RE: Status?

[Joe Anon <onefreename@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roger Dingledine wrote:
>Not really. We all started working on Tor instead. The reasoning is
>that while high-latency mix systems can provide theoretically stronger
>anonymity than low-latency systems like Tor, without actual users this
>theoretical anonymity is not actually better in practice.

Tor provides "just" IP src/dest anonymity?

>See also http://freehaven.net/anonbib/#usability:weis2006

Thank you for the pointer - there are many star marked articles in
this collection and which ones to read in which order helps.

>> ...is the private/anonymized messaging problem solved?
>> ...or was it proven unsolvable?
>
>Nope. See http://petsymposium.org/ and http://freehaven.net/anonbib/

I saw PETS already - seems to be THE yearly event.
I'm undecided whether spending the funds for attending is worth it,
assuming one can't read all the star marked papers till July
and understand them.

May I rephrase.
You said "Nope".
Can you give some example anonymous messaging issues which are open
in your opinion?

>Hope that helps,

Any help getting up to the state of the art appreciated,
Joe

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969