xxx-geoip-survey-plan.txt 3.8 KB

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788
  1. Abstract
  2. This document explains how to tell about how many Tor users there
  3. are, and how many there are in which country. Statistics are
  4. involved.
  5. Motivation
  6. There are a few reasons we need to keep track of which countries
  7. Tor users (in aggregate) are coming from:
  8. - Resource allocation. Knowing about underserved countries with
  9. lots of users can let us know about where we need to direct
  10. translation and outreach efforts.
  11. - Anticensorship. Sudden drops in usage on a national basis can
  12. indicate the arrival of a censorious firewall.
  13. - Sponsor outreach and self-evalutation. Many people and
  14. organizations who are interested in funding The Tor Project's
  15. work want to know that we're successfully serving parts of the
  16. world they're interested in, and that efforts to expand our
  17. userbase are actually succeeding. So, when you come right
  18. down to it, do we.
  19. Goals
  20. We want to know about how many Tor users there are, and which
  21. countries they're in, even in the presence of a hypothetical
  22. "directory guard" feature. Some uncertainty is okay, but we'd like
  23. to be able to put a bound on the uncertainty.
  24. We need to make sure this information isn't exposed in a way that
  25. helps an adversary.
  26. Methods:
  27. Every client downloads network status documents. There are
  28. currently three methods (one hypothetical) for clients to get them.
  29. - 0.1.2.x clients (and earlier) fetch a v2 networkstatus
  30. document about every NETWORKSTATUS_CLIENT_DL_INTERVAL [30
  31. minutes].
  32. - 0.2.0.x clients fetch a v3 networkstatus consensus document
  33. at a random interval between when their current document is no
  34. longer freshest, and when their current document is about to
  35. expire.
  36. [In both of the above cases, clients choose a directory cache at
  37. random with odds roughly proportional to its bandwidth.]
  38. - In some future version, clients will choose directory caches
  39. to serve as their "directory guards" to avoid profiling
  40. attacks, similarly to how clients currently start all their
  41. circuits at guard nodes.
  42. We assume that a directory cache can tell which of these three
  43. categories a client is in by the format of its status request.
  44. A directory cache can be made to count distinct client IP
  45. addresses that make a certain request of it in a given timeframe.
  46. For the first two cases, a cache can get a picture of the overall
  47. number and countries of users in the network by dividing the IP
  48. count by the probability with which they (as a cache) would be
  49. chosen. Assuming that our listed bandwidth is such that we expect
  50. to be chosen with probability P for any given request, and we've
  51. been counting IPs for long enough that we expect the average
  52. client to have made N requests, they will have visited us at least
  53. once with probability P' = 1-(1-P)^N, and so we divide the IP
  54. counts we've seen by P' for our estimate.
  55. If directory guards are in use, directory guards get a picture of
  56. all those users who chose them as a guard when they were listed
  57. as a good choice for a guard, and who are also on the network
  58. now. The cleanest data here will come from nodes that were listed
  59. as good new-guards choices for a while, and have not been so for a
  60. while longer (to study decay rates); nodes that have been listed
  61. as good new-guard choices consistently for a long time (to get a
  62. sample of the network); and nodes that have been listed as good
  63. new-guard choices only recently (to get a sample of new users and
  64. users whose guards have died out.)
  65. Note that these measurements *shouldn't* be taken at directory
  66. authorities: their picture of the network is too skewed by the
  67. special cases in which clients fetch from them directly.