday August 06, @02:20AM (#9897139)
                                                    (Last Journal: Thursday June 03, @01:50AM)
                                                    Frankly, I don't give a damn one way or the other what someone calls someone else. I'm white. If someone wants to call me "whitey" or "cracker", I might think it's kind of funny, but other than that, it doesn't mean anything to me.

                                                    I just don't have any sympathy for people overinduling in their own victimhood. There are people starving around the world, an African continent full of AIDS, people without access to uncontaminated drinkable water, and someone is going to complain about the choice of word that someone uses to describe them, or even more ridiculously, a three-letter-acronym that happens to match up with that word? How can anyone remotely sympathize with someone complaining about this? If they really can't think of a single worthwhile issue to complain about, I'd suggest the upcoming US presidential election, which stands to significantly impact a lot more people than the term that someone uses to refer to a group of people.

                                                    [ Parent ]
                                                    Re:JAP replacement? (Score:2)
                                                    by Shant3030 (414048) * on Friday August 06, @10:02AM (#9898645)
                                                    Troll??? Obviously most of you don't know what kind of JAP im referring to..

                                                    JAP = Jewish American Princess


                                                    [ Parent ]
                                                    • 21 replies beneath your current threshold.
                                                    • HAIR TONICS, please!!
                                                       All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest 1997-2004 OSTG.
                                                      [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSTG | advertise | about | terms of service | privacy | faq | rss ]