|
@@ -567,8 +567,64 @@ the server doesn't even acknowledge its existence.
|
|
\Section{Maintaining anonymity sets}
|
|
\Section{Maintaining anonymity sets}
|
|
\label{sec:maintaining-anonymity}
|
|
\label{sec:maintaining-anonymity}
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\SubSection{Using a circuit many times}
|
|
|
|
-\label{subsec:many-messages}
|
|
|
|
|
|
+packet counting attacks work great against initiators. need to do some
|
|
|
|
+level of obfuscation for that. standard link padding for passive link
|
|
|
|
+observers. long-range padding for people who own the first hop. are
|
|
|
|
+we just screwed against people who insert timing signatures into your
|
|
|
|
+traffic?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Even regardless of link padding from Alice to the cloud, there will be
|
|
|
|
+times when Alice is simply not online. Link padding, at the edges or
|
|
|
|
+inside the cloud, does not help for this.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+how often should we pull down directories? how often send updated
|
|
|
|
+server descs?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+when we start up the client, should we build a circuit immediately,
|
|
|
|
+or should the default be to build a circuit only on demand? should we
|
|
|
|
+fetch a directory immediately?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+would we benefit from greater synchronization, to blend with the other
|
|
|
|
+users? would the reduced speed hurt us more?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+does the "you can't see when i'm starting or ending a stream because
|
|
|
|
+you can't tell what sort of relay cell it is" idea work, or is just
|
|
|
|
+a distraction?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+does running a server actually get you better protection, because traffic
|
|
|
|
+coming from your node could plausibly have come from elsewhere? how
|
|
|
|
+much mixing do you need before this is actually plausible, or is it
|
|
|
|
+immediately beneficial because many adversary can't see your node?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+do different exit policies at different exit nodes trash anonymity sets,
|
|
|
|
+or not mess with them much?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+do we get better protection against a realistic adversary by having as
|
|
|
|
+many nodes as possible, so he probably can't see the whole network,
|
|
|
|
+or by having a small number of nodes that mix traffic well? is a
|
|
|
|
+cascade topology a more realistic way to get defenses against traffic
|
|
|
|
+confirmation? does the hydra (many inputs, few outputs) topology work
|
|
|
|
+better? are we going to get a hydra anyway because most nodes will be
|
|
|
|
+middleman nodes?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+using a circuit many times is good because it's less cpu work
|
|
|
|
+ good because of predecessor attacks with path rebuilding
|
|
|
|
+ bad because predecessor attacks can be more likely to link you with a
|
|
|
|
+ previous circuit since you're so verbose
|
|
|
|
+ bad because each thing you do on that circuit is linked to the other
|
|
|
|
+ things you do on that circuit
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+Because Tor runs over TCP, when one of the servers goes down it seems
|
|
|
|
+that all the circuits (and thus streams) going over that server must
|
|
|
|
+break. This reduces anonymity because everybody needs to reconnect
|
|
|
|
+right then (does it? how much?) and because exit connections all break
|
|
|
|
+at the same time, and it also reduces usability. It seems the problem
|
|
|
|
+is even worse in a p2p environment, because so far such systems don't
|
|
|
|
+really provide an incentive for nodes to stay connected when they're
|
|
|
|
+done browsing, so we would expect a much higher churn rate than for
|
|
|
|
+onion routing. Are there ways of allowing streams to survive the loss
|
|
|
|
+of a node in the path?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
|
|
|
|
@@ -623,6 +679,8 @@ than a few hundred servers, because of its clique topology. Restricted
|
|
route topologies \cite{danezis:pet2003} promise comparable anonymity
|
|
route topologies \cite{danezis:pet2003} promise comparable anonymity
|
|
with much better scaling properties, but we must solve problems like
|
|
with much better scaling properties, but we must solve problems like
|
|
how to randomly form the network without introducing net attacks.
|
|
how to randomly form the network without introducing net attacks.
|
|
|
|
+% cascades are a restricted route topology too. we must mention
|
|
|
|
+% earlier why we're not satisfied with the cascade approach.
|
|
\item \emph{Cover traffic:} Currently we avoid cover traffic because
|
|
\item \emph{Cover traffic:} Currently we avoid cover traffic because
|
|
it introduces clear performance and bandwidth costs, but and its
|
|
it introduces clear performance and bandwidth costs, but and its
|
|
security properties are not well understood. With more research
|
|
security properties are not well understood. With more research
|
|
@@ -649,7 +707,8 @@ deploying a wider network. We will see what happens!
|
|
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
|
|
|
|
-\Section{Acknowledgments}
|
|
|
|
|
|
+%\Section{Acknowledgments}
|
|
|
|
+%% commented out for anonymous submission
|
|
|
|
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
|
|
|