|  | @@ -958,10 +958,10 @@ has to check whether data has been successfully flushed onto the TCP
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  stream; it sends the \emph{relay sendme} cell only when the number of bytes pending
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  to be flushed is under some threshold (currently 10 cells' worth).
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -% Maybe omit this next paragraph. -NM
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -Currently, non-data relay cells do not affect the windows. Thus we
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -avoid potential deadlock issues, for example, arising because a stream
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -can't send a \emph{relay sendme} cell when its packaging window is empty.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%% Maybe omit this next paragraph. -NM
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%Currently, non-data relay cells do not affect the windows. Thus we
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%avoid potential deadlock issues, for example, arising because a stream
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%can't send a \emph{relay sendme} cell when its packaging window is empty.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  These arbitrarily chosen parameters seem to give tolerable throughput
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  and delay; see Section~\ref{sec:in-the-wild}.
 | 
	
	
		
			
				|  | @@ -987,7 +987,6 @@ to new ORs. \textbf{Smear-resistant:}
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  A social attacker who offers an illegal or disreputable location-hidden
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  service should not be able to ``frame'' a rendezvous router by
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  making observers believe the router created that service.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -%slander-resistant? defamation-resistant?
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  \textbf{Application-transparent:} Although we require users
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  to run special software to access location-hidden servers, we must not
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  require them to modify their applications.
 | 
	
	
		
			
				|  | @@ -1903,41 +1902,40 @@ also designed to include authentication/authorization---if Alice doesn't
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  include the right cookie with her request for service, Bob need not even
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  acknowledge his existence.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -\SubSection{Attacks against rendezvous points}
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -We describe here attacks against rendezvous points and how well
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -the system protects against them.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -\emph{Make many introduction requests.}  An attacker could
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -try to deny Bob service by flooding his introduction points with
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -requests.  Because the introduction points can block requests that
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -lack authorization tokens, however, Bob can restrict the volume of
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -requests he receives, or require a certain amount of computation for
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -every request he receives.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -\emph{Attack an introduction point.} An attacker could
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -disrupt a location-hidden service by disabling its introduction
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -points.  But because a service's identity is attached to its public
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -key, the service can simply re-advertise
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -itself at a different introduction point. Advertisements can also be
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -done secretly so that only high-priority clients know the address of
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -Bob's introduction points or so that different clients know of different
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -introduction points. This forces the attacker to disable all possible
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -introduction points.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -\emph{Compromise an introduction point.} An attacker who controls
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -Bob's introduction point can flood Bob with
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -introduction requests, or prevent valid introduction requests from
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -reaching him. Bob can notice a flood, and close the circuit.  To notice
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -blocking of valid requests, however, he should periodically test the
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -introduction point by sending rendezvous requests and making
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -sure he receives them.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -\emph{Compromise a rendezvous point.}  A rendezvous
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -point is no more sensitive than any other OR on
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -a circuit, since all data passing through the rendezvous is encrypted
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -with a session key shared by Alice and Bob.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | -
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%\SubSection{Attacks against rendezvous points}
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%We describe here attacks against rendezvous points and how well
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%the system protects against them.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%\emph{Make many introduction requests.}  An attacker could
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%try to deny Bob service by flooding his introduction points with
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%requests.  Because the introduction points can block requests that
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%lack authorization tokens, however, Bob can restrict the volume of
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%requests he receives, or require a certain amount of computation for
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%every request he receives.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%\emph{Attack an introduction point.} An attacker could
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%disrupt a location-hidden service by disabling its introduction
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%points.  But because a service's identity is attached to its public
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%key, the service can simply re-advertise
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%itself at a different introduction point. Advertisements can also be
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%done secretly so that only high-priority clients know the address of
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%Bob's introduction points or so that different clients know of different
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%introduction points. This forces the attacker to disable all possible
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%introduction points.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%\emph{Compromise an introduction point.} An attacker who controls
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%Bob's introduction point can flood Bob with
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%introduction requests, or prevent valid introduction requests from
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%reaching him. Bob can notice a flood, and close the circuit.  To notice
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%blocking of valid requests, however, he should periodically test the
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%introduction point by sending rendezvous requests and making
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%sure he receives them.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%\emph{Compromise a rendezvous point.}  A rendezvous
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%point is no more sensitive than any other OR on
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%a circuit, since all data passing through the rendezvous is encrypted
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  | +%with a session key shared by Alice and Bob.
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  \end{document}
 | 
	
		
			
				|  |  |  
 |