Browse Source

clean up bib; remove incorrect directory consensus discussion

svn:r1885
Roger Dingledine 21 years ago
parent
commit
92c4b3f139
2 changed files with 11 additions and 34 deletions
  1. 4 4
      doc/tor-design.bib
  2. 7 30
      doc/tor-design.tex

+ 4 - 4
doc/tor-design.bib

@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
 
 
 @inproceedings{eax,
 @inproceedings{eax,
   author = "M. Bellare and P. Rogaway and D. Wagner",
   author = "M. Bellare and P. Rogaway and D. Wagner",
-  title = "The EAX Mode of Operation: A Two-Pass Authenticated-Encryption Scheme Optimized for Simplicity and Efficiency",
+  title = {The {EAX} Mode of Operation: A Two-Pass Authenticated-Encryption Scheme Optimized for Simplicity and Efficiency},
   booktitle = {Fast Software Encryption 2004},
   booktitle = {Fast Software Encryption 2004},
   month = {February},
   month = {February},
   year = {2004},
   year = {2004},
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@
 @InProceedings{sybil,
 @InProceedings{sybil,
   author = "John Douceur",
   author = "John Douceur",
   title = {{The Sybil Attack}},
   title = {{The Sybil Attack}},
-  booktitle = "Proceedings of the 1st International Peer To Peer Systems Workshop (IPTPS 2002)",
+  booktitle = "Proceedings of the 1st International Peer To Peer Systems Workshop (IPTPS)",
   month = Mar,
   month = Mar,
   year = 2002,
   year = 2002,
 }
 }
@@ -915,7 +915,7 @@
   title = {Passive Attack Analysis for Connection-Based Anonymity Systems}, 
   title = {Passive Attack Analysis for Connection-Based Anonymity Systems}, 
   author = {Andrei Serjantov and Peter Sewell}, 
   author = {Andrei Serjantov and Peter Sewell}, 
   booktitle = {Computer Security -- ESORICS 2003}, 
   booktitle = {Computer Security -- ESORICS 2003}, 
-  publisher =   {Springer-Verlag, LNCS (forthcoming)},
+  publisher =   {Springer-Verlag, LNCS 2808},
   year = {2003}, 
   year = {2003}, 
   month = {October}, 
   month = {October}, 
 }
 }
@@ -1014,7 +1014,7 @@
 @InProceedings{p5,
 @InProceedings{p5,
   author =       {Rob Sherwood and Bobby Bhattacharjee and Aravind Srinivasan},
   author =       {Rob Sherwood and Bobby Bhattacharjee and Aravind Srinivasan},
   title =        {$P^5$: A Protocol for Scalable Anonymous Communication},
   title =        {$P^5$: A Protocol for Scalable Anonymous Communication},
-  booktitle =    {2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy},
+  booktitle =    {IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy},
   pages =        {58--70},
   pages =        {58--70},
   year =         2002,
   year =         2002,
   publisher =    {IEEE CS}
   publisher =    {IEEE CS}

+ 7 - 30
doc/tor-design.tex

@@ -1379,39 +1379,16 @@ we make the
 simplifying assumption that all participants agree on the set of
 simplifying assumption that all participants agree on the set of
 directory servers. Second, while Mixminion needs to predict node
 directory servers. Second, while Mixminion needs to predict node
 behavior, Tor only needs a threshold consensus of the current
 behavior, Tor only needs a threshold consensus of the current
-state of the network.
-
-% XXXX Do we really want this next part?  It isn't really sound, and
-% XXXX we haven't implemented it. -NM
-Tor directory servers build a consensus directory through a simple
-four-round broadcast protocol.  In round one, each server dates and
-signs its current opinion, and broadcasts it to the other directory
-servers; then in round two, each server rebroadcasts all the signed
-opinions it has received.  At this point all directory servers check
-to see whether any server has signed multiple opinions in the same
-period. Such a server is either broken or cheating, so the protocol
-stops and notifies the administrators, who either remove the cheater
-or wait for the broken server to be fixed.  If there are no
-discrepancies, each directory server then locally computes an algorithm
-(described below)
-on the set of opinions, resulting in a uniform shared directory. In
-round three servers sign this directory and broadcast it; and finally
-in round four the servers rebroadcast the directory and all the
-signatures.  If any directory server drops out of the network, its
-signature is not included on the final directory.
-
-The rebroadcast steps ensure that a directory server is heard by
-either all of the other servers or none of them, even when some links
-are down (assuming that any two directory servers can talk directly or
-via a third). Broadcasts are feasible because there are relatively few
-directory servers (currently 3, but we expect as many as 9 as the network
-scales). Computing the shared directory locally is a straightforward
-threshold voting process: we include an OR if a majority of directory
-servers believe it to be good.
+state of the network. Third, we assume that we can fall back to the
+human administrators to discover and resolve problems when a concensus
+directory cannot be reached. Since there are relatively few directory
+servers (currently 3, but we expect as many as 9 as the network scales),
+we can afford operations like broadcast to simplify the consensus-building
+protocol.
 
 
 To avoid attacks where a router connects to all the directory servers
 To avoid attacks where a router connects to all the directory servers
 but refuses to relay traffic from other routers, the directory servers
 but refuses to relay traffic from other routers, the directory servers
-must build circuits and use them to anonymously test router
+must also build circuits and use them to anonymously test router
 reliability~\cite{mix-acc}. Unfortunately, this defense is not yet
 reliability~\cite{mix-acc}. Unfortunately, this defense is not yet
 designed or
 designed or
 implemented.
 implemented.