|
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ Naval Research Lab \email{<syverson@itd.nrl.navy.mil>}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\maketitle
|
|
|
-\pagestyle{empty}
|
|
|
+%\pagestyle{empty}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{abstract}
|
|
|
There are many unexpected or unexpectedly difficult obstacles to
|
|
@@ -891,16 +891,14 @@ mix-networks resist these attacks by introducing variability into message
|
|
|
arrival times: as timing variance increases, timing correlation attacks
|
|
|
require increasingly more data~\cite{e2e-traffic}. Can we improve Tor's
|
|
|
resistance to these attacks without losing too much usability?
|
|
|
-%by introducing batching
|
|
|
-%and delaying strategies to the Tor messages?
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, we need to learn whether we can trade a small increase in latency
|
|
|
for a large anonymity increase, or if we'll end up trading a lot of
|
|
|
latency for a small security gain. It would be worthwhile even if we
|
|
|
can only protect certain use cases, such as infrequent short-duration
|
|
|
-transactions. In order to answer this question, we might
|
|
|
-try to adapt the techniques of~\cite{e2e-traffic} to a lower-latency mix
|
|
|
-network, where instead of sending messages, users send batches
|
|
|
+transactions. To answer this question, we might
|
|
|
+adapt the techniques of~\cite{e2e-traffic} to a lower-latency mix
|
|
|
+network, where the messages are batches
|
|
|
of cells in temporally clustered connections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once the anonymity questions are answered, we need to consider usability. If
|
|
@@ -944,7 +942,6 @@ mid-latency option; however, we should continue the caution with which
|
|
|
we have always approached padding lest the overhead cost us too much
|
|
|
performance or too many volunteers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
\subsection{Measuring performance and capacity}
|
|
|
\label{subsec:performance}
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -1114,7 +1111,6 @@ produce traffic. They seem the ideal use case for our above discussion
|
|
|
of helper nodes. This insecurity means that they may not be suitable as
|
|
|
a building block for Free Haven~\cite{freehaven-berk} or other anonymous
|
|
|
publishing systems that aim to provide long-term security.
|
|
|
-%Also, they're brittle in terms of intersection and observation attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\emph{Hot-swap} hidden services, where more than one location can
|
|
|
provide the service and loss of any one location does not imply a
|
|
@@ -1145,8 +1141,6 @@ encryption and end-to-end authentication to their website.
|
|
|
\subsection{Trust and discovery}
|
|
|
\label{subsec:trust-and-discovery}
|
|
|
|
|
|
-[arma will edit this and expand/retract it]
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
The published Tor design adopted a deliberately simplistic design for
|
|
|
authorizing new nodes and informing clients about Tor nodes and their status.
|
|
|
In the early Tor designs, all nodes periodically uploaded a signed description
|
|
@@ -1548,60 +1542,12 @@ minute burst in each 4 hour period.}
|
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\section{Things to cut?}
|
|
|
-\subsection{Peer-to-peer / practical issues}
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-[leave this section for now, and make sure things here are covered
|
|
|
-elsewhere. then remove it.]
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Making use of nodes with little bandwidth. How to handle hammering by
|
|
|
-certain applications.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Handling nodes that are far away from the rest of the network, e.g. on
|
|
|
-the continents that aren't North America and Europe. High latency,
|
|
|
-often high packet loss.
|
|
|
+Making use of nodes with little bandwidth, or high latency/packet loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Running Tor nodes behind NATs, behind great-firewalls-of-China, etc.
|
|
|
Restricted routes. How to propagate to everybody the topology? BGP
|
|
|
style doesn't work because we don't want just *one* path. Point to
|
|
|
Geoff's stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\subsection{Caching stuff: If a topic's gotta go for space, I think this
|
|
|
-is the best candidate}
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-The attacks in \cite{attack-tor-oak05} are also dependent on
|
|
|
-cooperation of the responding application or the ability to modify or
|
|
|
-monitor the responder stream, in order of decreasing attack
|
|
|
-effectiveness. So, another way to slow some of these attacks
|
|
|
-would be to cache responses at exit nodes where possible, as it is with
|
|
|
-DNS lookups and cacheable HTTP responses. Caching would, however,
|
|
|
-create threats of its own. First, a Tor network is expected to contain
|
|
|
-hostile nodes. If one of these is the repository of a cache, the
|
|
|
-attack is still possible. Though more work to set up a Tor node and
|
|
|
-cache repository, the payoff of such an attack is potentially
|
|
|
-higher.
|
|
|
-%To be
|
|
|
-%useful, such caches would need to be distributed to any likely exit
|
|
|
-%nodes of recurred requests for the same data.
|
|
|
-% Even local caches could be useful, I think. -NM
|
|
|
-%
|
|
|
-%Added some clarification -PFS
|
|
|
-Besides allowing any other insider attacks, caching nodes would hold a
|
|
|
-record of destinations and data visited by Tor users reducing forward
|
|
|
-anonymity. Worse, for the cache to be widely useful much beyond the
|
|
|
-client that caused it there would have to either be a new mechanism to
|
|
|
-distribute cache information around the network and a way for clients
|
|
|
-to make use of it or the caches themselves would need to be
|
|
|
-distributed widely. Either way the record of visited sites and
|
|
|
-downloaded information is made automatically available to an attacker
|
|
|
-without having to actively gather it himself. Besides its inherent
|
|
|
-value, this could serve as useful data to an attacker deciding which
|
|
|
-locations to target for confirmation. A way to counter this
|
|
|
-distribution threat might be to only cache at certain semitrusted
|
|
|
-helper nodes. This might help specific clients, but it would limit
|
|
|
-the general value of caching.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
\end{document}
|
|
|
|