Re: Bandwidth throttling (was Re: Padding)

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 03:41:50AM -0400, Matej Pfajfar wrote:
> > up his own. Roger noted that a good way to think about his budget
> > might be in terms of the reputation.  That's food for later thought.
> This is where I scream for help ;-). OK if the adversary sets up his 
> (read as his/her) own nodes then yes, we can think of it as a matter of 
> reputation. How does reputation come in to it if you have a guy rooting a 
> few routers?

We make the simplifying assumption that higher-reputation nodes are in
some sense more valuable, and thus better-defended. Not true in all cases,
but maybe more true than not.

Speaking of which, something that's been bugging me:
We treat each node as equal in terms of cost of compromise (which is
reasonable, because it's much more complex to treat them as not equal),
but one of the guidelines we keep repeating is "users should choose an
OR they trust for their first hop". Is there some way to reconcile these
two assumptions?

> How bad would it be (anonymity-wise) if we made the OP set up a 
> "permanent" (ish) connection to a random COR when the network interface 
> comes up (be it eth, ppp whatever). And then multiplex all connections on 
> that link, with dummy traffic when there is no real one (effectively 
> making OP even more similar to a COR, some sort of a local-COR setup).

Currently the code is designed so we can do this. The OP and OR basically
are the same program, and can have the same traffic shaping, etc, rules.
All circuits are multiplexed over a single connection, and if we ever get
around to doing it, the new_route() function should:
  * If we're not an OR, then always use the same first OR
  * If we are an OR, then pick randomly but don't start with ourselves
    (it would simply waste a hop to start with ourselves)
(Feel free to patch the code. It should be an easy patch.)

> The OP could also hop between different onion routers - say that it swaps 
> to a different COR every hour (still maintaining the connection to the 
> previous one until all connections going through it have been destroyed).

If our adversary is a fixed (non-roaming) partial adversary, then either
he owns the OR you chose or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then you should
stick with it forever. If you keep hopping around, then at least some
of the time you'll probably be using an adversary-owned OR. Users should
choose behavior based on their anonymity goal:
* If they're worried about profiling, they should jump around a lot.
* If they're worried about linkability, they should stick with one OR.

(On the other hand, maybe the roaming adversary becomes more plausible if
we're talking about a long enough timeframe for the adversary to switch
which nodes he owns.)

--Roger