Re: leaker-optimized versions of Tor

[Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 03:15:24PM +0100, Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It should default to a much larger number of hops,
> 
> Why? Is this really necessary?

Tor as is wasn't designed to resist TLA-level adversaries (which
have no issues instrumenting each Tor node upstream with realtime
network probes, and dedicate enough resouces for traffic analysis).

Relaxing the realtime constraint, adding random delays, more 
hops and also chaff trafic in a Tor derivate would arguably 
make such attacks more difficult. 

Of course such a derivate would not play nice with the
existing Tor network, and should be run as a separate
entity. Due to limited carrying capacity such a network
would be probably more vulnerable to denial of service
attacks (flooding traffic from within).

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/