|
@@ -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}
|
|
|
|