I won't engage in flaming, so this will be my end rebuttal...
Let me ask again if you have really read my warning post? (
viewtopic.php?p=48517#p48517)
It looks to me you're deliberately misconceiving the issue here, it is not the hacked Syrian UltraSurf version I'm warning of, it is of UltraSurf itself -- I mentioned above the scant warranties offered by developers that this application is really up to what it (IMHO) feigns...
Finally, a few quotes from the Wikipedia article I also mentioned:
In December 2011, Jacob Appelbaum and Roger Dingledine of the Tor Project described the fallibility of Ultrasurf in protecting the anonymity of users, in their presentation at the 28th Chaos Communication Congress (28c3). As part of their presentation on developments in online anonymity technologies they demonstrated how Ultrasurf clearly leaves the user's IP trail exposed.[3]
In a 2007 study, Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society found Ultrasurf to be the "best performing" of all tested circumvention tools during in-country tests, and recommended it for widespread use. The report noted, however, that Ultrareach is designed primarily as a circumvention product, rather than as an anonymity tool, and suggested that users concerned about anonymity should disable browser support for active content when using Ultrasurf.[1]
According to unconfirmed speculation on the French computer security-related website Reflets, Ultrasurf contains spyware and several trojan horses, which may actually enable government surveillance.[5][6] McAfee and many other antivirus programs also report Ultrasurf as a backdoor trojan.[7]
EDIT: While reading the work I alluded to
here, I found a further noteworthy mention of
UltraSurf...
In 'Consent of the Networked' {Chapter 12, Washington Squabbles, p. 309}, MacKinnon wrote: One set of people in Washington understand Internet freedom to mean that the US needs to help political and religious activists in undemocratic countries access an uncensored Internet and evade surveillance [...] A subset of the first camp, which lobbied hard for Congress to allocate funds for circumvention technologies, was the Global Internet Freedom Consortium (GIFC), run by practitioners of the Falun Gong, a religious sect banned in China. The GIFC produced a suite of circumvention tools (Freegate, Dynaweb, Ultrasurf, and Ultrareach) that are effective at bypassing Internet blocking, as long as the user does not mind that Falun Gong-affiliated engineers can view and log their unencrypted communications or that the software’s security -- and thus its vulnerability to attack, infiltration, and data theft -- has not been audited by independent experts.
You can check this @
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81449467/Cons ... d#page=309