Browse Source

i seem to be listing hard problems.
still plenty more hard problems where those came from.


svn:r639

Roger Dingledine 22 years ago
parent
commit
f8a72b1c21
1 changed files with 62 additions and 3 deletions
  1. 62 3
      doc/tor-design.tex

+ 62 - 3
doc/tor-design.tex

@@ -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
 
 
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%