[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Collaboration question & challenge use case

From: Christian Stüble
Subject: Re: Collaboration question & challenge use case
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:24:10 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1

Hi Joerg,

the anonymity of a P2P network depends on many things, amongst others on the 
number of correct nodes and enough traffic. The idea behind the UC is that 
the use of TC reduces the number of the nodes that may pot. be hacked and 
thus reduces the overall number of nodes you have to use at a minimum.

Of course TC does not guarantee that a platform is not hacked, but it makes 
the level of required resources a little bit higher (if some other 
assumptions are fulfilled). 

The problem of 'real' anonymous based on crypto protocols is that they are 
very inefficient.

TC may also help to detect virtual networks creating lots of virtual nodes and 
virtual traffic.   


Am Dienstag, 15. August 2006 18:13 schrieb Jörg Bornschein:
> Christian, Hello,
> > Another application, currently an (open) master thesis, is to develop a
> > P2P filesharing client that uses DAA to connect to other clients. The
> > motivation is to prevent modified clients that allow the platform owner
> > to see the connection table (and thus to uncover the anonymity of
> > clients). But this only makes sense if the platform owner cannot access
> > the internal state of applications...
> Some time ago I had a discussion (with Joern Bratzke btw) about the
> feasibility of a TC protected tor node.
> That discussion made me write a small ruby script[1], which tries to
> correlate incoming and outgoing traffic (by reading a tcpdump-pcap file)
> to identify the circuits this given tor node relays. That script worked
> really well, althrough i never tuned the parameters.
> To prevent this kind of attac one has to introduce a lot of decoy dummy
> traffic. Never tried to prove it information-theoretically, but i have
> the strong feeling, that doing so will be much more resource intensive
> (speaking of total bandwith, not latency!) than to add a whole lot of
> additional relay nodes.
> I suspect my statement is correct, as long as one tries to implement a
> low latency network -- if the task given is a high latency
> store-and-forward problem the situation changes. (eg mail-anonymity with
> Mixmasters)
> Do you think I'm mistaken?
>   joerg
> [1] http://www.capsec.org/joerg/zeuch/tor-fun/detorify.rb
> _______________________________________________
> L4-hurd mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]