nameuponthis

Interesting take. And perhaps correct from a technical and individual viewpoint. E.g. in the sense of reducing technical risk, such as reducing attack vectors (MITM, blindly trusting certificates), avoiding vulnerable protocols (DNS, TLS).

However, the definition of security seems a little narrow. Security is more than just technical personal risk. And the view that TOR increases security does not sit right.

Does TOR increase security for a single individual browsing the internet? Perhaps.

Does TOR increase security in an enterprise system? Perhaps not. The value and need for non-repudiation might be greater than the need for individual session security.

Does TOR increase security in the view of a nation? E.g. national security interests? Quite the opposite. The need for traceability might be vital, even for your individual personal security and safety (counter-terrorism and whatnot).

The blog-title is great. "Tor Is Not Just for Anonymity"! The author points out that security is a wide umbrella term. I agree! To the point that the term must be defined even wider than what is presented. And true to this: I am not stating that traceability, the need for control and non-repudiation increases security one-to-one. What is "secure" is relative.