Re: another reason to keep ExcludeNodes

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: another reason to keep ExcludeNodes

From: John Brooks <special@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:19:21 -0700

Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx

Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx

Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx

Delivery-date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:19:24 -0500

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=4cm47Zx8aI/rATxUD6C5yuodDPkEfxIZSW0zI7VPsWY=; b=H8XDyt+zlznz2ykYXxaA2AZq/ncFs9XZZCN9AICMDNmJGA8XVqY1yd7d1xp84UgfEN iWPeLqa4ZXIEy1uo0Yat/Ye4cSttd3paWwMV87Pb1kVAAjJeshe+Ju/ngIao3A8iR8do vHBlIWaoXuJ1Y41fsUAgYwOgAwI7PoWXnf01Q=

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=ihjDzO3p0KcCxJxIM8s8eqWN4jXSqLtHVq7o9jp43ox9dC8ct+c+QSqaKS9FVNRZl2 Me5MsGay467lcPrF3vkLFdCGv9Zz1Ehivt+3o1FuFsE3awDklC5MosEOZ5zpM7ECsAIl 3FY9zIIYiLwuTvfAomDh0tFUeHrrG7ErR7W9s=

In-reply-to: <f63c4b2d0902181709n7322aafn2c74822c5362101f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

References: <200902172232.n1HMW9J3003198@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <f63c4b2d0902181709n7322aafn2c74822c5362101f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

No, the middle node cannot change data. It can, however, randomly cut out and drop circuits, connections, or drop off the face of the earth entirely. That is probably what was happening to him. The middle node essentially knows nothing (other than who the entry and exit nodes are), so there would be no benefit to doing so either.

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Mitar <mmitar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi!

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the particular case I was describing, the node that was consistently
> appearing in the circuits that cut off files happened not to be an exit in
> any of the failure cases. IIRC, it was nearly always in a middleman position,
> though I think there was a day when it was an entry guard.

Middle node can change payload without next node noticing that? There
is not checksuming/signing in the process?

Mitar